Dynamics of Structure and Foundatio n – A Uniﬁed Approach
2. Applications
© 2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK
Dynamics of Structure and Foundatio n – A Uniﬁed Approach
2. Applications
Indrajit Chowdhury
Petrofac International Ltd Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
Shambhu P. Dasgupta
Department of Civil Engineering Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, India
© 2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK
Also available:
Dynamics of Structure and Foundatio n – A Uniﬁed Approach 1. Fundamentals
Indrajit Chowdhury & Shambhu P. Dasgupta 2009, CRC Press/Balkema
ISBN: 9780415471459 (Hbk) ISBN: 9780203885277 (eBook)
CRC Press/Balkema is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK
Typeset by Vikatan Publishing Solutions (P) Ltd, Chennai, India. Printed and bound in Great Britain by Antony Rowe (a CPI Group company), Chippenham, Wiltshire.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication or the information contained herein may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, by photocopying, recording or otherwise, without written prior permission from the publisher.
Although all care is taken to ensure integrity and the quality of this publication and the information herein, no responsibility is assumed by the publishers nor the author for any damage to the property or persons as a result of operation or use of this publication and/or the information contained herein.
Published by: CRC Press/Balkema P.O. Box 447, 2300 AK Leiden, The Netherlands email: Pub.NL@taylorandfrancis.com www.crcpress.com – www.taylorandfrancis.co.uk – www.balkema.nl
Library of Congress CataloginginPublication Data Applied for
ISBN: 9780415492232 (Hbk) ISBN: 9780203879221 (eBook)
© 2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK
Contents
Preface 
xiii 

1 
Dynamic soil structure interaction 
1 
1.1 Introduction 
1 

1.1.1 The marriage of soil and structure 
1 

1.1.2 What does the interaction mean? 
2 

1.1.3 It is an expensive analysis do we need to do it? 
4 

1.1.4 Different soil models and their coupling to superstructure 
6 

1.2 Mathematical modeling of soil & structure 
6 

1.2.1 Lagrangian formulation for 2D frames or stickmodels 
6 

1.2.2 What happens if the raft is flexible? 
14 

1.3 A generalised model for dynamic soil structure 

interaction 
28 

1.3.1 Dynamic response of a structure with multi degree of freedom considering the underlying soil stiffness 
28 

1.3.2 Extension of the above theory to system with multi degree of freedom 
29 

1.3.3 Estimation of damping ratio for the soil structure system 
30 

1.3.4 Formulation of damping ratio for single degree of freedom 
31 

1.3.5 Extension of the above theory to systems with multidegree freedom 
32 

1.3.6 Some fallacies in coupling of soil and structure 
40 

1.3.7 What makes the structural response attenuate or amplify? 
41 
© 2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK
vi Contents
1.4 
The art of modelling 
42 

1.4.1 Some modelling techniques 
42 

1.4.2 To sum it up 
46 

1.5 
Geotechnical considerations for dynamic soil structure interaction 
46 

1.5.1 
What parameters do I look for in the soil report? 
47 

1.6 
Field tests 
49 

1.6.1 Block vibration test 
49 

1.6.2 Seismic cross hole test 
50 

1.6.3 How do I corelate dynamic shear modulus when I do not have data from the dynamic soil tests? 
51 

1.7 
Theoretical corelation from other soil parameters 
52 

1.7.1 Corelation for sandy and gravelly soil 
52 

1.7.2 Corelation for saturated clay 
58 

1.8 
Estimation of material damping of soil 
61 

1.8.1 Whitman’s formula 
61 

1.8.2 Hardin’ formula 
62 

1.8.3 Ishibashi and Zhang’s formula 
63 

1.9 
All things said and done how do we estimate the strain in soil, specially if the strain is large? 
65 

1.9.1 Estimation of strain in soil for machine foundation 
65 

1.9.2 Estimation of soil strain for earthquake analysis 
70 

1.9.3 What do we do if the soil is layered with varying soil property? 
77 

1.9.4 Checklist of parameters to be looked in the soil report 
79 

1.10 
Epilogue 
80 
2 Analysis and design of machine foundations
83
2.1 Introduction 
83 
2.1.1 Case history #1 
83 
2.1.2 Case history #2 
84 
2.2 Different types of foundations 
85 
2.2.1 Block foundations resting on soil/piles 
85 
2.2.2 How does a block foundation supporting rotating machines differ from a normal foundation? 
86 
© 2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK
Contents vii
2.2.3 Foundation for centrifugal or rotary type of machine: Different theoretical methods for analysis of block foundation 
88 

