Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 16 (1997) 151159
© 1997 Elsevier Science Limited
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
PI I : S0267 726 1 ( 96) 00034 6 02677261/97/$17.00
Soi l  s t r uc t ur e  wat e r i nteracti on of i nt ake  out l e t
towers al l owed to uplift
C. C. Spyrakos
Department of Civil Engineering, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 265066103 and
Departmeni~ of Civil Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Zografos 15700, Greece
&
Chaojin Xu
Department of Civil Engineering, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 265066103, USA
Communicated by D. E. Beskos
(Received 11 January 1996; revised version received 24 June 1996; accepted 12 July 1996)
A procedure that can be used for preliminary seismic analysis of intakeoutlet
towers including soilstructurewater interaction is developed. The formulation
also considers the effect of partial soilfoundation separation, a phenomenon of
considerable interest for the design of such systems that has not been addressed in
the literature. The hydrodynamic pressure of the water is accounted for through
added masses given in concise closedform expressions for easy use in analysis and
design. The nonlinear equations of motion, based on foundationsoil bond
conditions, are solved numerically.
"['he effects of soilstructurewater interaction are evaluated for a representative
intakeoutlet tower. Parametric studies are also conducted in the presence and
ab,;ence of surrounding and contained water for typical cases of soil conditions
anti tower heightfoundation width ratios. The results indicate that hydrodynamic
effects are significant and cause an increase in deflections, moments and shears and
a decrease in foundation rotation. The study shows that for short towers,
foundation uplift is unlikely to occur. On the contrary for slender towers, uplift
is more likely to appear, especially for foundations supported by stiff soil, causing
significant decrease in moments and deflections. © 1997 Elsevier Science Limited.
All rights reserved.
I NT RODUCT I ON
The seismic analysis of structures such as i nt ake out l et
towers is rat her involved. Int eract i on of the tower with
soil and water result in modif ication of the system' s
dynami c properties, which in turn alter its seismic
response. Theref ore, seismic studies of i nt akeout l et
towers should i ncorporat e the effects of f l ui dst ruct ure
as well as soi l st ruct ure :interaction.
Considerable work has been carried out on the subject
of soi l st ruct ure interaction of towers. Earlier work
concent rat ed on the overturning of obj ects such as
furniture, equi pment ant] inverted pendul um type sys
tems in which bot h the structure and soil were considered
as rigid and the structure was bonded to the soil t hrough
gravity. 14 In later studies related to the seismic analysis
151
of tall slender structures, flexibility of bot h the structure
and the soil were incorporated. 58 Clear evidence of
f oundat i on uplift has been observed during strong earth
quakes. 2 Foundat i on uplift could dramatically alter the
seismic response of a structure, usually leading to reduc
tion of structural def ormat i on and forces f or long period
structures and with an opposite result f or short period
systems. Several researchers have included the effects of
f oundat i on uplift in their work. 912 Results have indi
cated that no definite conclusion could be drawn regard
ing whether or not soi l st ruct ure interaction and
f oundat i on uplift are beneficial. 9'13
Ri gorous analysis of seismic soi l  st r uct ur e wat er
interaction of i nt ake out l et towers leads to rather
complex boundary value probl ems that require involved
treatments when the physical paramet ers such as the
152 C. C. Spyrakos, C. Xu
unbounded extent, compressibility and surface waves of
the water, the geometry and flexibility of the structure
and the stochastic propert y of the earthquake ground
excitation are considered. Reviews of studies on struc
t urewat er interaction could be f ound in several papers
and report s. 1416
For preliminary analysis and design of hydraulic
structures, simplified procedures have been proposed to
simulate the hydrodynami c effects of st ruct urewat er
interaction. Such a procedure is the socalled ' added
mass' approach, first proposed by Westergaard 17 in
1933. It was later extended by Liaw and Chopra 15 to
calculate the added hydrodynami c mass of the water f or
a unif orm cylindrical intake tower, assuming incompres
sive water and no surface waves. Goyal and Chopra 18'19
extended their previous work to evaluate the added mass
of surrounding and contained water for towers with an
arbitrary crosssection t hat varies along the height and
has two axes of symmetry.
In this work the added mass procedure is further
enhanced. The hydrodynami c effect of the surrounding
and contained water are accounted for through simple
closed f orm expressions that provide the ' addedmass' .
