Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SlideShare Explore Search You
Upload
Login
Signup
Search
Home
Technology
Education
More Topics
For Uploaders
Get Started
Tips & Tricks
Tools
Search
Soil Structure Interaction
1,050 views
Share
Like
Download
Ammar Motorwala
Follow
https://www.slideshare.net/AmmarMotorwala/soilstructureinteraction51548388 1/12
6/19/2017 Soil Structure Interaction
Published on Aug 12, 2015
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
Full Name
Comment goes here.
12 hours ago Delete Reply Spam Block
Are you sure you want to Yes No
Your message goes here
Share your thoughts…
Post
Be the first to comment
Be the first to like this
No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,050
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
15
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
67
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds
No notes for slide
https://www.slideshare.net/AmmarMotorwala/soilstructureinteraction51548388 2/12
6/19/2017 Soil Structure Interaction
Soil Structure Interaction
1. 1. Ammar Motorwala Modelling SoilStructure Interaction for Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Framed structures
with Pile Foundation 1 | P a g e Modelling SoilStructure Interaction for Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Framed
structures with Pile Foundation An earthquake is a phenomenon which basically takes place to dissipate the strain
energy accumulated over time at the fault surface and this dissipation of energy takes place in terms of emission of
the shock waves. So, basically the ground motion which is felt at the surface of the earth is due to these shock
waves. One of the important characteristics of any earthquake ground motion is its frequency content and
dominant frequency along with other parameters like time history records, peak ground acceleration and duration
of ground motion. Local site conditions are defined in terms of the materials that lie directly beneath the site. The
preferred definition is in terms of shearwave velocity and the depth of sediment beneath the site. These two
parameters define the natural frequency of the site material and as observed in Mexico City, (1985) Earthquake
and Loma Prieta, (1989) Earthquake, if the dominant frequency of the earthquake waves is near the fundamental
frequency of the site material, disasters can happen. From these studies it is evident that the dynamic response of
a structure to an earthquake depends on the nature of the surrounding soil along with characteristics of the ground
motion and the physical properties of the structure itself. Soilstructure interaction analysis evaluates the collective
response of the structure, foundation and the soil under and surrounding the foundation to a specified ground
motion. In usual practice, when a structure is to be designed for seismic loads, standard procedures in chapter 11
and 12 of ASCE 710 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE, 2010) are followed
and the ground motion characteristics scaled based on the probabilistic models are used. The influence of local
site class is taken into account through modification factors. Thus, a crude and more probabilistically conservative
form of SSI is considered and hence, the structural designer inputs “free field” response spectra or ground
motions directly to an analysis of the structure without any consideration of interaction and then designs the
foundations for the resulting forces. The term “freefield” refers to motions that are not affected by structural
vibrations or the scattering of waves at, and around, the foundation.
2. 2. Ammar Motorwala Modelling SoilStructure Interaction for Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Framed structures
with Pile Foundation 2 | P a g e In most cases ignoring soilstructure interaction is conservative, provided the
design response spectra and ground motions adequately envelope the kinematic effect of the foundation structure
and its effect on site response. This may be difficult to do in cases such as the following, where soilstructure
interaction analysis is advisable to reduce risk: The foundation system alters the soil properties (e.g., a pile
foundation in soft soils). Buildings with a deep basement or pile foundation system where it is difficult to determine
the effective ground excitation and where the structural inertia forces are dependent on the foundation reaction
with the soil. This issue is compounded for sites where the soil properties vary significantly with depth. Where
the site conditions are susceptible to large ground deformations, e.g., lateral spreading or ground fault rupture, or
soil liquefaction. Soilstructure interaction analysis is also undertaken to realize substantial construction cost
savings by reducing the conservatisms in the conventional approach. This is typically worthwhile on sites with
relatively soft soils where: The flexibility of the soilfoundation system significantly elongates the effective natural
periods of the structure and increases the damping, leading to reduced earthquake design forces. Where the
structure is massive and its inertia forces significantly increase the strain levels in the soil relative to the free field
response. If a decision is made to incorporate SSI in the design of a structure, it should be kept in mind that
modeling of SSI is dominated by the issues associated with the soil being an infinite medium, making it difficult to
model the transmission of earthquake induced stress and strain waves through the boundaries of the soil model.