2.2.4 Analytical methods 
90 

2.2.5 Approximate analysis to decouple equations with nonproportional damping 
99 

2.2.6 Alternative formulation of coupled equation 

of motion for sliding and rocking mode 
105 

2.3 Trick to by pass damping – Magnification factor, the key to the problem 
113 

2.4 Effect of embedment on foundation 
117 

2.4.1 Novak and Beredugo’s model 
119 

2.4.2 Wolf’s model 
119 

2.5 Foundation supported on piles 
119 

2.5.1 
Pile and soil modelled as finite element 
121 
2.5.2 
Piles modelled as beams supported on elastic springs 
123 
2.5.3 
Novak’s (1974) model for equivalent spring stiffness for piles 
124 
2.5.4 
Equivalent pile springs in vertical direction 
125 
2.5.5 
The group effect on the vertical spring and damping value of the piles 
127 
2.5.6 
Effect of pile cap on the spring and damping stiffness 
128 
2.5.7 
Equivalent pile springs and damping in the horizontal direction 
129 
2.5.8 
Equivalent pile springs and damping in rocking motion 
130 
2.5.9 
Group effect for rotational motion 
131 
2.5.10 
Model for dynamic response of pile 
138 
2.5.11 
Dynamic analysis of laterally loaded piles 
162 
2.5.12 
Partially embedded piles under rocking mode 
193 
2.5.13 
Group effect of pile 
201 
2.5.14 
Comparison of results 
203 
2.5.15 
Practical aspects of design of machine foundations 
205 
2.6 Special provisions of IScode 
213 

2.6.1 Recommendations on vibration isolation 
213 

2.6.2 Frequency separation 
213 

2.6.3 Permissible amplitudes 
214 

2.6.4 Permissible stresses 
214 

2.6.5 Concrete and its placing 
214 
© 2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK
viii Contents
2.6.6 Reinforcements 
214 

2.6.7 Cover to concrete 
215 

2.7 
Analysis and design of machine foundation under impact loading 
231 
2.7.1 Introduction 
231 

2.7.2 Mathematical model of a hammer foundation 
238 

2.8 
Design of hammer foundation 
248 
2.8.1 Design criteria for hammer foundation 
248 

2.8.2 Discussion on the IScode method of analysis 
252 

2.8.3 Check list for analysis of hammer foundation 
253 

2.8.4 Other techniques of analysis of Hammer 

foundation 
253 

2.9 
Design of eccentrically loaded hammer foundation 
268 
2.9.1 Mathematical formulation of anvil placed eccentrically on a foundation 
268 

2.9.2 Damped equation of motion with eccentric anvil 
270 

2.10 
Details of design 
271 
2.10.1 Reinforcement detailing 
271 

2.10.2 Construction procedure 
271 

2.11 
Vibration measuring instruments 
272 
2.11.1 Some background on vibration measuring instruments and their application 
272 

2.11.2 Response due to motion of the support 
272 

2.11.3 Vibration pickups 
272 

2.12 
Evaluation of friction damping from energy consideration 
283 
2.13 
Vibration isolation 
284 
2.13.1 Active isolation 
285 

2.13.2 Passive isolation 
287 

2.13.3 Isolation by trench 
288 

2.14 
Machine foundation supported on frames 
289 
2.14.1 Introduction 
289 

2.14.2 Different types of turbines and the generation process 
290 

2.14.3 Layout planning 
292 

2.14.4 Vibration analysis of turbine foundations 
293 

2.15 
Dynamic soilstructure interaction model for vibration analysis of turbine foundation 
305 
2.16 
Computer analysis of turbine foundation based on multi degree of freedom 
312 
2.17 
Analysis of turbine foundation 
319 
© 2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK
Contents ix
2.17.1 The analysis 
319 

2.17.2 Calculation of the eigen values 
320 

2.17.3 So the ground rule is 
321 

2.17.4 Calculation of amplitude 
321 

2.17.5 Calculation of moments, shears and torsion 
321 

2.17.6 Practical aspects of design of Turbine foundation 
322 

2.18 
Design of turbine foundation 
322 
2.18.1 Check list for turbine foundation design 
322 

2.18.2 Spring mounted turbine foundation 
330 
3 Analytical and design concepts for earthquake engineering
389
3.1 Introduction 
389 

3.1.1 Why do earthquakes happen in nature? 
390 

3.1.2 Essential difference between systems subjected to earthquake and vibration from machine 
391 

3.1.3 Some history of major earthquakes around the world 
392 

3.1.4 Intensity 
394 

3.1.5 Effect of earthquake on soilfoundation system 
395 

3.1.6 Liquefaction analysis 
395 

3.2 Earthquake analysis 
412 

3.2.1 Seismic coefficient method 
412 

3.2.2 Response spectrum method 
417 

3.2.3 Dynamic analysis under earthquake loading 
424 

3.2.4 How do we evaluate the earthquake force? 
425 

3.2.5 Earthquake analysis of systems with multi degree of freedom 
431 

3.2.6 Modal combination of forces 
444 

3.3 Time history analysis under earthquake force 
448 

3.3.1 
Earthquake analysis of tall chimneys and stack like structure 
456 
3.4 Analysis of concrete gravity dams 
481 

3.4.1 Earthquake analysis of concrete dam 
481 

3.4.2 A method for dynamic analysis 

of concrete dam 
485 

3.5 Analysis of earth dams and embankments 
519 

3.5.1 
Dynamic earthquake analysis of earth dams 
519 
© 2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK
x Contents
3.5.2 Mononobe’s method for analysis of earth dam 
519 