Soilstructure interaction including f oundat i on uplift is
also considered, a phenomenon that to the authors'
knowledge has not been addressed but could be of
considerable concern f or the design of i nt akeout l et
towers subjected to strong ground motions. 2° Specifi
cally, the tower is modeled as a cantilever beam with
flexural deflection expressed t hrough an assumed modes
method. A spri ngdashpot system attached to a founda
tion allowed to uplift is supporting the tower. The non
linear equations of mot i on obtained via Langrange' s
equation applied at the contact and uplift phases are
solved numerically. The significance of the salient phy
sical parameters of the t owersoi l wat er system on its
seismic response is examined through parametric studies.
T OWER SOI L WAT ER SYSTEM
As shown in Fig. l(a), the structure is a slender i nt ake
outlet tower submerged in water with a height H. The
depths of surrounding water ho and contained water hi can
be different. The tower is idealized as a homogeneous
isotropic tapered beam with a distributed moment of
inertia I(z) and mass per unit length m(z). The interaction
of water and structure is treated by the added mass method
which is described in the next section. Applying the added
mass method, the total mass per unit length, m,(z), can be
expressed as the sum of three parts
mr(Z) = m(z) + mo(Z) + mi(z ) (1)
where mo(Z ) and mi( z ) ar e the added masses of the
surrounding and contained water, respectively. The
total mass of the tower is denoted as Mb. The operation
unit at the top of the tower has a lumped mass Mo. The
( a )
( b )
R
#
bl
Y
B.~
Mo
re(z), I(z)
/
M~If
~ k v
Fig. 1. (a) Intakeoutlet tower system; (b) simplified model.
tower is connected to a rigid circular f oundation with
height hf and radius R. The total mass and mass moment
of inertia of the f oundat i on are My and If, respectively.
The soil supporting the f oundat i on is modeled as a two
spri ngdashpot system connected to the f oundation as
shown in Fig. l(b). Even though the stiffness and
damping coefficients of the f oundat i onsoi l system are
frequency dependent, in this study they are approxi
mated by the expressions given in Table 1, an assumption
which would be sufficient f or preliminary analysis. 6'21 In
the expressions, Gs, us, and Ps are the shear modulus,
Poisson' s ratio and mass density of the soil, respectively.
Table 1. Coefficients of stiffness and damping
Stiffness Damping
Vertical Rocking Vertical Rocking
kv ko cv %
4GsR 8GsR 3 3"2 PsCsR2 0"4 pscsR4
1  us 3(1  us) 1  vs 2 v s
Soi l  st ruct ure wat er interaction 153
To consider the effect of foundation uplift, the vertical
and rocking springs have been replaced by a pair of
vertical springs placed at a distance bl to provide a
system that develops equal resistance of the vertical
and rocking springs as shown in Fig. l(b). The distance
bl is equal to 22
bl = R. (2)
In the same manner, a pair of vertical dampers has also
been placed at a distance b 2 to simulate the effects of the
vertical and rocking dampers, the distance b2 is deter
mined as
b2 = v~ R. (3)
In Fig. 1 (b), the values of the equivalent vertical springs,
kv and dampers, cv are half of the k s and Cz, respectively.
The vertical component of the ground motion is
neglected and only the horizontal ground motion, iig( t) ,
is applied to the system. Further, it is assumed that the
frictional force between the foundation and the soil is
large enough to prevent horizontal slippage. The inertia
effects are considered by adding D' Alembert' s forces to
the superstructure. The displacement and force configura
tion is shown in Fig. 2, where u( z , t) is the deflection of the
tower and O (t) is the foundation rotation. Prior to the
earthquake excitation, the foundation rests on the spring
dashpot system through gravity causing a vertical dis
placement of the soil "Ust. For small displacements, the rela
tive displacement U( z , t) with respect to the ground is the
summation of the tower deflection u( z , t) and the dis
placement due to the rotation of the foundation z • O ( t) ,
see Fig. 2. The assumedmodes method is employed to
approximate the deflection of the tower, 23'24 that is,
N
u( z , t) = Z ~b i( z) qi( t) (4)
i=1
P,
F ig. 3 . Hydrodynamic pressure.
where the lowest Nmodes of a uniform cantilever beam
fb i(z) are selected as assumedmodes for the deflection
and qi( t) are generalized coordinates. Consequently, the
system shown in Fig. 2 is characterized by a set of N + 2
generalized coordinates qi ( t ) ( I = 1, . . . , N) , O (t) and
v( t ) , where v( t ) is the vertical response from the position
of equilibrium.
