Overview of Soil-Structure

Interaction Principles

Jonathan P. Stewart
University of California, Los Angeles
 Overview
A. Introduction
B. General methods of analysis
C. Inertial interaction
D. Kinematic interaction
 A. Introduction

Response dictated by
interactions between:
• Structure
• Foundation
• Underlying soil/rock

System analysis evaluates response given free-

field motion, ug

No SSI when___________ SSI effect =______________

 A. Introduction.
Three critical aspects of SSI

• Inertia → base shear

(V) and moment (M) F=ma

M
V
 A. Introduction.
Three critical aspects of SSI

• Inertia → base shear

(V) and moment (M)
V
• V → relative
foundation/free-field
displacement (uf)
 A. Introduction.
Three critical aspects of SSI

• Inertia → base shear

(V) and moment (M)
M
• V → relative
foundation/free-field
displacement (uf)
• M → relative
foundation/free-field
rotation (θf)
 A. Introduction.
Three critical aspects of SSI

• uf, θf → foundation
damping
 A. Introduction.
Three critical aspects of SSI
uf
• uf, θf → foundation p p
damping
• Radiation damping – s
foundation acts as
θf
wave source
s s

p
 A. Introduction.
Three critical aspects of SSI
uf
• uf, θf → foundation
damping τ
• Radiation damping – Δ
foundation acts as
τ
wave source
• Hysteretic damping in
soil Δ

Area ∝ hysteretic
damping, βs
 A. Introduction.
Three critical aspects of SSI
1. Inertial soil structure interaction
• Inertia from vibration of structure and
foundation
• Causes foundation translation and rotation
(uf and θf)
• Directly affects system flexibility and mode
shapes
• Introduces foundation damping
 A. Introduction.
Three critical aspects of SSI
2. Kinematic interaction
• Incoherent ground u1 u2 u3
motions → base slab
averaging

Sa

T
 A. Introduction.
Three critical aspects of SSI
2. Kinematic interaction
• Incoherent ground u1
u2
motions → base slab
averaging
• Ground motion
reductions with depth
Sa

T
 A. Introduction.
Three critical aspects of SSI
3. Foundation
deformations
• Loads from
superstructure inertia
 A. Introduction.
Three critical aspects of SSI
3. Foundation
deformations
• Loads from
superstructure inertia
• Deformations applied
by soil

Beyond scope of
current presentation
Nikolaou et al. (2001)
B. General Methods of Analysis
• Direct approach
– Full modeling of soil,
foundation, structure
– Propagate waves
through system

Beyond scope of
current presentation
B. General Methods of Analysis
• Direct approach
• Substructure
approach

Focus of this
seminar
 C. Inertial Interaction
• Springs used to
represent soil-
foundation interaction
• Complex-valued
– Real part represents
stiffness
– Imaginary part related
to damping

Combination of real and

complex parts comprises
“Impedance function”
 C. Inertial Interaction
• Springs used to
represent soil-
foundation interaction
• Complex-valued
• If rigid foundation,
simplifies to:
– 3 springs for 2D
system kθ

– 6 springs for 3D kz
kx
system
k j = k j (a0 ,υ ) + iωc j (a0 ,υ )
 C. Inertial Interaction.
Effects on System Behavior
• Concepts of period
ug uf hθ u

m
lengthening and θ

h
foundation damping kx
K*fixed, c

kθ
– System period
~ k fixed k fixed h 2
T
= 1+ +
T kx kθ

– System damping
β
β0 = β f + ~ i
(T T )3

Foundation damping factor

 C. Inertial Interaction.
Effects on System Behavior

30
20
e/ru = 0
β = 0.1 PGA > 0.2g

Foundation Damping, βf(%)

16 β=0 PGA < 0.1g
h/r = 1 20
12 h/rθ = 0.5
β~ζ f0 (%) 8 1.0

10
4 h/r = 2

h/r = 4 2.0
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
0
h/(vs ×T) 1 1.5 ∼ 2
Period Lengthening, T/T

Hysteretic soil damping

 C. Inertial Interaction.
Effects on Base Shear
• Force-based
procedure
• SSI affects design
spectral ordinate
• Usually not
0.6
considered for design (a)
∼ ∼
T, β
0 = Flexible-base period, damping ratio
(includes SSI effects)

of new buildings Spectral Acceleration (g)