3.5.3 Gazetas’ method for earth dam analysis 
522 

3.5.4 Makadisi and Seed’s method for analysis of earth dam 
523 

3.5.5 Calculation of seismic force in dam and its stability 
526 

3.6 Analysis of earth retaining structures 
526 

3.6.1 
Earthquake analysis of earth retaining 

structures 
526 

3.6.2 
Mononobe’s method of analysis of retaining wall 
527 
3.6.3 
Seed and Whitman’s method 
530 
3.6.4 
Arango’s method 
530 
3.6.5 
Steedman and Zeng’s method 
532 
3.6.6 
Dynamic analysis of RCC retaining wall 
533 
3.6.7 
Dynamic analysis of cantilever and counterfort retaining wall 
533 
3.6.8 
Some discussions on the above method 
544 
3.6.9 
Extension to the generic case of soil at a slope i behind the wall 
544 
3.6.10 
Dynamic analysis of counterfort retaining wall 
547 
3.6.11 
Soil sloped at an angle i with horizontal 
560 
3.7 Unyielding earth retaining structures 
571 

3.7.1 Earthquake Analysis of rigid walls when the soil does not yield 
571 

3.7.2 Ostadan’s method 
575 

3.8 Earthquake analysis of water tanks 
577 

3.8.1 Analysis of water tanks under earthquake force 
577 

3.8.2 Impulsive time period for non rigid walls 
581 

3.8.3 Sloshing time period of the vibrating fluid 
583 

3.8.4 Calculation of horizontal seismic force for tank resting on ground 
583 

3.8.5 Calculation of base shear for tanks resting on ground 
584 

3.8.6 Calculation of bending moment on the tank wall resting on the ground 
584 

3.8.7 Calculation of sloshing height 
585 
© 2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK
Contents xi
3.9 
Mathematical model for overhead tanks under earthquake 
588 