TREATMENT OF HYDRODYNAMIC EFFECTS
The seismic response of intakeoutlet towers is signifi
cantly influenced by the water through hydrodynamic
forces acting during the excitation. For preliminary
analysis, the added mass method has been successfully
employed to approximate the interaction of a structure
with water.2:, 25 Assuming incompressive water, the gov
erning equation for the hydrodynamic pressure,
p( r, O, z, t) , in cylindrical coordinates is expressed as
02p + 1 0 p . 02p
Or 2 r Orr t ~ z 2 = 0 (5)
Figure 3 depicts variation of contained water pressure Pi
and surrounding water pressure Po for a crosssection of
the tower. 15 For a cylindrical tower, the boundary con
ditions for the water specify: (1) no vertical motion at the
boundary z = 0, when subjected only to horizontal
motion; (2) no surface waves at z = h i and z = ho, since
sloshing is not important for slender towers and can be
U
i z O u
l J ml ( Z ) Q ary conditions are given by
g ~ _~ Pz = 0
• p( r , O, O , t / = 0 op
~r I = * = miin i
, v Op Op
Ar =vb0
r ~ F a
g r ~
Fig. 2. Displacements and forces.
neglected; (3) compatibility of the water and tower
displacements at r = ro and r = r p where r   r o and
r = r i are the outside and inside radii, respectively; (4)
symmetry at the plane 0 = 0. The corresponding bound
(6)
where r * = r o for surrounding water and r * = r i for
contained water and n i is the outward normal from the
surface of the tower towards the water.
154 C. C. Spyrakos, C. Xu
Further it is assumed that the tower distorts only in its
fundamental flexural mode of vibration. Thus, the
hydrodynamic effects can be simulated through a dis
tributed added mass along the height of the tower. The
expressions of the added mass of water are given in series
form 15 for the surrounding water
o [ 16 ho £ (   1) m I
m°a(Z) = m~  ~ r ~m= l( 2m_ 1) zEro
(r o) ( o)1
X O: m COS OLm (7)
and
1[~ h i ~ (  ! ) m21_ . D
mia(Z) = mi ri ~1 ( 2m  1) 2 m
X (O~m ~ . ) COS (O~m ~ / ) ] (8)
for the contained watdlt, where am = ( 2m 1)7r/2. The
o 2 I 2
mo~ = pwTrro and m~ = pwTrr are the added mass of
surrounding and contained water per unit length for an
infinitely long tower with a constant crosssection with
Pw denoting the mass density of water and
Kl(° ~m~° ° ) (9)
( r ~ o )
Em o~ m : ( r~o ) ( r  ~o)
Ko OLm qK2 olin
II(° lm~ii) (10)
Om(Olm~ii) = / 0 (OZm~. ) + I2(°Zm~i )
in which In and Kn are the first and second kind modified
Bessel functions of order n.
Figure 4 shows the normalized added mass of con
i i
tained water, ma(z)/ rno~, comput ed f rom eqn (8) for a
1. 2
0 . 8 
~ 0 . 6 
!
~ 0A
Z
0.2
. . . . . . . mtO . . . . . . . . n ¢ ~ ~ m, ~
o12 °i, 01. 01°
z/H ( H/r~tO)
Fig. 4. Normalized added mass for contained water with varied
summation terms.
T abl e 2 . Coef f i ci ent s o f ao, bo, Co
When ho/ro < 3 Otherwise
a o : 27 h°  l l ao =65 h°  125
Yo Yo
b o = 26"96 h°  10"98 b o 65.198h°o.o33(h°~ 2
=  125.397
ro ro \ ro /
co : 0"031 + 0"058h° 0"009(h°) 2 co = 0'1074 + 0"0047 h°
ro \ ro ) ro
tower with a constant radius r, when hi/ r i = H r = 10 and
m = 10, 20 and 50, respectively. The convergence is slow
and the comput at i on of the Bessel functions is rather
cumbersome. Equations (7) and (8) have been simplified
through curve fitting techniques to arrive at concise and
easy to use expressions for the added masses 22 to obtain
(a) surrounding water
z z /
mO ( z ) = ComO l n ~ e + ( a ° h : o ) +b° ho
z 2 z
+ (ao o) O o
where, ao, bo, Co are given in Table 2.