The behavior of soils is also significantly nonlinear under strong ground shaking, and soil materials display strain
softening, energy dissipation through material hysteresis and radiation damping, and strain rate dependency. Even
if a detailed geotechnical investigation is available, a high degree of uncertainty in behavior of the soils will remain.
For this reason, a great caution should be exercised and it is recommended that analyses are undertaken using
upper and lower bounds of soil properties.
https://www.slideshare.net/AmmarMotorwala/soilstructureinteraction51548388 3/12
6/19/2017 Soil Structure Interaction
3. 3. Ammar Motorwala Modelling SoilStructure Interaction for Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Framed structures
with Pile Foundation 3 | P a g e The upper bound soil stiffness and strength is usually more critical for the
demands on the structure itself, and lower bound properties may be critical for the design of the foundation. The
three main effects of SSI which need to be addressed in any SSI model are categorized as inertial interaction
effects, kinematic interaction effects, and soilfoundation flexibility effects and these effects can be related to
structural analysis in terms of: Foundation stiffness and damping. As compared to the normal assumption of rigid
foundation, the inertial forces (base shear, moment and torsion) generates lateral displacement and rotation at the
foundation level. This effects introduces flexibility in the structure and leads to period elongation. Moreover, these
displacements give rise to energy dissipation via radiation damping and hysteretic soil damping, which can
significantly affect overall system damping. Since these effects are rooted in structural inertia, they are referred to
as inertial interaction effects. Variations between foundation input motions and freefield ground motions.
Comparatively stiffer foundation elements, placed at or below the ground surface composed of comparatively
flexible material, cause foundation motions to deviate from freefield motions due to base slab averaging, wave
scattering, and embedment effects in the absence of structure and foundation inertia. This effect is called kinematic
interaction effect as it does not involve any inertial forces. Foundation Deformations. Flexural, axial, and shear
deformations of structural foundation elements occur as a result of forces and displacements applied by the
superstructure and the soil medium. These represent the seismic demands for which foundation components
should be designed, and they could be significant, especially for flexible foundations such as rafts and piles. To
address these effects, there are two generic approaches for practical nonlinear soilstructure interaction analysis:
4. 4. Ammar Motorwala Modelling SoilStructure Interaction for Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Framed structures
with Pile Foundation 4 | P a g e (i) Direct Analysis Approach As schematically depicted in the figure, the soil is
often represented as a continuum (e.g., finite elements) along with foundation and structural elements, transmitting
boundaries at the limits of the soil mesh, and interface elements at the edges of the foundation. The ground
motions (including spatial variability, when significant) are applied at transmitting boundaries at the base and sides
of the model, and the kinematic interaction is modeled directly. Though direct solution of the SSI problem is quite
intuitive, it is very difficult from a computational standpoint, especially when the system is geometrically complex
or contains significant non linearities in the soil or structural materials. Hence, it is seldomly used in practice and
has been more limited to research applications. (ii) Indirect (Substructure) Approach Proper consideration of
SSI effects in a substructure approach requires: o an evaluation of freefield soil motions and corresponding soil
material properties; o an evaluation of transfer functions to convert freefield motions to foundation input motions;
o incorporation of springs and dashpots (or more complex nonlinear elements) to represent the stiffness and
damping at the soilfoundation interface; and o a response analysis of the combined structurespring/dashpot
system with the foundation input motion applied.