3.9.1 Earthquake Analysis for overhead tanks 
588 

3.9.2 Hydrodynamic pressure on tank wall and base 
592 

3.9.3 Hydrodynamic pressure for circular tank 
592 

3.9.4 Hydrodynamic pressure for rectangular tank 
593 

3.9.5 Effect of vertical ground acceleration 
593 

3.9.6 Pressure due to inertia of the wall 
593 

3.9.7 Maximum design dynamic pressure 
594 

3.10 
Practical aspects of earthquake engineering 
598 

3.10.1 
Epilogue 
603 

References 
605 
© 2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK
Preface
The monograph entitled “Dynamics of Structure and Foundation – A Uniﬁed Approach” consists of two volumes. While in Volume 1 we dealt with background theories and formulations that constitute the above subject, this second volume deals with application of these theories to various aspects of civil engineering problems con stituting topics related to dynamic soilstructure interaction, machine foundation and earthquake engineering. If we have managed to stir the wrath of the professionals in Volume 1 with mazes of tensors, differential and integral equations, it is our strong conviction that in this present volume we will be able to considerably appease this fraternity for it constitutes of a number of applications that are innovative, easy to apply and solutions to many practical problems that puts an engineer into considerable difﬁculty and uncertainties in a design ofﬁce. We start Volume 2 with the topic of Dynamic Soil Structure Interaction (DSSI). We believe this topic would play a key role in future and more so with the distinct pos sibility of construction of Nuclear power plants (especially in India) globally. A clear concept on this topic would surely be essential for designing such plants. Though we have dealt this topic only in terms of fundamental concepts, yet we feel that we have given sufﬁcient details to eradicate the misnomer from which many engineers suffer that “DSSI is nothing but adding some springs to the boundary of a structure and then doing the analysis through a computer”. The geotechnical aspects that play an extremely important role in selecting the soil spring value, (that are highly inﬂuenced by the strain range) have been dealt in quite detail. We hope that this section will do away with some of the major blunders that we make in DSSI analysis, and appreciate how the results thus obtained become unrealistic and questionable. We sincerely hope that engineers performing DSSI analysis, would start paying sufﬁcient attention to some of the key engineering parameters as furnished in the soil report – that are being habitually ignored in design ofﬁces. Second chapter consists of design and analysis of machine foundations (both block and frame type). In our collective experience as a consultant and academician we have seen signiﬁcant confusion on this topic as to who is responsible for this hapless orphan, structural or geotechnical engineers? While people from classical soil mechanics dis owns it, as it involves the evaluation of eigenvalues and vectors that are far away from
© 2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK
xiv Preface
their traditional failure theories of foundation, structural engineers on the other hand are equally reluctant to shoulder the guardianship for their inherent apathy towards ‘what lies beneath the machine foundation’. As such, a design involving machine foundation throws the most challenging and interesting task in the domain of civil engineering that requires multidiscipline knowledge and should be equally interest ing to an engineer having structural or geotechnical background. The matrix analysis concept that we have introduced herein is quite easy to follow and we hope would bridge the gap that is still prevalent in academics and practice alike. We would be looking forward to have some feedback from hardened professionals who are working in this area, as to how they feel about our representation which we believe is quite novel and has tried to answer a number of problems that often become burning issues on which they have spent signiﬁcant time on clarifying either to their Clients or Project Management Consultants. The last chapter of this volume deals with the most fearful force Mother Nature has created – “Earthquake”. Earthquake engineering as a topic is so vast, complex and diverse (and ever changing) that we concede that it did give us some uncomfortable moments as to what should justiﬁably constitute this chapter? Majority of the books that address this topic are far too focused on buildings and there are hardly any book around, that has addressed other specialized structures like chimneys, dams, retaining walls, water tanks etc (except some very specialized literature). It should be realized that some of these structures are expensive, important and cannot be ignored while building an earthquake resistant infrastructure. Buildings, we concede are the biggest casualties during an earthquake and are directly related to human life but damages to other structures as mentioned above can also create havoc especially in the post earthquake relief scenario. The major focus being still thrust on buildings, we were also quite surprised to ﬁnd that there is still much room for improvement in many of these structures, where technologies which are as old as 60 years are still in use (for instance earthquake response of retaining walls). We tried to improve upon many of them and believe that we have brought about a number of innovative solutions that can be adapted in a design ofﬁce environment and can also be used as a basis for further research. While presenting the topic no demarcation is made between geotechnical and structural earthquake engineering. For, as a seismic specialist our job is to minimize the destruction of property and save human lives. Thus doing a structural design we can perform the most sophisticated analysis and provide the most expensive detailing
and our building still fails due to liquefaction killing people
“no medals for doing
an excellent structural design!”, so if you do something do it in totality and not in isolation and this has been our major endeavour that we have tried to communicate to you through this book.