(b) contained water
mi (z) = Ci mi ln
Z "~2 Z I
aiffi ) + b ihi
[" Z'~ 2 2
)
+
+
(11)
(12)
where, ai, bi, c i are given in Table 3.
A comparison between the simplified eqns (11) and
(12) and the exact formulae of eqns (7) and (8) for
m = 50 and a tower with a constant radius r is shown
in Fig. 5 (a) and (b) for hi/ r i = H / r. The comparison
shows that both sets of equations give close results.
GOVERNI NG EQUATI ONS AND NUMERI CAL
T R EA T M EN T
Lagrange' s equations are employed to derive the equations
T abl e 3 . Coef f i ci ent s o f ai , b i , e i
When hi/r i ~ 3 Otherwise
a i = 10 hi
ri
b i = 10.92 hi _ 0.46(hi' )2_0.508
r i \ r i /
h, h, 2
C i : 0"113~ O'00S(~tt" ) +0"034
ai = 4154  11.033 hi + 2.6/hA[:z 2
ri \ r i /
b i = 30
h,
c~ = 0.135  0.05 ~ + 0.035 1' 12
{h:'x
ri \ri.I
Soilstructurewater interaction 155
( a ) 1
~
0,8 
~
0 . 6 
~ 0 . 4 
~ 0 . 2 
0
( b ) ~.~oo
. . . . F _ B a I  I t r ~ . . . . . . . m n l J b d t'ltrS "~
. . . . . ~ I . v~, ~) . . . . . . . . ~ t 4~ 10
0.2 0.4 0.6 O. I
z / H
integrations indicated in Appendix I have been per
formed numerically.
The equations of motion, a set of piecewise linear
differential equations of secondorder, have been solved
with Newmark' s direct integration method for 6 = 05
and a = 0.25, e.g. Bathe. 26 In the direct integration
met hod the selection of time step At is of critical
importance to solution accuracy. Detail discussions
and rules to select a time step At can be f ound in several
references, e.g. Spyrakos. 27 For the representative exam
ples, it is found that a time step of 0"0005 s provides
sufficient accuracy. 22 The accuracy also depends on the
number of modes included in the formulation. A com
parative study indicates that a fivemode f ormulation
maintains good balance between solution accuracy and
computer processing time. 22
1 . 0 0 0 

~ 0.600 
I O.eO0

0.400
i 0 . 2 0 0
0.000
E: I =I I'1~',1 . . . . . . . l l l l l l t ~l ~l I'1/1~1
. . . . ~ ¢ t I ' ~ . . . . . . ~ l m l l B ~ H / I ~
. . . . . ~ Htt,,lO . . . . . . . . 8 ~ [ l l e a 1t/11'10
i
d, d, d, 0.,
Fig. 5. (a) Normalized added mass for surrounding water from
exact and simplified formulae; (b) normalized added mass for
contained water from exact and simplified formulae.
of motion for the n + 2 generalized coordinate system
shown in Fig. 2
OT OT DV
Oq~ Oq~ + Oq~i = Qi (i = 1, 2, . . . ) (13)
where T and V denote the kinetic and potential energy,
respectively, Qi are the generalized forces and q~ corre
sponds to qi(t)(I = 1, . . . , N) , O(t) and v(t). A detailed
presentation of the deriv~,tion presented by Xu, 22 where
the f ormulation is developed under the assumption of
small displacements and rotation and neglecting P A
effects. Depending on contact conditions, the governing
equations take different forms to express three phases: no
f oundation uplift, left edge uplifted and right edge
uplifted. For simplicity, they are expressed in matrix
form
I MI {~ } + I Cl{:q + IKl{x}  { Q } ( 14)
The matrices [M], [K] and [C] and vectors are given in
Appendix I. Due to the complexity of the integrands, the
NUMERICAL EX AMPLES
As an illustrative example, the Briones Dam i nt ake
outlet tower located east of the San Francisco Bay is
( a ) o.e
0 . 4 
0 . 2 
O 
j
~ 
 0, 4
 0. 6
0.8
lii! l I ' [
. . . . . . . N o ~ . . . . . . . . Cml ~ l ~ / '
t ( ( i
2 4 6 6 10
(b) o.1
Time (xc)
0 . 0 5 ¸
i I i !