5. 5. Ammar Motorwala Modelling SoilStructure Interaction for Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Framed structures
with Pile Foundation 5 | P a g e The superposition inherent in a substructure approach requires an assumption of
linear soil and structure behavior, although in practice this requirement is often followed only in an equivalentlinear
sense. The steps in a substructure approach are as follows: o Defining foundation input motion (FIM), which is the
motion of the baseslab that accounts for the stiffness and geometry of the foundation. The foundation input
motions are expressed by a transfer function that represents the ratio of foundation/freefield motion in the
frequency domain. Since inertial effects are neglected, the transfer function represents the effects of kinematic
interaction only. An essential first step in defining the FIM is to evaluate the freefield response of the site, which is
the spatial and temporal variation of ground motion in the absence of the structure and foundation. Having
established the freefield motion, wavepropagation analyses are performed to estimate the foundation input
motion along the planned soil foundation interface. Equivalent linear properties for the soil (e.g., shear modulus,
material damping) can be evaluated as part of this analysis. o The stiffness and damping characteristics of the soil
foundation interaction are characterized using relatively simple impedance function models or a series of
distributed springs and dashpots. Impedance functions represent the frequency dependent stiffness and damping
characteristics of soilfoundation interaction. As shown in the figure, the stiffness and damping due to SSI are
https://www.slideshare.net/AmmarMotorwala/soilstructureinteraction51548388 4/12
6/19/2017 Soil Structure Interaction
represented using either single spring and dashpot for each degree of freedom or a series of springs and dash
pots distributed over the foundation. The latter case of distributed springs and
6. 6. Ammar Motorwala Modelling SoilStructure Interaction for Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Framed structures
with Pile Foundation 6 | P a g e dashpots is needed when foundation elements are nonrigid, or when internal
demands (e.g., moments, shears, deformations) are required outcomes of the analysis. o The superstructure is
modeled above the foundation and the system is excited through the foundation by displacing the ends of the
springs and dashpots using the rocking and translational components of the FIM. It should be noted that FIM
varies with depth. In the case of the distributed spring and dashpot model, differential ground displacements
should be applied over the depth of embedment. This application of spatially variable displacements introduces a
rotational component to the FIM, which is why a rotational spring is not required in such model. Pilesupported
footings or mat are normally used for building structures founded on soft soils, especially when the foundation is
not embedded. A single pile can be quite conveniently represented by springs and dashpots in numerical models
of pilesupported foundations. The dynamic stiffness of a single pile for a particular vibration mode 𝑘𝑗 𝑝 can be
represented as a product of static stiffness 𝐾𝑗 𝑝 and a dynamic modifier 𝛼𝑗 𝑝 . Subscript j represents the
vibration mode, which is taken as x (horizontal) and z (vertical). 𝑘𝑗 𝑝 = 𝐾𝑗 𝑝 × 𝛼𝑗 𝑝 Where, Here, j is a
dimensionless constant for vibration mode j; d is pile diameter; Es and Ep are the Young’s moduli for soil and pile
materials, respectively; s and p are the mass densities for soil and pile materials, respectively; is the
Poisson’s ratio of the soil; wpj, wsj, and wbj represent weight factors that together sum to unity for pile, soil, and
pile tip stiffness contributions, respectively, for vibration mode j; and a0 p is a dimensionless frequency for piles.