© 2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK
Indrajit Chowdhury Shambhu P. Dasgupta
Chapter 1
Dynamic soil structure interaction
1.1
INTRODUCTION
This chapter deals with some of the basic concepts of dynamic soilstructure interaction analysis. At the advent of this chapter we expect you to have some background on
• Static soil structure interaction
• Theory of Vibration/structural dynamics
• Basic theory of soil dynamics
Based on the above ^{∗}^{∗} , we build herein the basic concepts of dynamic soil structure interaction, which is slowly and surely gaining its importance in analytical procedure for important structures.
1.1.1
The marriage of soil and structure
As was stated earlier in Chapter 4 (Vol. 1) even twenty years ago struc tures and foundations were dealt in complete isolation where the structural and geotechnical/foundation engineers hardly interacted ^{1} . While the structural engineer was only bothered about the structural configuration of the system in hand he hardly cared to know anything more about soil other than the allowable bearing capacity and its generic nature, provided of course the foundation design is within his scope of work. On the other hand the geotechnical engineer only remained focused on the inherent soil characteristics like (c, φ, N _{c} , N _{q} , N _{γ} , e _{o} , C _{c}_{,} G etc.) and recommending the type of foundation (like isolated footing, raft, pile etc.) or at best sizing and designing the same. The crux of this scenario was that nobody got the overall picture, while in reality under static or dynamic loading the foundation and the structure do behave in tandem.
^{∗}^{∗} For theoretical background on these topics please consider Volume 1. 1 Even today there are companies which has divisions like structural and civil engineering!! Where the responsibility of the structural division is to design the superstructure considering it as fixed base frame, furnish the results (Axial load, Moments and Shear) and the column layout drawing to the civil division who releases the foundation drawing based on this input data.
© 2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK
2
Dynamics of Structure and Foundation: 2. Applications
In chapter 4 (Vol. 1), in the problem Example 1.3.1, we have shown how the soil stiffness can affect the bending moment and shear forces of a bridge girder and ignoring the same how we can arrive at a result which can be in significant variation to the reality. Drawing a similar analogy one can infer that ignoring the soil stiffness in the overall response (and treating it as a fixed base problem) the dynamic response of structure (the natural frequencies, amplitude etc.) can be in significant variation to the reality in certain cases. This aspect came to the attention of engineers while designing the reactor building of nuclear power plant for earthquake. Considering its huge mass and stiffness, the fundamental time period for the fixed base structure came around 0.15 sec while considering the soil effect the time period increased to 0.5 second giving a completely different response than the fixed base case. With the above understanding – that underlying soil signiﬁcantly affects the response of a structure, research was focused on this topic way back in 1970, and under the pioneering effort of academicians and engineers, the two diverging domain of technol ogy was brought under a nuptial bond of “Dynamic soil structure interaction”, where soil and structure where married off to a uniﬁed integrated domain. To our knowl edge the first signiﬁcant structure where the dynamic effect of soil was considered in the analysis in Industry in India was the 500 MW turbine foundations for Singrauli where the underlying soil was modeled as a frequency independent linear spring and the whole system was analyzed in SAP IV (Ghosh et al. 1984).
1.1.2
What does the interaction mean?
We have seen earlier that considering the soil as a deformable elastic medium the stiffness of soil gets coupled to the stiffness of the structure and changes it elastic property. Based on this the characteristic response of the system also gets modified. This we can consider as the local effect of soil. On the other hand consider a case of a structure resting on a deep layer of soft soil underlain by rock. It will be observed that its response is completely differ ent than the same system when it is located on soft soil which is of much shallow depth or resting directly on rock ^{2} . Moreover the nature of foundation, (isolated pad, raft, pile), if the foundation is resting or embedded in soil, layering of soil, type of structure etc. has profound inﬂuence on the over all dynamic response of the system. We had shown for static soilstructure interaction (Chapter 4 (Vol. 1)) case that the soil can be modeled as equivalent springs or as finite elements and are coupled with the superstructure. Thus for a simple beam resting on an elastic support can be modeled as shown in Figure 1.1.1 and an equivalent mathematical model for the same is shown in Figure 1.1.2. Based on matrix analysis of structure the element stiffness for this element may be written as
2 The reason for these effects we will discuss subsequently.
© 2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK
Dynamic soil structure interaction
3
NodeNode iii
NodeNode jj
Figure 1.1.2 Mathematical model of the equivalent beam element.
[K beam ] = ^{E}^{I}^{z}
L
^{3}
⎡
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎣
12
6L
0
−12
6L
6L
4L ^{2}
0
6L
2L ^{2}
0 0
0
0
IxL
2
2Iz(1 + ν)
0
0
−IxL ^{2}
2Iz(1 + ν)
−12
−6L
^{0}
12
6L
^{0}
6L
2L ^{2}
^{0}
6L
4L ^{2}
^{0}
and the displacement vector is given by
{δ} = <δ _{1} θ _{1} θ _{2} δ _{2} θ _{3} θ _{4} > ^{T}
0
0
−IxL ^{2}
2Iz(1 + ν) _{0}
0
0
IxL ^{2}
2Iz(1 + ν)
⎤
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎦
(1.1.1)
(1.1.2)
When the soil springs are added to the nodes, the overall stiffness becomes
[K
⎡ ⎢ 12 + ^{L} ^{3} ^{K}^{i}^{i}
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
EIz
6L
0
−12
6L
0
⎢
beam ^{]} ^{=} ^{E}^{I}^{z} ⎢
⎢
L
^{3}
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎣
© 2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK
6L
4L ^{2}
0
6L
2L ^{2}
0
0
0
IxL ^{2}
2Iz(1 + ν)
0
0
−IxL
2
2Iz(1 + ν)
−12
−6L
^{0}
12 + ^{L} ^{3} ^{K}^{j}^{j} EIz
6L
^{0}
6L
2L ^{2}
^{0}
6L
4L ^{2}
^{0}
0
0
−IxL ^{2}
2Iz(1 + ν)
0
0
IxL ^{2}
2Iz(1 + ν)
⎤
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎦
(1.1.3)
4
Dynamics of Structure and Foundation: 2. Applications
where, [K _{b}_{e}_{a}_{m} ] = combined stiffness matrix for the beam and the spring; K _{i}_{i} = K _{j}_{j} = spring values of soil at node i and node j of the beam respectively. The above is a very convenient way of representing the elastic interaction behavior of the underlying soil and can be very easily adapted in a commercially available finite element or structural analysis package.
1.1.3
It is an expensive analysis do we need to do it?
This is a common query comes to the mind of an engineer before starting of an analysis. Based on this fact an engineer do become apprehensive if his/her analysis would suffer from a cost over run or whether he/she will be able to finish the design within the allocated time frame. If he is convinced that soil structure interaction do takes place and the structure is
a crucial one ^{3} our recommendation would be ‘its worth the effort rather than to be sorry later’. The additional engineering cost incurred is trivial compared to the risk and cost involved in case of a damage under an earthquake or a machine induced load. Now the first question is for what soil condition does dynamic soil structure interaction takes place? Veletsos and Meek (1974) suggest that chances of dynamic soil structure interaction can be significant for the expression
V s
fh
≤ 20
(1.1.4)
where V _{s} = shear wave velocity of the soil; f = fundamental frequency of the fixed base structure; h = height of the structure. Let us now examine what does Equation (1.1.4) signifies? Knowing the time period T = 1/f , the above expression can be rewritten as
V s T
h
≤ 20
(1.1.5)
For a normal framed building considering the fixed base time period as (0.1n), where
n is the number of stories and thus, we have
V s n
h
≤ 200
(1.1.6)
For a normal building the average ratio of h/n (height : storey ratio) is about 3 to 3.3 meter. Thus considering h/n = 3, we have
V _{s} ≤ 600 m/sec.
(1.1.7)
3 Like Power House, Turbine foundations, Nuclear reactor Building, Main process piper rack, distillation columns, bridges, high rise building catering to large number of people etc.
© 2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK
Dynamic soil structure interaction
5
From which we conclude that for ordinary framed structure, when shear wave velocity is less or equal to 600 meter/sec we can expect dynamic soil structure interaction between the frame and the soil. Incidentally, V _{s} = 600 m/sec is the shear wave velocity which is associated with rock. Thus it can be concluded that for all other type of soil, framed structures will behave differently than a fixed base problemunless and until it rests on rock. For Cantilever structures like tall vessels, chimneys etc of uniform cross section fundamental time period T is given by
T
= 1.779 ^{m}^{h} _{E}_{I}
4
(1.1.8)
where, m = mass per unit length of the system; h = height of the structure; EI = flexural stiffness of the system. Substituting the above value in Equation (1.1.5) we have
V s T
h
≤
20;
or ^{V} ^{s} ^{1}^{.}^{7}^{7}^{9} ^{m}^{h} ^{4}
EI
h
≤ 20;
or, V _{s} ≤ ^{1}^{1}^{.}^{2}^{4}
h
^{} EI
m
(1.1.9)
Considering, I = Ar ^{2} and m = ρ · A, where A = area of cross section; r = radius of gyration; ρ = Mass density of the material, we have
(1.1.10)
100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
Slenderness Ratio
Shear Wave velocity steel chimney
Shear Wave velocity concrete chimney
Figure 1.1.3 Chart to assess soilstructure interaction for steel and concrete chimney.
© 2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK
6
Dynamics of Structure and Foundation: 2. Applications
For steel structure the above can be taken as, V _{s} ≤ 57580/λ where λ = h/r, the slenderness ratio of the structure. For concrete structure we have
_{V} s _{≤} 123970
λ
(1.1.11)
Based on the above expressions one can very easily infer if soil structure interaction is significant or not. The chart in Figure 1.1.3 shows limiting shear wave velocity below which soil structure interaction could be significant for a steel and concrete chimney.
1.1.4 Different soil models and their coupling to superstructure
The various types of soil model that are used for comprehensive dynamic analysis are as follows:
1 Equivalent soil springs connected to foundations modeled as beams, plates, shell etc.,
2 Finite element models (mostly used in 2D problems),
3 Mixed Finite element and Boundary element a concept which is slowly gaining popularity.
Of all the options, spring elements connected to superstructure still remain the most popular model in design practices due to its simplicity and economy in terms of analysis especially when the superstructure is modeled in 3dimensions. It is only in exceptional or very important cases that the Finite elements and Bound ary elements are put in to use and that too is mostly restricted to 2 dimensional cases.
1.2 MATHEMATICAL MODELING OF SOIL & STRUCTURE
We present hereafter some techniques that are commonly adopted for coupling the soil to a structural system.
1.2.1 Lagrangian formulation for 2D frames or stickmodels
This formulation is one of the most powerful tool to couple the stiffness of soil to the superstructurespecially when one is using a stick model or a 2D model. For the frame shown hereafter we formulate the coupled stiffness and mass matrix for the soil structure system which can be effectively used for dynamic analysis. In the system shown in Figure 1.2.1, m _{f} , J _{θ} = mass and mass moment of inertia of the foundation; m _{1} , J _{1} = mass and mass moment of inertia of the 1st story; m _{2} , J _{2} = mass and mass moment of inertia of the top story; K _{x} , K _{θ} = translational and rotational stiffness of the soil; and k _{1} , k _{2} = stiffness of the columns.
© 2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK
Dynamic soil structure interaction
7
Figure 1.2.1 2D Mathematical model for soil structure interaction.