2 4 6 6 I 0
Fig. 6. (a) Deflection at the top; (b) Displacement due to
foundation rotation.
156 C. C. Spyrakos, C. Xu
( a ) 0 . 7
. . . . . . . N O l W . . . . . . . . Co mmdl W
. . . . . . . . . S u r m u e d ~ v ~ i r ~ I W
j . i
j . " ° . . ° •
/ . .  s '
: / . . . . . .  : ; . . 
i
0 . 8 
o . 5 
A
S 0 . 4 
~
o . 3 
0 . 2 
o . 1
o
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
z / H
( b) 5o0.
. . . . . . . No ww . . . . . . . . C. o nm~ l v~
. . . . . . . . . Su n~ u m~ wmr ~ ~
' 400
 . . ::::..
1 0 0  "'~,~,,, " ~ . ~ .
0 
 1 0 0 I ~ J I
0 . 2 O . 4 0 . 8 O . a
ZJ H
( c ) 20 [ . . . . . . . . .  , , . . . . . . . . e , . ~ . ~ , , . .
15 ~ . . . . . Su mDu i l d~ vmW ~ 80111 ~ mr
. ......
 5 I n i I
0 . 2 0 . 4 0 6 0 . 8
z/H
Fig. 7. (a) Deflection along the tower height; (b) moment along
the tower height; (c) shear along the tower height.
studied. TM The radius f or the tower varies linearly along
the height. Its crosssectional parameters are: top inner
radius = 1.52 m, top outer radius = 1.86 m, bottom inner
radius  3.05 m and bot t om outer radius = 345 m. The
height of the tower is 70.10m and the radius of the
f oundat i on is 9.14 m.
The reinforced concrete tower is considered to be
homogeneous, isotropic, linear elastic with Young' s
modulus E = 31,000 MPa and unit weight = 2483 kg/m 3.
The damping ratio f or each mode, i.e. ~i(i = 1, . . . , 5) is
set equal to 005. The material properties of the support
ing soil are: mass density = 2644 kg/m 3, shear modulus
G  245. 6MPa, Poisson' s ratio = 1/3 and shear wave
velocity = 3048 m/s.
The N S component of the 1940 EICentro earth
quake ground motion is selected as the excitation. The
maxi mum amplitude of this ground motion is 0"33 g. In
order to amplify the effects of uplift, the amplitude of the
ground mot i on has been increased by a f actor of two, an
order of magnitude that has been recorded in several
seismic motions.
EFFECTS OF WATER STRUCTURE
I NTERACTI ON
In order to examine the effects of hydrodynamic forces
with uplift permitted, the seismic response of the tower is
determined for the following four cases: (1) no water; (2)
surrounding water only; (3) contained water only; and (4)
both surrounding and contained water. In cases (2), (3),
and (4) ho/ H = 1 and hi / H = 1. The deflection and
displacement due to foundation rotation at the top of
the tower are shown in Figs 6(a) and (b). The deflection,
moment and shear for the corresponding maximum
responses are presented in Figs 7(a)(c). Table 4 lists the
maximum top displacement, deflection, displacement due
to foundation rotation and maximum base moment and
shear. Figures 6 and 7 and Table 4 demonstrate that the
presence of water greatly increases the seismic response of
the tower. This is attributed to two factors, that is, the
decrease of the natural frequencies of the t owerwat er
system due to the presence of water and the Fourier
amplitude spectrum of the N S component of the EI
Centro earthquake which is characterized by large ampli
tudes for frequencies less than 5 Hz. 28 It is worth mention
ing that when both surrounding and contained water are
present, the base shear is four times of that with no water
included, while the top deflection and base moment are
almost doubled. Notice however, that the displacement
due to foundation rotation is greatly reduced.