7. 7. Ammar Motorwala Modelling SoilStructure Interaction for Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Framed structures
with Pile Foundation 7 | P a g e A fundamental aspect of pile response to lateral head loading is that a long pile
does not deflect over its entire length, but only to a certain depth, termed the active pile length, La. The active pile
length is on the order of 10 to 20 pile diameters, depending on pile soil stiffness contrast, soil nonhomogeneity,
and fixity conditions at the pile head. It is found that active lengths tend to be greater for dynamic loading than for
static loading, due to the ability of elastic waves to travel further down the pile than a static stress field and also
axially loaded piles tend to respond to much greater depths. Approximate values of active pile lengths, La, are
10d to 20d for lateral loading, and the actual pile length, Lp, for axial loading. Once an appropriate active length,
La, is selected, an average effective profile velocity between the ground surface and depth, La, can be computed,
using which small strain shear modulus G0 can be evaluated using 𝐺0 = 𝜌𝑠 𝑉𝑠 2 . Then based on Table 19.21 in
chapter 19 of ASCE 7 10 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE, 2010) soil shear
modulus, G, should be reduced relative to G0 for large strain effects. These are more kind of approximations and
further research is needed to produce better estimates of Vs. From G, Young’s modulus for soil can be calculated:
Weight factors in the above equation for stiffness (wpj, wsj, and wbj) represent the relative contributions of the
pile structural stiffness, pilesoil interaction through sideload transfer, and pilesoil interaction through toe
resistance for vibration mode j. These weight factors always sum to unity (i.e., wpj + wsj + wbj = 1.0). Using this
information and the recommendations provided by various researchers, the empirical formula as tabulated in the
Table 24a and Table 24b of NIST GCR 1291721 Soil Structure Interaction For Building Structures
(NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture, 2012), the
8. 8. Ammar Motorwala Modelling SoilStructure Interaction for Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Framed structures
with Pile Foundation 8 | P a g e stiffness of the springs and the damping ratio of the dashpots can be calculated
and impedance of piles can be modeled. Usually, for building foundation system, if piles are used, then they are
configured in groups to support a mat or discrete pile caps, and seldom used as a single a pile. The impedance of
a pile group cannot be determined by simple addition of individual pile impedances because grouped piles interact
through the soil by “pushing” or “pulling” each other through waves emitted from their periphery. This is called a
group effect, and it can significantly affect the impedance of a pile group as well as the distribution of head loads
among individual piles in the group. Group effects depend primarily on pile spacing, frequency, and number of
piles. The ratio of the pile group impedance in any oscillation mode, 𝑘𝑗 𝐺 , to the sum of the individual static pile
impedances in the same oscillation mode, 𝑁𝑝𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑠 × 𝑘𝑗,𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝑃 , is the efficiency factor of the pile group.
https://www.slideshare.net/AmmarMotorwala/soilstructureinteraction51548388 5/12
6/19/2017 Soil Structure Interaction
Efficiency factors are generally less than unity for low frequencies, but can increase significantly at higher
frequencies under low strain conditions. There are lots of known as well as unknown sources of nonlinearity and
capturing all of them in the analysis models is kind of impossible. Most of the research performed on nonlinear
SSI has been related to structural yielding with linear, or equivalentlinear, soil or soil yielding/gapping with a linear
structure. If structural yielding develops at relatively low intensity input motions, or if the foundation is over
designed, significant material nonlinearities in the foundation and soil may not occur. This justifies the use of
equivalentlinear representations of subsurface material properties in the analyses. Hence, because of difficulties
associated with modeling the constitutive behavior of soil in three dimensions and wave propagation in a finite
volume of geologic material under the structure, without spurious wave reflections at fictitious model boundaries,
most studies focus on nonlinearities in the superstructure. Mounting analytical and experimental evidence
proving that material and geometric nonlinearities in the soil may be beneficial to the seismic response of a
structure has initiated revision of the foundation design philosophy by allowing significant yielding
9. 9. Ammar Motorwala Modelling SoilStructure Interaction for Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Framed structures
with Pile Foundation 9 | P a g e in the soil close to the foundation, or the foundation itself, to dissipate energy and
protect the superstructure. This requires control of settlement and tilting of the structure. Hence, the analysis and
design process considering soil nonlinearity involves optimization of the tradeoffs between the potentially
beneficial effects of soil yielding (especially with regard to energy dissipation) and the detrimental effects of
settlement or residual tilt. Soilstructure interaction studies with nonlinear soil and foundation behavior can be
classified into three approaches: 1) Continuum models 2) BeamonNonlinear Winkler Foundation (BNWF)
Models 3) Plasticity Based MacroElement (PBM) Models Models for kinematic interaction effects are
expressed as frequency dependent ratios of the Fourier amplitudes (i.e., transfer functions) of foundation input
motion (FIM) to freefield motion. The FIM is the theoretical motion of the base slab if the nearsurface
foundation elements (i.e., base slabs, basement walls) and the structure had no mass, and is used for seismic
response analysis in the substructure approach. When building foundations are pilesupported, the kinematic
interaction problem is complicated by the influence of the piles on wave propagation below the foundation, and
also by the potential for the soil to settle away from the pilesupported base of the structure, forming a gap. This is
a complex kinematic soilstructure interaction problem for which there are no wellcalibrated engineering models.