The equation for kinetic energy of the system may be written as
T
=
1
_{2} m _{f} u˙ ^{2} +
1
2 ^{J} ^{θ}
˙
θ
^{2} + ^{1}
_{2} m _{1} (u˙ + h _{1} θ + y˙ _{1} ) ^{2} +
˙
+
^{1}
_{2} m _{2} (u˙ + (h _{1} + h _{2} ) θ + y˙ _{2} ) ^{2} +
˙
1
2 ^{J} ^{2}
˙
θ ^{2}
1
2 ^{J} ^{1}
˙
θ ^{2}
(1.2.1)
U
=
1 K _{x} u ^{2} + ^{1} _{2} K _{θ} θ ^{2} + ^{1} _{2} k _{1} y ^{2} +
_{2}
1
^{1} _{2} k _{2} (y _{2} − y _{1} ) ^{2}
Considering the expression ^{4} , equation as
∂T
dt ∂q˙ _{i}
d
^{} _{+}
∂U
∂q _{i}
^{=}
⎡
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎣
m _{f} + m _{1} + m _{2}
m 1
m
m
h 1
1
_{2}
m _{1} h _{1} + m _{2} H
^{} J + m 1 h ^{2}
1
+
m
m _{2} H
1 h 1
m _{2} H ^{2}
m
m _{1}
_{1}
h _{1}
m 1
0
+
⎡ 00
⎢ 0
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎣
K _{x}
0
0
0
K _{θ}
0
0
k _{1} + k _{2}
−k _{2}
0
0
−k _{2}
k _{2}
⎤
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎦
⎧
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
u ⎫
⎪
⎪
⎪
θ
⎪
⎨
⎬
⎪ y 1 ⎪
y 2
⎭
⎩
⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
= 0
(1.2.2)
0, we have the free vibration
m
_{2}
m _{2} H
0
m _{2}
⎤
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎦
⎧
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎩
u¨
¨
θ
⎫
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎬
y¨ _{1} ⎪
y¨ _{2}
⎭
⎪
⎪
⎪
(1.2.3)
4 Refer Chapter 2 (Vol. 2) for further application of this formulation where we have derived a 2D soil structure interaction model for a Turbine framed foundation.
© 2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK
8
Dynamics of Structure and Foundation: 2. Applications
Figure 1.2.2 Typical finite element mesh with soil springs, for a ﬂexible raft.
where
^{} J = J _{θ} + J _{1} + J _{2} sum of all mass moment of inertia;
H = h _{1} + h _{2} = the total height of the structure.
Above formulation can very well be used in cases the foundation is significantly rigid and can be modeled as rigid lumped mass having negligible internal deformation ^{5} . However for cases where the foundation is more flexible one usually resorts to finite element modeling of the base raft which is connected to the soil springs as shown in Figure 1.2.2. For the problem as shown above irrespective of the raft being modeled as a beam or a plate the soil stiffness is directly added to the diagonal element K _{i}_{i} of the global stiffness matrix to arrive at the over all stiffness matrix of the system. Before we proceed further we explain the above assembly by a conceptual problem hereafter.
Example 1.2.1
For the beam as shown in Figure 1.2.3, compute the global stiffness matrix when supported on a spring at its mid span. Take EI as the flexural stiffness of the beam. The spring support has stiffness @ K kN/m.
Solution:
For a beam having two degrees of freedom per node as shown in Figure 1.2.4, the element stiffness matrix is expressed as follows.
5 A classic example is a turbine frame foundation resting on a bottom raft whose thickness is usually greater than 2.0 meter.
© 2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK
Dynamic soil structure interaction
9
Figure 1.2.3 Spring supported beam.
2
^{1}
^{4}
3
Figure 1.2.4 Two degrees of freedom of a beam element.
The element matrix for such case is given by
K ij =
⎡
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎣
1
12EI
L
^{3}
6EI
L
^{2}
−12EI
2
6EI
34
−12EI
6EI
L
^{2}
4EI
L
−6EI
L
^{3}
−6EI
L
^{2}
12EI
L
^{2}
2EI
L
−6EI
L ^{3}
6EI
L ^{2}
L ^{2}
2EI
L
L ^{3}
−6EI
L ^{2}
L ^{2}
4EI
L
⎤
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎦
Assembling the element matrix for the two beams we have
[K] _{g} =
⎡
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎣
12EI
L
^{3}
6EI
L
^{2}
−12EI
L
^{3}
6EI
L
^{2}
0
0
6EI
L
^{2}
−12EI
4EI
L
−6EI
−6EI
L
^{2}
2EI
L
0
−12EI
0
6EI
12EI _{+} 12EI
L
^{3}
L
^{3}
−6EI
_{+} 6EI
L
^{2}
L
^{3}
L
^{2}
L
^{2}
L
^{3}
L
^{2}
6EI
L
^{2}
_{0}
_{0}
0
2EI
L
_{0}
_{0}
0
−6EI
_{+} 6EI
L
^{2}
L
^{2}
−12EI
L
^{3}
6EI
L
^{2}
0
4EI _{+} 4EI
L
L
−6EI
L
^{2}
2EI
L
0
−6EI
2EI
L
^{2}
12EI
L
^{3}
−6EI
L
^{2}
0
L
−6EI
L
^{2}
4EI
L
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
© 2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK
00
00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
00
⎤
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎦
10
Dynamics of Structure and Foundation: 2. Applications
Example 1.2.2
Figure 1.2.5 Bridge girder across abutments.
© 2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK
Dynamic soil structure interaction
11
Figure 1.2.6 Idealisation of the bridge girder ignoring soil effect.
which is resting on the soil bed of the river. The ﬂexural stiffness of the girder is EI = 100,000 kN · m ^{2} . Area of girder is 5.0 m ^{2} . The dynamic shear modulus of soil is G = 2500 kN/m ^{2} . The bridge pier foundation has plan dimension of 6 m × 6 m. Determine the natural frequencies of vibration of the girder consid ering with and without soil effect. Unit weight of concrete = 25 kN/m ^{3} . Mass moment of inertia per meter run = 30 kN · sec ^{2} · m.
Solution:
The bridge girder can be mathematically represented by a continuous beam as shown in Figure 1.2.6. Here node 2 and 4 are at the center of beam. Thus, for beam element 1, 2, 3, and 4, we have element stiffness matrix as
⎡
⎢
⎢
12
6L
[K ij ] = ^{E}^{I}
⎢
L ^{3} ⎣ −12
6L
6L
4L ^{2}
−6L
2L ^{2}
−12
−6L
12
−6L
⎤
⎥
⎥
⎥
−6L ⎦
4L ^{2}
2L ^{2}
6L
The unconstrained combined stiffness matrix as
[K _{i}_{j} ]
⎡
⎢
⎢ 6L
⎢ ⎢ ⎢ −12
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
12
6L
4L ^{2}
−6L
2L ^{2}
0
−12
−6L
24
0
−12
6L
2L
0
8L
^{2}
^{2}
−6L
2L ^{2}
000000
000000
0000
0000
−12
−6L
24
0
−12
6L
2L
0
8L
^{2}
^{2}
−6L
2L ^{2}
6L
0
0
_{=} EI
⎢
L ^{3} ⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎣
−12
−6L
24
0
−12
6L
2L ^{2}
0
8L ^{2}
−6L
2L ^{2}
0
0
−12
−6L
12
−6L
0
0
6L
2L ^{2}
−6L
4L ^{2}
06L
0
0
0000
0 0
000000
0 0
06L
0
0
06L
Substituting the values we have
⎤
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎦
© 2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK
12
Dynamics of Structure and Foundation: 2. Applications
[K] =
76800 96000 −76800
96000 160000 −96000
96000000000
80000000000
−76800 −96000 
153600 
0 
−76800 
960000000 

