Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Modelling of Soil-Foundation-Structure System
Modelling of Soil-Foundation-Structure System
SYSTEM
1. INTRODUCTION
The behavior of structures based on compliant soils and subjected to dynamic actions depend
to a large extent on the soil and foundation properties. The deformations and stresses in the
supporting soil are induced due to the base shear and moment generated in the vibrating
structure since in reality the structure is not fixed base. The soil deformations further lead to
the modification of the structural response. The dynamic interrelationship where the response
of the soil influences the motion of the structure and the response of the structure influences
the motion of the soil is called soil-structure interaction. In recent times it has gained the
interest of researches and engineers in the field of structural dynamics, soil dynamics wave
mechanics all over the world. For the past several years efforts have been made to develop a
rational procedure to incorporate SSI in the structural design.
Fig.2 Flexible Base Modeled with Structural and Geotechnical Components of the Foundation
Modeled
To consider the inertial interaction inertial loading should be applied to the structure. Inertial
loading depends on the foundation input motion or the base slab motion. When the structure
is assumed to be fixed base the free-field motion acts as the foundation input motion. But the
presence of stiff foundation in soil will cause the foundation input motion (base slab motion)
to deviate from the free-field motion. Kinematic interaction reduces foundation motions
relative to the free-field due to the differences in stiffness between the foundation and
surrounding soil. If we consider a rigid block subjected to horizontal component of free field
motion then we find that due to its axial stiffness it cannot deform incoherently. The rigid
foundations act as a low pass filter by averaging out the high frequency components of the
seismic motion. The two effects that have been identified are the base-slab averaging effect
and the embedment effect. Embedment effect is also associated with the reduction in ground
motion. The effects are very sensitive to the short period structures. The effects arising of the
wave propagation considerations (an independent of the structure) are known as kinematic
interaction effects. An illustration is made in the Fig. 3.
Ab is the area of foundation considered ,b and l , half length and half width of the rectangular
foundation respectively, I bx , I by , I bz moment of inertia of the foundation area with respect to
the longitudinal, lateral and vertical axis.
Method 1
For shallow bearing footings that are rigid with respect to the supporting soil, an uncoupled
spring model will represent the foundation stiffness (Fig. 7). The equivalent spring constants
shall be calculated as specified in the Table 2
Method 2
For shallow bearing foundations that are not rigid with respect to the supporting soils, a finite
element representation of linear or nonlinear foundation behavior using Winkler models shall
be used. Distributed vertical stiffness properties shall be calculated by dividing the total
vertical stiffness by the area. Uniformly distributed rotational stiffness properties shall be
calculated by dividing the total rotational stiffness of the footing by the moment of inertia of
the footing in the direction of loading. Vertical and rotational stiffnesses shall be decoupled
for a Winkler model. It shall be permitted to use the procedure illustrated in Fig.8 to
decouple these stiffnesses.
Method 3
For shallow bearing foundations that are flexible relative to the supporting soil, based on
approved theoretical solutions for beams or plates on elastic supports, the foundation
stiffness shall be permitted to be calculated by a decoupled Winkler model using a unit
subgrade spring coefficient. For flexible foundation systems, the unit subgrade spring
coefficient, ksv , shall be calculated by Eq.1
1.3G
k sv (1)
B(1 )
where,
G = Shear modulus
B = Width of footing
= Poisson’s ratio
The soil spring stiffness at any depth was obtained according to the relation
∆ (3)
In Eq. (4) the limiting soil pressure, pult, was obtained according to the relation
(Fleming 1985)
5 (5)
(6)
(7)
Change of the soil properties during cyclic response may lead to permanent deformations in
the soil layer, and the soil ultimate strength and stiffness decay with each cycle.
∗ (8)
where Hcap and Wcap are the height and width of the pile cap, respectively.
∗ (9)
This expression is similar to Eq. (4) but the distance between the springs is equal to half the
pile diameter. This indicates that the vertical end bearing resistance was modeled equally to
the horizontal spring stiffness, which is located at the bottom of the piles.
.
1.8 (10)
Where η is the pile ratio, and λ is the pile-soil stiffness ratio given by
(11)
(12)
(13)
In Eq. (13) α is significantly smaller than 1 and summation of all α’s along the length of the
pile is nearly 1.00, which indicates that the total stiffness given by these two approaches are
similar and can be compared directly. In addition, the vertical stiffness increases along the
length of the piles in terms of the relation Z/L, which is to take into account the change in the
soil Youngs’s modulus along the length of the piles.
Flexibility reduces the overall stiffness of the structure and increases the natural period of the
system. Considerable change in spectral acceleration with natural period is observed from the
References
1. American Petroleum Institute (API RP2A-WSD: 2000). Recommended practice for planning,
designing and construction fixed offshore platforms-working stress design. 2000, Washington,
D.C.
2. FEMA 356.(2000), Prestandard and Commentry for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, D.C.
3. Fleming, W. G. K., Weltman, A. J., Randolph, M. F., Elson, W. K. (1985), Piling Engineering,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1985.
4. Gazetas, G. (1991), Formulas and Charts for Impedances of Surface and Embedded Foundations,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering., 117, 9: 1363-1381.
5. Pender, M. J., (1978) Aseismic Pile Foundation Design Analysis, Bulletin of the New Zealand
National Society for Earthquake Engineering, 11, 2: 49 - 160.
6. Poulos, H. G. (1971), Behavior of Laterally Loaded Piles: I - Single Piles, Proceedings of the
American Society of Civil Engineers, 97, No. SM5, May 1971: 711-731.
7. Reese, L.C., and Van Impe, W.F. 2001. Single Piles and Pile Groups under Lateral Loading,
Balkema.
8. Silva, Pedro F. Seismic Evaluation of Full-Moment Connection CISS Piles/Foundation Systems.
http://www.pwri.go.jp/eng/ujnr/tc/g/pdf/21/21-bf-7silva.pdf
9. Silva, P. F., and Manzari, M. T., 2008. Nonlinear Pushover Analysis of Bridge Columns
Supported on Full-Moment Connection CISS Piles on Clays, Earthquake Spectra, 24: 751–774.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge that the information give in this lecture notes has
been collected and edited from literature and would not be used for any commercial
purpose but for educating masses on the subject. Most of the material has been collected
from FEMA 356 and Silva and Manzari 2008.