0.5 T, βi = Fixed-base period, damping ratio
(neglects SSI effects)

0.4
~
S a

Sa
0.3 Sa
βi
~
S
0.2 a

T
~
T T ~ β0
T
0.1
0 1 2
Period (s)
 C. Inertial Interaction.
Effects on Displacement-Based
Pushover Analysis
• Initial seismic demand
– Should be drawn for Initial seismic demand (free-field)
Reduced seismic demand (SFSI effects)
foundation motion, not
free-field Sa
– Spectral ordinates
should reflect system
Performance point
damping ratio Pushover curve
Reduced seismic demand
(SFSI + extra str. damping)

• Pushover curve Sd

– Soil springs in
pushover analysis
 Are these effects important?
• YES, especially for
short-period
structures
• Field data shows:
– Foundation damping
ratios up to ~ 10-20%
– Period lengthening up
to ~ 1.5
– Foundation/ff Sa’s at
low period as low as
~0.5
SSI Can Affect Retrofit Decisions
SSI Can Affect Retrofit Decisions

Fixed-Base
SSI Can Affect Retrofit Decisions

Flexible-Base
C. Inertial Interaction. Impedance Functions
k j = k j (a0 ,υ ) + iωc j (a0 ,υ )

a0 = ωr/Vs ν = Poisson’s ratio

j = u (translation, x or z)
θ (rocking)

ku = α u K u cu = β u
K u ru ru = Af π
VS
kθ = α θ K θ K r
cθ = β θ θ θ rθ = 4 4 I f π
VS

Two aspects of impedance function analysis:

1) Static stiffness (e.g., Kx)
2) Dynamic modifiers (e.g., αx, βx)
 C. Inertial Interaction. Impedance Functions

Static Stiffness (surface foundation)

Circle: Rectangle:
8
Kx = Gru
2 −υ
8
Kθ = Grθ3
3(1 − υ )
4
Kz = Gru
1−υ

Used in NEHRP
Provisions

FEMA-356
 C. Inertial Interaction. Impedance Functions
Static Stiffness (embedment modification)

⎛ 2 e ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
Circle: (K U )E = K U ⎜⎜1 + ⎟⎟ (K θ )E = K θ ⎜⎜1 + 2
e
⎟⎟
⎝ 3 ru ⎠ ⎝ rθ ⎠

Rectangle:

FEMA-356
C. Inertial Interaction. Impedance Functions
Dealing with nonuniform profiles
VS

• Issue: What is the

effective Vs for a non-
uniform profile?
• Vs increase with depth
– Increases foundation Depth
stiffness
– Impedes radiation damping
at large λ (low f) relative to
halfspace
C. Inertial Interaction. Impedance Functions
Dealing with nonuniform profiles
VS

• For stiffness, use

Ze
Vs = Δzi
tt
– Ze = 0.75ru or 0.75rθ
Depth
– Δzi
tt = ∑
(Vs )i

• For damping, use

(Vs)0
C. Inertial Interaction. Impedance Functions
Dealing with nonuniform profiles
G(z)/G0 G(z)/G0
0 2 4 6 8 2r 0 2 4 6 8
0 0
G(z)
2 υ, ρ 2

z/r
z/r

α=0.025

4 α= z 4 n=1
0.
2 2/3
6
3
6 1/2

TRANSLATION ROCKING
1.0 0.30

H a lf

H al
. , β=
0. 1

f. , β
Half., β=0

=0.
1
25
βu

βθ

0.5 0 0.15 =0
0. .5 β
α= =0 lf.,

5
n

02
Ha
3
1

BIAS
0.
0 .2
n=

α=
α=

23
0.
α=
0.0 0.00
0 1 2 0 1 2
a0 = ωr/Vs0 a0 = ωr/Vs0

after Gazetas, 1991

 C. Inertial Interaction.
Typical Application
1. Evaluate foundation radii
• ru = Af π

• rθ = 4 4 I f π

• Analysis of If must consider shear wall

configuration and potential rotational
coupling between walls
2. Evaluate foundation embedment, e
3. Evaluate effective height of structure, h
4. Initial fixed base damping, βi (usually 5%)
 C. Inertial Interaction.
Typical Application
∼
5. Evaluate T/T using
structure-specific
model :
• Fixed-base period T