96000 
80000 
0 
320000 −96000 
800000000 

0 
0 −76800 −96000 
153600 
0 −76800 −96000 
0 
0 

0 
0 
96000 
80000 
0 
320000 −96000 
80000 
0 
0 
0000 −76800 −96000 153600 0 −76800 96000
0 0 0 0 96000 80000 0 320000 −96000 80000
76800 96000
80000 −96000 160000
000000
000000 −76800 −96000
96000
Now imposing the boundary condition that vertical displacement are zero at 1, 3, 5, ^{6} we have
[K] =
160000 
−96000 
80000 
0 
0 
0 
0 
−96000 
153600 
0 
96000 
0 
0 
0 
80000 
0 
320000 
80000 
0 
0 
0 
0 
96000 
80000 
320000 
−96000 
80000 
0 
0 
00 
−96000 
153600 
0 
96000 

0 
0 
0 
80000 
0 
320000 
80000 
0 
0 
0 
0 
96000 
80000 
160000 
Lumped mass at each node is given by → M _{i}_{i} = 25 × 5 × 2.5/9.81 = 31.85 kN · sec ^{2} /m. Mass moment of inertia at each node is given by → J _{i}_{i} = 30 × 1.25 = 37.5. Thus combined mass matrix is given by
[M] =
⎡
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎣
37.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31.85
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
65
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31.85
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
37.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31.85
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
65
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
37.5
⎤
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎦
6 We assume that since the bridge is supported on hard rock at ends, displacement at node 1 and 5 are zero.
© 2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK
Dynamic soil structure interaction
13
B
Figure 1.2.7 Idealisation of the bridge girder considering soil effect.
Considering the equation
[K] − [M] ω ^{2} = 0 we have
MODE 
12345 
6 
7 

Eigen value 
692 
1328 
2684 
4897 
7448 
7787 
11722 
Natural 
26.30 
36.44 
51.80 
69.97 
86.59926 
88.24996 
108.26855 
frequency 

(rad/sec) 
Considering the effect of soil we can construct the model as in Figure 1.2.7.
where r _{0} = ^{L}^{x}^{B} , Here L = B = 6.0 m
Here r _{0} = 3.38 m and for G = 2500 kN/m ^{2} and ν = 0.3 K _{z} = 48285.71 kN/m.
Now imposing the boundary condition that vertical amplitude at node 1 and 5 are zero (node 3 is not zero) we have
[K] =
160000 −96000 
80000 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

−96000 
153600 
0 
Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.
Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.
Отменить можно в любой момент.