There are few suggestions made by researchers about the use Transfer functions applied for shallow foundations
with some small modifications, but no definite scientifically proven method exists. Hence, to accurately estimate
the response of structure, the effect of soil structure interaction is needed to be considered under the influence of
both static and dynamic loading. Though, SSI as an area of research is quite dynamic and good amount of
literature is already available, still a detailed analysis considering the nonlinear soil model and gap separation
between pile and soil has not been addressed.
10. 10. Ammar Motorwala Modelling SoilStructure Interaction for Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Framed
structures with Pile Foundation 10 | P a g e References Fundamentals of Seismic Loading on Structures [Book] /
auth. Sen Tapan K.. West Sussex, U.K. : John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2009. Improvement of Nonlinear Static
Seismic Analysis Procedures FEMA 440 [Report] / auth. FEMA. Washington D.C. : Applied Technology
Council (ATC55 Project), 2005. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures ASCE/SEI 710
[Book] / auth. ASCE. Reston Virginia : American Society of Civil Engineers, 2010. NEHRP Recommended
Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures FEMA P750 [Report] / auth. FEMA. Washington
D. C. : Building Seismic Safety Council, 2009. SoilStructure Interaction For Building Structures (NIST GCR
1291721) [Report] / auth. NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture. Gaithersburg, MD : National Institute of
Standards and Technology, 2012. SSI Analysis of Framed Structures Supported on Pile Foundations : A Review
[Journal] / auth. Pulikanti Shushma and Ramancharla Pradeep Kumar. [s.l.] : Frontier in Geotechnical
Engineering (FGE), 2013. 2 : Vol. 2.
11. 11. Ammar Motorwala Modelling SoilStructure Interaction for Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Framed
structures with Pile Foundation 11 | P a g e Appendix – A Impact of SoilStructure Interaction on Seismic
Analysis of China Basin Landing, 185 Berry Street, San Francisco, CA For the given project assignment, an
https://www.slideshare.net/AmmarMotorwala/soilstructureinteraction51548388 6/12
6/19/2017 Soil Structure Interaction
investigation is being made for refining the modelling assumptions for the nonlinear dynamic analysis of a 3 story
reinforced concrete moment frame structure which is to be added with two more stories atop. Based on the
research done so far on the important soilinteraction parameters to be included in the nonlinear dynamic
analysis, the expected impact the final designs can be summarized as: Time Period Elongation: The consideration
of the flexible base accounting for deformity both in the foundation elements and soil leads to the considerable
reduction in the stiffness of the overall structure and hence the fundamental time period of the structure increases
as compared to the period of the same structure designed with rigid base assumption. Where, T = period of
structure with rigid base assumption = period of the structure with flexible base k = lateral stiffness of the structure
with rigid base kx = effective lateral stiffness of the foundationsoil system kyy =effective rotational stiffness of the
foundationsoil system h = the height of the center of mass for the firstmode shape ≈ 2/3rd of the overall
structure height Period lengthening increases markedly with structuretosoil stiffness ratio, which is the most
important parameter controlling inertial SSI effects. As the geotechnical investigations have revealed that the
surrounding soil at the foundation of given structure is liquefiable, this indicates there will definitely be high
structuretosoil stiffness ratio and hence there will be considerable increase in the fundamental time period of the
structure.