Force

k
1

Displacement
 C. Inertial Interaction.
Typical Application
∼
5. Evaluate T/T using
structure-specific
model :
• Fixed-base period T
• Flexible-base
∼ period
T
∼
• Calculate ratio T/T
• Ductility correction:
Force

0 .5
~ ⎧ ⎛ μ ⎞ ⎡⎛ T~ ⎞ 2 ⎤ ⎫
Teff ⎪ ⎜ ⎟ ⎪ keff
⎜
= ⎨1 + ⎜
f
⎟
⎟ ⎢⎜ ⎟ ⎥
−1 ⎬
⎪⎩ ⎝ μ s ⎠ ⎢⎣⎝ T ⎠
1
Teff ⎥⎦ ⎪
⎭ Displacement
 C. Inertial Interaction. Typical
application
6. Evaluate foundation damping βf based on
∼
Teff/Teff, h/rθ and e/ru e/r = 0.5 u
PGA > 0.2 g
PGA < 0.1g
30 30
e/ru = 0
PGA > 0.2g

Foundation Damping, βf (%)

h/rθ = 0.5
Foundation Damping, βf(%)

PGA < 0.1g

20 20
h/rθ = 0.5 1.0

1.0

10 10 2.0

2.0

0 0
1 1.5 ∼ 2 1 1.5 ∼ 2
Period Lengthening, T/T Period Lengthening, T/T
 C. Inertial Interaction. Typical
application
7. Evaluate flexible-base damping ratio, β0
βi
β0 = β f + ~
(Teff Teff )
3

8. Evaluate the effect on spectral ordinates

of the change in damping from βi to β0
~ ⎛ C1 − C2 ln(100β 0 ) ⎞ Eq. 3-7 and 3-8 of FEMA440
Sa = Sa ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ C3 ⎠ (assumes βi = 0.05)
 Limitations
160’-0”

• If distributed shear walls,

must consider coupling of
wall rotations

100’-0”
8” R/C wall – 20’L
typical

Plan
20’-0”

Roof
10’-0”
typical
2nd

1st
3’D

Footing 26’L x 3’B x 1.5’t

Elevation @ wall Section @ wall
 Limitations
• If distributed shear walls, • Evaluate k
must consider coupling of
wall rotations
• Evaluate ku
• Derive kθ
• Derive rθ from kθ
ug uf h θ u

~
m
T k kh2 θ
= 1+ +
T ku kθ k,c h

ku
kθ
 Limitations
• If distributed shear walls,
2L
Footing
2B x

must consider coupling of 1.0

y

wall rotations VLa =

3.4Vs
π(1 − υ)

crx = cθ,x(β=0)/(ρVLaIx)
0.8
L/B > 10

• Analysis is conservative 0.6

L/B = 5

for: 0.4
range for L/B = 1 - 2

– High foundation aspect

and circles
0.2

ratios (a/b > 2)

(a) rocking around x-axis

0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

1.0

L/B = 4-5
L/B→ ∞

cry = cθ,y(β=0)/(ρVLaIy)
0.8
L/B = 3
L/B = 2
0.6

0.4
range for L/B = 1
and circles

0.2

(b) rocking around y-axis

0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
ωB
a0 =
VS

Modified from: Dobry and Gazetas, 1986

 Limitations
• If distributed shear walls,
must consider coupling of
3 3

wall rotations 2 2
e/r = 1
e/r = 1

• Analysis is conservative *
βu 1/2 *
βθ
for:
1 1
1 1/2 1
1/2
0

– High foundation aspect 0

ratios (a/b > 2) 0

0 2 4 6
0
0 2 4 6

a 0 = ωr V a0
– Deeply embedded S

foundations (e/ru > 0.5)

K u ru Kθ rθ
cu = β u cθ = βθ
Vs Vs

Modified from: Apsel and

Luco, 1987
 Limitations
• If distributed shear walls,
must consider coupling of G(z)/G0 G(z)/G0

wall rotations 0
0 2 4 6 8 2r
0
0 2 4 6 8

G(z)

• Analysis is conservative
2 υ, ρ 2

z/r
z/r

α=0.025
4 z 4 n=1

α=
for:

0.
2/3

23
6 6 1/2

– High foundation aspect

ratios (a/b > 2) BIAS 1.0
TRANSLATION
0.30
ROCKING

Half

Ha l
– Deeply embedded ., β=
0. 1

f., β
Half., β=0

=0.
foundations (e/ru > 0.5)