To evaluate the effects of wat erst ruct ure interaction
f or soil conditions and f oundation widths other than the
Briones Dam tower, parametric studies have been con
ducted. Two typical soil conditions are considered. They
correspond to soft and hard soil with shear moduli
G= 34.5 and 245. 6MPa, respectively. Two tower
Soilstructurewater interaction
Table 4. Seismic response of Briones Dam tower
157
Experimental Displacement Deflection Displ. due Moment Shear
cases (cm) (cm) to rotation (MN.m) (MN)
(cm)
No water 41.27 36.24 9.82 256"60 3.93
Contained water 44.87 40.77 516 325"30 6.93
Surrounding water 53"90 50.04 734 358.30 9.76
Both water 65.64 62.95 5.98 45900 t7' 05
Table 5. Response for various soil conditions and HI R ratios
G H/ R Hydrodynamic Displacement Deflection Displ. due Moment Shear
MPa forces (cm) (cm) to rotation (MN.m) (MN)
(cm)
245.6 77 Water 6564 62.95 5.98 459"00 17.05
1'`1o water 4127 36.24 982 256.60 3.93
20 Water 18530 55.84 15060 209.60 14.44
1'`1o water 66.40 17.60 56.02 94.44 2.52
34.5 7.7 Water 100"50 72.41 36"26 443'30 15"75
1',1o water 40.97 29.06 12.25 186.40 2.84
20 Water 137'60 41.87 127.70 107' 10 11"61
No water 178.70 15.24 167.80 87.07 2.32
height to f oundat i on width ratios (H/ R) f or a short and
a slender t ower with H / R = 7.7 and 20, respectively,
have been examined. The maxi mum response f or seismic
analyses are listed in Tabl e 5 f or surroundi ng and con
tained water included and excluded in the analysis. The
interaction of wat er  st r uct ur e significantly influences the
seismic response of the tower f or all cases. The effect of
wat erst ruct ure interaction is greater on shear t han that
on moment and deflection. This behavi or is attributed to
the lowering of the higher nat ural frequencies leading
to higher amplitudes since the selected seismic record is
characterized by energy concent rat ed at frequencies
lower t han 5 Hz. The significance of the role that soi l 
structure interaction (SSI) plays on the response is also
greatly affected by the presence or absence of water.
Tabl e 5 demonst rat es t hat wat erst ruct ure interaction
decreases the effect of SSI on squat towers but increases
the effect of SSI on slende~r towers.
EFFECTS OF F OUNDAT I ON UPLI F T
In this section the effects of f oundat i on uplift of the
i nt akeout l et tower are studied by compari ng the
responses obtained by either allowing or constraining
uplift. In bot h cases, the surroundi ng and contained
water is included. In order to examine the effect of
f oundat i on uplift, the same tower height to f oundat i on
width ratios and soil stiffnesses that had been used in the
paramet ri c study listed in Tabl e 5 were considered again.
The results of the parametric study are presented in
Table 6. Notice that no uplift is observed when the soil
stiffness is small, regardless the tower heightwidth ratio.
Whereas, an increase of soil stiffness increases the likeli
hood of uplift. As the relative stiffness between the support
ing soil and structure increases, i.e. the case of a slender
tower on stiff soil, the beneficial effects of uplift in decreas
ing the moment and deflection become more pronounced.
For the Briones Dam tower which has G = 245.6 MPa
and H / R = 7.7, the effect of the f oundat i on uplift is not
significant. The maxi mum values of the t op displace
ment, deflection, displacement due to f oundat i on rota
tion, base moment , and base shear are listed in the first
two lines of Table 6. The responses are practically
identical, which indicates t hat the magni t ude of uplift
is very small and can be ignored in the analysis of this
Table 6 . Response under various bonded conditions
G
(MPa)
H/ R Contact Displacement Deflection
conditions (cm) (cm)
Displ. due
to rotation
(cm)
Moment
(MN.m)
Shear
(MN)
245 "6
34"5
7'7
20
7"7
20
Uplifted 6564 62.95 5.98 459.00 1705
No uplift 66"38 63"74 4'44 47860 18"01
Uplifted 18530 55.84 150' 64 20960 14.44
No uplift 19030 102.40 101'80 59590 16"12
No uplift occurs
No uplift 10050 72.41 36.26 443.30 15.75
No uplift occurs
No uplift 137.60 41.87 127"70 107.10 11.61
158 C. C. Spyrakos, C. Xu
( a ) 1
0.5
'~ O+
~ O.S
( b )
1.5
7 ,
ii/~ /
....... ~   ~
I I I I
2 4 II 8
T i me ( r a m)
, 1 , , , ,
10
2
1.5 J
1 
i
0 . 5 
O 
¢"t
41.5
1
1.5
0
T I I
2 4 8
T i me ( u c )
/  x . . / \
/ ~
X " x / I
I
8 t 0
Fig. 8. (a) Deflection at the top; (b) displacement at the top due
to foundation rotation.