12. 12. Ammar Motorwala Modelling SoilStructure Interaction for Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Framed
structures with Pile Foundation 12 | P a g e Damping: In addition to period lengthening, system behavior is also
affected by damping associated with soilfoundation interaction, referred to as foundation damping, f. This
damping is composed of two parts: (1) contributions from soil hysteresis (hysteretic damping); and (2) radiation of
energy away, in the form of stress waves, from the foundation (radiation damping). Foundation damping is a direct
contributor to the flexiblebase system damping, 0: Where, i is the structural damping in the superstructure
assuming a fixed base, which is generally taken as 5% for typical structural systems. Observations have shown
that f ranges from approximately 0% to 25%. The exponent, n, on the period lengthening term in the above
equation is taken as 3 for linearly viscous structural damping, and 2 otherwise (e.g., for hysteretic damping) and as
was the case for period lengthening, foundation damping f also increases strongly with structuretosoilstiffness
ratio The effect of these two modifications on the demand (Base shear) are illustrated as below: Thus, When the
period is lengthened on the descending branch of the spectrum (i.e., T/Tp > 1), the seismic demand is reduced,
regardless of whether the structure yields or not. Where Tp is the predominant time period of the ground motion.
In the case of longperiod input motions that potentially place the structure on the ascending branch of the
spectrum (i.e., T/Tp < 1), SSIinduced period lengthening may lead to an increase in ductility demand. This can
be viewed as progressive resonance, when the effective fundamental period of the yielding structure, T,
approaches the predominant period of the
13. 13. Ammar Motorwala Modelling SoilStructure Interaction for Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Framed
structures with Pile Foundation 13 | P a g e foundation input motion, Tp. This is the most extreme case scenario
and is rare by disastrous (as observed in Mexico City earthquake, 1985). Basically with the period of a 5story
building being typically near 2 sec, it can be estimated from this plot that there will be reduction in the demands
(base shear, moments, torsion) to be resisted by the structural elements. Hence, this would also have a
considerable impact on the design of the connections between the new and old construction and also the design of
the base isolators will be impacted.
Recommended
https://www.slideshare.net/AmmarMotorwala/soilstructureinteraction51548388 7/12
6/19/2017 Soil Structure Interaction
IIHMR MAT Entrance examIndian Institute of Health Management ResearchSponsored Content
Photoshop CC Essential Training (2015)
Leadership Fundamentals
Coaching and Developing Employees
Soil structure interaction amec presentationfinal
Ahmad Hallak PEng
https://www.slideshare.net/AmmarMotorwala/soilstructureinteraction51548388 8/12
6/19/2017 Soil Structure Interaction
INFLUENCE OF SOILSTRUCTURE INTERACTION ON RESPONSE OF A MULTISTORIED
BUILDI...
ST.MARY'S GROUP OF INSTITUTIONS
Radiation damping
gildong hong
Effect of soil structure interaction on high rise r.c regular frame structur...
eSAT Journals
Soil dynamics and earthquake engineering v v pdf
YolondaBarmore
Numerical methods for pile modeling
Mohammad Falamarz
Seismic ssi effects and liquification
Arpan Banerjee
English
Español
Português
https://www.slideshare.net/AmmarMotorwala/soilstructureinteraction51548388 9/12
6/19/2017 Soil Structure Interaction
Français
Deutsch
About
Dev & API
Blog
Terms
Privacy
Copyright
Support
LinkedIn Corporation © 2017
Share Clipboard
Enter email addresses
Add a message
From
Send
Email sent successfully..
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Google+
Link
Public clipboards featuring this slide
https://www.slideshare.net/AmmarMotorwala/soilstructureinteraction51548388 10/12
6/19/2017 Soil Structure Interaction
No public clipboards found for this slide
Save the most important slides with Clipping
Clipping is a handy way to collect and organize the most important slides from a presentation. You can
keep your great finds in clipboards organized around topics.
Start clipping
No thanks. Continue to download.
Select another clipboard
Looks like you’ve clipped this slide to already.
Search for a clipboard
https://www.slideshare.net/AmmarMotorwala/soilstructureinteraction51548388 11/12
6/19/2017 Soil Structure Interaction
Create a clipboard
You just clipped your first slide!
Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later. Now customize the name of a clipboard
to store your clips.
Name* Best of Slides
Description Add a brief description so others know what your Clipboard is about.
Visibility
Others can see my Clipboard
Cancel Save
Save this document
https://www.slideshare.net/AmmarMotorwala/soilstructureinteraction51548388 12/12