# Modelling of foundations - Continuum

and Discrete Approaches
Amir M. Kaynia, PhD.

Discipline Lead Vibrations & Earthquake Eng.
Norwegian Geotech. Institute, Oslo, Norway

Indo-Norwegian Training Programme on

Nonlinear Modelling and Seismic Response
Evaluation of Structures

December 14-16, 2014 – Continuing Education Center, IIT Roorkee

• • • • • • • Introduction and Objectives Notion of foundation spring Elastic and inelastic springs Calculations approaches Modelling of shallow foundations Modelling of deep foundations Codes and standards .

Prentice Hall. SASSI.A System for Analysis of Soil-Structure Interaction. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Berkeley. Research Report GT 8102 . API (American Petroleum Institute) Kramer. G. (1996). J. et al. Part 5: Foundation. (1990). USA . Chapter 15 in Foundation Engineering Handbook.• Eurocode 8. • • • ASCE 41-06: Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings • Lysmer. • Gazetas. Foundation Vibrations. S.L. retaining structures and geotechnical aspects. University of California.

the soil experiences nonlinear loading leading to larger displacements • Nonlinear soil/foundation response can dramatically change the dynamic response of the structure . the response of the structure is dependent on the soil/foundation flexibility. • The soil/foundation flexibility often reduces the internal forces and increases the displacements • During medium/strong seismic loading.The objective is to give an overview of the methods for accounting for Soil-Structure Interaction (SSI) in nonlinear seismic analysis of structures. Key aspects include: • Except for very strong/stiff soil conditions.

Three-Step Method subject of this session subject of structural sessions .

• Most often we use only horizontal & rocking stiffness (less common to use vertical & torsional stiffness) • Several key issues related to foundation stiffness: • Coupling between horizontal and rocking stiffness • Added soil mass (for dynamic analyses) • • Foundation damping (for dynamic analyses) Stiff vs. flexible foundation assumption kh kθ cθ θFIM ch cv kv . like for homogeneous soil profiles. and for regular geometries such as circular and rectangular. • Advantage: Simple formula • Disadvantage: Only for idealized conditions.Background • Stiffnesses have been derived primarily by analytical solutions.

.

.

𝐾𝐾 = 𝐾𝐾𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 𝐾𝐾𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝐾𝐾𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 𝐾𝐾𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 .

77 ( Ep / Es* ) 0.KMH KHH Es 1 d KMM KHM 𝐾𝐾 = 1 Es* 𝐾𝐾𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 𝐾𝐾𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝐾𝐾𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 𝐾𝐾𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 KHM = KHM is cross-coupling term z Parabolic soil modulus: KHH ≅ 0.15 Es d 3 KMH = KHM ≅ .8 Es d ( Ep / Es* ) KMM ≅ 0.24 0.53 Es d 2 ( Ep / Es* ) Cross-coupling term can be eliminated by using a rigid link with length L to foundation = Rigid link L = KHM / KHH .0.28 0.

0 6.0E+14 0.5E+15 Krr .0E+00 0.5.0E+11 -2.Imag.0 5.0E+11 0.0 2.0 1. one can compute the foundation damping.0E+11 1.g. By fitting a second degree parabola to the real part.0E+11 Kxx . Horizontal Stiffness (N/m) 3. computed Krr . computed Kxx .Imag.0 4.Real.Real.0E+11 -3.0 8.0E+15 -1.0 4.Imag.0E+11 1.0 9.0 10. 1DOF equivalent 2. computed 4.0 8.0 .0E+14 -1.Imag. 1DOF equivalent • • Real [K (ω)] = K0 – m Imag [K (ω)] = C ω See example => ω2 Kxx .5E+15 2. one can compute the added mass.0 3. computer program SASSI) which produce complexvalued stiffness matrices. 1DOF equivalent Rocking Stiffness (Nm/rad) Added soil mass and foundation damping are derived from frequency domain analytical or FE solutions (e.0E+11 Kxx .0 7.0 -1. computed 1.Real.0 6.0 10. and by fitting a line to the imaginary part. 1DOF equivalent 5.0 -5.0E+00 0.Real.0E+15 Krr .0E+11 Krr .

.Simple expressions for added soil mass and damping are available a few idealized cases. mass density ρ and Poisson’s ratio υ (G = ρ Vs2). below are foundation parameters for circular foundations with radius r on uniform soil with shear modulus G. For example.

08 . • There are two ways of handling soil nonlinearity in nonlinear analyses: Equivalent linear method – through iterative method • Nonlinear method 100 100 80 80 80 80 60 60 60 60 40 20 40 0 0.04 0.06 0.08 40 20 20 20 0 Last (kN) 100 Last (kN) 100 Last (kN) Last (kN) • 0 0.02 0.06 0.Background • Soil behaves nonlinearly even at very small stresses/strains – at stresses as low as 10% of yield stress nonlinearity starts.04 Forskyvning (m) 0.08 40 0 0 0 0 0.04 Forskyvning (m) 0.08 0 0.04 Forskyvning (m) 0.06 0.02 0.06 Forskyvning (m) 0.02 0.02 0.

we get stiffness as function of displacement Last (kN) 80 60 40 20 12000 10000 8000 Stivhet (kN/m) 100 6000 4000 2000 0 0 0.• Equivalent linear method – through iterative method • Nonlinear method Curve to be used by equivalent linear method in nonlinear structural analysis Nonlinear force-displacement curve to be used directly in nonlinear structural analysis By dividing forces by corresponding displacements.02 0.02 0.04 Forskyvning (m) 0.08 .04 Forskyvning (m) 0.08 0 0 0.06 0.06 0.

04 Forskyvning (m) 0.02 0.1) Continuum models (finite element) Increasing horizontal load Contours of soil displacements 100 Finite element model of soil Nonlinear forcedisplacement curve Last (kN) 80 60 40 20 0 0 0.08 .06 0.

2) Discrete methods – use of p-y curves for piles p-y curves give the relation between lateral pressure on the pile surface and corresponding displacement. The curves are established from geotechnical parameters for sand and clay. .

Example: P-y curves for soft clay (API) .

Either include the piles and the p-y springs in the structural model (left figure). or compute the force-displacement relationship at the top of the piles and include them in the structural models without the piles (right figure) Attach t-z curves to all nodes Attach p-y curves to all nodes p-y t-z Attach Q-z curves to pile tip nodes Q-z .

K δ δy . K. Dim. and construct a simple force-displacement curve shown below F Q δy ≅ 1% Found.3) Simplified methods – shallow foundations Compute foundation bearing capacity Q. and stiffness.