tower, but if the H / R ratio is increased f rom 7.7 to 20,
the effect of the uplift becomes more significant. The top
deflection and displacement due to f oundat i on rot at i on
are shown in Figs 8(a) and (b). Clearly, the f oundat i on
uplift greatly increases the f oundat i on rotation, while
decreasing the deflection of the tower. The maxi mum
values of the top displacement, deflection, displacement
due to f oundat i on rotation, base moment and base shear
are also listed in Table 6. Notice the 2/3 and 1/2 decrease
of moment and deflection, respectively, and the 1/3
increase of f oundat i on rotation, due to f oundat i on
uplift. The base shear and top displacement remain
almost the same.
CONCLUSI ONS
The seismic response of an i nt akeout l et tower subjected
to earthquake excitation including the effects of wat er 
structure interaction, soilstructure interaction and
f oundation uplift is determined by a simplified procedure
which can be used f or preliminary analysis and design.
Parametric studies are carried out to investigate the
significance of soi l st ruct urewat er interaction and
f oundat i on uplift. The conclusions can be summarized
as follows:
In this application it is shown that the interaction of
wat erst ruct ure greatly increases the seismic response.
Increase of as much as two to f our times the base shear,
moment and top displacement can be observed. The
presence of water affects the significance of SSI on the
response. Specifically, it decreases the effect of SSI on
short towers while it has the reverse effect on slender
towers.
The influence of f oundat i on uplift is greatly affected by
the soil stiffness and the slenderness of the tower. It is
most significant f or slender towers on relatively stiff soil
conditions. Decrease of moment and def ormation of
more than 50% by uplift were observed.
ACK NOWLEDGMENTS
The financial support (DACN3992C0061) of the
Structures Division (CEWESSSA) of U.S. Army
Waterways Experiment Station, that made this study
possible, is gratefully acknowledged.
R EF ER ENCES
1. Ishiyama, Y. Review and discussion on overturning of
bodies by earthquake motions, BRI Research Paper no.
85, Ministry of Construction, 1980.
2. Housner, G. W. The behavior of inverted pendulum struc
tures during earthquakes. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Amer., 1963,
53(2), 40317.
3. Antes, H. & Spyrakos, C. C. Dynamic analysis of massive
block to transient Raleigh waves. Proc. ASCE Structures
Cong., Volume on Dynamics of Structures, 1987, pp. 51218.
4. Spanos, P. D. & Koh, A. S. Rocking of rigid blocks due to
harmonic shaking. J. Engng Mech., ASCE, 1984, 110(11),
162742.
5. Spyrakos, C. C., Patel, P. N. & Kokkinos, F. T. Assessment
of computational practices in dynamic soilstructure
interaction. J. Comput. Civil Engng, 1989, 3(2), 14357.
6. Wolf, J. P. Dynamic SoilStructure Interaction. Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1984.
7. Luco, J. E. Soilstructure interaction effects on the seismic
response of tall chimneys. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Engng, 1986, 5,
17077.
8. Kokkinos, F. T. & Spyrakos, C. C. Dynamic analysis of
flexible stripfoundations in the frequency domain.
Comput. Struct., 1991, 39(5), 47382.
9. Spyrakos, C. C. Dynamic behavior of foundations in
bilateral and unilateral contact. The Shock and Vibration
Digest, 1988, 26(4), 56187.
10. Yim, C. S. & Chopra, A. K. Simplified earthquake analysis
of multistory structures with foundation uplift. J. Engng
Mech., ASCE, 1985, 111(12), 270831.
11. PsYcharis, I. N. & Jennings, P. Rocking of slender rigid
bodies allowed to uplift. Earthq. Engng Struct. Dyn., 1985,
11, 5776.
Soilstructurewater interaction 159
12. Patel, P. N. & Spyrakos, C. C. Time domain BEMFEM
seismic analysis including basement liftoff. Engng Struct.,
1990, 12(7), 195207.