1
5
02
βu

βθ
0.5 0.15 0
= 0. 0.5 β=
α n= lf.,

5
02
Ha
• Analysis unconservative
3
1

0.
0 .2
n=

α=
α=
3
0 .2
α=
for: 0.0
0 1 2
0.00
0 1 2
a0 = ωr/Vs0 a0 = ωr/Vs0
– nonuniform profiles, a0<1
after Gazetas, 1991
 Limitations
• If distributed shear walls,
must consider coupling of
wall rotations
a
• Analysis is conservative
for:
– High foundation aspect ρ1 vs1 D
ratios (a/b > 2) S

– Deeply embedded
foundations (e/ru > 0.5)
ρ2 vs2
• Analysis unconservative
for:
– nonuniform profiles, a0<1
– large impedance contrast at
depth; Vs2 ≥ 2 × Vs1
 D. Kinematic Interaction
• Contributions from:
– Base-slab averaging
– Foundation
embedment

after Veletsos et al., 1997

 D. Kinematic Interaction.
Base Slab Averaging
1.0
• Existing theoretical αv = 0

Transfer Function Amplitude

models 0.8

Disk
– User-specified 0.6
a/b=1
incoherence
0.4 a/b=1/4, 4
parameter, κ
– Rigid foundation, soil 0.2

is uniform halfspace
0.0
• Result is foundation / 0 2 4
~
a0
6 8 10

free-field transfer
function, not RRS a~0 =
ωbe ⎛b
κ 2 + sin 2 α v ⎜⎜
⎞
⎟⎟
2

Vs , r ⎝ be ⎠

after Veletsos and Prasad, 1989; Veletsos et al., 1997

Calibration against field data
4

3
Amplitude (|H3 |)

2 κ = 0.11

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
1 Frequency (Hz)

0.60

σ = 0.55
Surface foundations
0.40
Shallowly emb.
κa
90% confidence intervals
0.20
κ = -0.037 + 7.4E-04 Vs (m/s)
Kim and Stewart,
0.00
0 200 400 600
2003
Vs (m/s)
Calibration against field data
Shear Wave Velocity Reduction Factor, n2

Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA (g)

2 Site Class 0.1 0.4 0.8

~ ωbe ⎛b ⎞ A 1.00 1.00 1.00

a0 = κ + sin α v ⎜⎜
2 2
⎟⎟ B
C
1.00
0.97
0.97
0.87
0.95
0.77
Vs ,r ⎝ be ⎠ D
E
0.95
0.77
0.71
0.22
0.32
*
F * * *
Note: Use straight line interpolation for intermediate

~ ωbeκ values of PGA

ao = * = should be estimated from site-specific analysis

2Vs ,r
~ ωbeκ ωbe n1Vs ωbe n1
a0 = ≈ =
2Vs ,r 2n2Vs 2n 2
0.60

σ = 0.55
Surface foundations
0.40
Shallowly emb.
κa
90% confidence intervals
0.20
κ = -0.037 + 7.4E-04 Vs (m/s)
Kim and Stewart,
0.00
0 200 400 600
2003
Vs (m/s)
 D. Kinematic Interaction.
Embedment Effects
Elsabee and Morray (1977) and Day (1978):
• Evaluated transfer functions for vertically incident,
coherent waves
• Developed simple model
1.2 1.2
,
Translation Rocking
1.0 1.0
Approximation
Halfspace
0.8 0.8
Finite soil layer
rθFIM/u g
uFIM/ug

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2
e/r = 0.5
0.0 0.0
0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6
a0=ωr/Vs a0
 D. Kinematic Interaction.
Embedment Effects
Elsabee and Morray (1977) and Day (1978):
• Evaluated transfer functions for vertically incident,
coherent waves
• Developed simple model
1.2 1.2
,
Translation Rocking
1.0 1.0
Approximation
Halfspace
0.8 0.8
Finite soil layer
rθFIM/u g
uFIM/ug