13. Patel, P. N. & Spyrakos, C. C. Upliftsliding response of
flexible structures to seismic loads. Engineering Analysis
with Boundary Elements, 1990, 8, 25970.
14. Xu, C. & Spyrakos, C. C. Seismic analysis of towers
including foundation uplift. Engineering Struct., 1996,
18(4), 27178.
15. Liaw, C.Y. & Chopra, A. K. Dynamics of towers
surrounded by water. Earthq. Engng Struct. Dyn., 1974,
3, 3349.
16. Chopra, A. K. & Liaw, CY. Earthquake resistant design
of intakeoutlet towers. J. Struct. Division, ASCE, 1975,
101(7), 134966.
17. Westergaard, H. M. Water pressures on dams during
earthquakes. Trans. ASCE, 1933, 98(11), 41833.
18. Goyal, A. & Chopra, A. K. Hydrodynamic mass for intake
towers. J. Engng Mech., ASCE, 1989, 115(7), 13931412.
19. Goyal, A. & Chopra, A. K. Earthquake response spectrum
analysis of intakeoutlet towers. J. Engng Mech., ASCE,
1989, 115(7), 141333.
20. Kiger, S., Spyrakos, C. C. & Xu, C. J. Overturning stability
of flexible intake/outlet towers. Final Report submitted to
Waterways Experiment Station, West Virginia University,
Morgantown, WV, 1993.
21. Gazetas, G. Analysis of machine foundations: state of the
art. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Engng, 1983, 2(1), 142.
22. Xu, C. Seismic analysis of intakeoutlet towers including
foundation uplift, Master Thesis, West Virginia University,
Morgantown, WV, 1992.
23. Craig, R. R. Structural Dynamics. Wiley, New York, 1992.
24. Paz, M. Structural Dynamics: Theory and Computation, 3rd
edn. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1991.
25. Goyal, A. and Chopra, A K. Hydrodynamic and founda
tion interaction effects in dynamics of intake towers:
frequency response functions. J. Engng Mech., ASCE,
1989, 115(6), 137185.
26. Bathe, K. J. Finite Element Procedures in Engineering
Analysis. PrenticeHall, New York, 1982.
27. Spyrakos, C. C. Finite Element Modeling in Engineering
Practice. Algor Press, Pittsburgh, 1994.
28. Naeim, F. (editor) The ,Seismic Design Handbook. Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1989.
A P P EN DI X I
{x} = {ql ( t) q2( t) , . . . qN(t)O(t)v(t)} T
{ Q} =  i i g{ M ¢ + Mo MO: + Mo. . . M ¢ + Mo
Mz + Moh ( Mo +Mb + Mf)g/ i~g) T
[ M~II+ Mo MO I2+ Mo . . . . . MO IIq+ Mo M~lo+Moh
M' ~21+ Mo M~+ Mo ..... M'~2/q + Mo MC~+Moh
[M] = i i ~ i
MO~I + Mo ~2+Mo ..... M~, + Mo Mc~,+Moh
M~t + Moh M~o2+Moh ..... M~t + Mo h M~ + Moh2 + lf
0 0 , . . . , 0 0 Mo+ Mb + Mf J
[ K ] =
and
[ C] =
K¢I K¢2 , . . . , KClN 0 0
, . . . , K;N 0 0
KN¢I KN¢2 , . . . , KCNN 0 0
0 0 , . . . , 0 Qkv b2 e2kvb
0 0 , . . . , 0 e2 kv b Qkv
, . . . , o o
c t , , . . . , o 0
, . . , o o
0 0 , . . . , 0 elCv b2 e2cvb
0 0 , . . . , 0 e2Cv b (.iCy
where £1, £2 are given by
£1 = { 21 no uplift
uplifted
1 right side uplifted
e2= 0 no uplift
1 left side uplifted.
The entries of matrices [M], [K] and [C] are calculated
f rom
Me = Jl mt(z)¢i(z)¢J(zldz
KiCj = I i El( z ) dZCi(Z)dz 2 d2¢j(Zldz 2 dz
;o
M~ = M L = zm, (z)¢i(z)dz
lo z 2 m t Mz z = (z)dz
= I i mt( z) ¢i( z) dz M~
Mz = Ji zmt(z)dz"
The coefficients of the upper diagonal of matrix [C] can
be expressed in terms of damping ratios ~; as given in
Refs 24 and 27.