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2
e/r = 1
0.0 0.0
0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6
a0=ωr/Vs a0
 D. Kinematic Interaction.
Transfer Function to RRS
Veletsos and Prasad (1989):
• Evaluated RRS at 2%
damping for conditions
where transfer function
amplitude (TFA) known
• Result:
– RRS ≈ TFA for T > 0.2 s
– RRS ≈ TFA @ T = 0.2 s for
T < 0.2 s
• Result valid for free-field
Power spectral density of ff motion
spectrum shown to right Source: Veletsos and Prasad (1989)
 D. Kinematic Interaction.
Transfer Function to RRS
Recorded Recorded
0.8
0.4 Filtered Filtered

Acceleration (g)
0.4
Acceleration (g)

0.2
0
0
-0.4
-0.2
-0.8
-0.4 2 4 6 8 10 12
2 4 6 8 10 12 Time (s)
Time (s)

1.2
1.2

Tranfer Function Amplitude, RRS

Tranfer Function Amplitude, RRS

1 1

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6
CAP_fn (Tm = 0.51s) NWH_fn (Tm = 0.70s)
Transfer Function Transfer Function
0.4 0.4
RRS, 2% damping RRS, 2% damping
RRS, 5% RRS, 5%
0.2 RRS, 10% 0.2 RRS, 10%
RRS, 20% RRS, 20%
0 0
0.01 0.1 1 10 0.01 0.1 1 10
Period (s) Period (s)
 Procedure for KI
• Evaluate effective
foundation size, be = a
√ab

• Evaluate embedment
e
depth, e
 Procedure for KI
1
• Evaluate RRS
from base slab 0.9

Foundation/Free-Field RRS
averaging,
0.8
RRSbsa
0.7
Simplified Model
be = 65 ft
0.6 be = 130 ft
be = 200 ft
0.5 be = 330 ft

0.4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Period, T (s)
 Procedure for KI
1.2
• Evaluate RRS C
from 1

Foundation/Free-Field RRS
embedment: 0.8
RRSe D

0.6
Site Classes C and D
• RRS = RRSbsa 0.4
e = 10 ft
e = 20 ft
× RRSe e = 30 ft
0.2

0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
Period, T (s)
 Limitations of KI Procedure
• Neglect KI effects for soft clay sites (NEHRP E)
• Firm rock sites (i.e., NEHRP A and B):
– Neglect embedment effects
– Based slab averaging model conservative (over-
estimates RRS)
• Base slab averaging model not applicable for
– Flexible foundations (non-interconnected)
– Pile-supported foundations with slab-soil gap
 References
Apsel, R.J. and Luco, J.E. (1987). “Impedance functions for foundations embedded in a layered
medium: an integral equation approach,” J. Earthquake Engrg. Struct. Dynamics, 15(2), 213-231.
Day, S.M. (1978). “Seismic response of embedded foundations,” Proc. ASCE Convention, Chicago,
IL, October, Preprint No. 3450.
Dobry, R. and Gazetas, G (1986). “Dynamic response of arbitrarily shaped foundations,” J. Geotech.
Engrg., ASCE, 112(2), 109-135.
Elsabee, F. and Morray, J.P. (1977). “Dynamic behavior of embedded foundations,” Rpt. No. R77-33,
Dept. of Civil Engrg., MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
FEMA-356: Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., 2000.
FEMA-440: Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, June, 2005.
Gazetas, G. (1991). Chapter 15: Foundation Vibrations, Foundation Engineering Handbook, H.-Y.
Fang, ed., 2nd Edition, Chapman and Hall, New York, NY.
Kim, S. and Stewart, J.P. (2003)."Kinematic soil-structure interaction from strong motion recordings,"J.
Geotech.. & Geoenv. Engrg., ASCE, 129 (4), 323-335.
Nikolaou, S., Mylonakis, G., Gazetas, G., and Tazoh, T. (2001). “Kinematic pile bending during
earthquakes: analysis and field measurements,” Geotechnique, 51(5), 425-440.
Veletsos, A.S. and Verbic, B. (1973). “Vibration of viscoelastic foundations,” J. Earthquake Engrg.
Struct. Dynamics, 2(1), 87-102.
Veletsos, A.S., Prasad, A.M., and Wu, W.H. (1997). “Transfer functions for rigid rectangular
foundations,” J. Earthquake Engrg. Struct. Dynamics, 26 (1), 5-17.
Veletsos, A.S. and Prasad, A.M. (1989). “Seismic interaction of structures and soils: stochastic
approach,” J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 115(4), 935-956.