Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 621

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

of Civil Engineering Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, India © 2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London,

© 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: 978-0-415-47145-9 (Hbk) ISBN: 978-0-203-88527-7 (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 e-mail: Pub.NL@taylorandfrancis.com www.crcpress.com www.taylorandfrancis.co.uk www.balkema.nl

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Applied for

ISBN: 978-0-415-49223-2 (Hbk) ISBN: 978-0-203-87922-1 (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 stick-models

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 multi-degree 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 co-relate dynamic shear modulus when I do not have data from the dynamic soil tests?

51

1.7

Theoretical co-relation from other soil parameters

52

1.7.1 Co-relation for sandy and gravelly soil

52

1.7.2 Co-relation 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 de-couple equations with non-proportional 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 IS-code

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 IS-code 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 pick-ups

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 soil-structure 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 soil-foundation 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 soil-structure 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 eigen-values 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 multi-discipline 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 soil-structure 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 geo-technical/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 soil-structure 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

Soil Soil Spring Spring K K Soil Spring Soil Spring K j i i K
Soil Soil Spring Spring K K
Soil Spring
Soil Spring K j
i i
K j
Figure 1.1.1 Equivalent beam element connected to soil springs.
2
4
1
3
1
2

Figure 1.1.2 Mathematical model of the equivalent beam element.

[K beam ] = EIz

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} = 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 Kii

EIz

6L

0

12

6L

0

beam ] = EIz

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 Kjj 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 beam ] = combined stiffness matrix for the beam and the spring; K ii = K jj = 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 problem-unless 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 mh EI

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 1.779 mh 4

EI

h

20;

or, V s 11.24

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

V s ≤ 11.24r E h ρ Shear Wave Velocity for Soil-Structure interaction for Chimneys
V s ≤ 11.24r E
h
ρ
Shear Wave Velocity for Soil-Structure interaction for
Chimneys
1400.00
1200.00
1000.00
800.00
600.00
400.00
200.00
0.00
Shear Wave
velocity(m/sec)

(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 soil-structure 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 57580where 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 3-dimensions. 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 stick-models

This formulation is one of the most powerful tool to couple the stiffness of soil to the superstructure-specially 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

y 2 m 2 J 2 k 2 y 1 h 2 m 1 ,
y 2
m 2 J 2
k 2
y 1
h 2
m 1 , J 1
k 1
h 1
K
K m f ,J
x

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

8 Dynamics of Structure and Foundation: 2. Applications Figure 1.2.2 Typical finite element mesh with soil

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 ii 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

L L K
L
L
K

Figure 1.2.3 Spring supported beam.

2

9 L L K Figure 1.2.3 Spring supported beam. 2 1 4 3 Figure 1.2.4 Two

1

4

9 L L K Figure 1.2.3 Spring supported beam. 2 1 4 3 Figure 1.2.4 Two

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

12 EI

12EI

L

3

6 EI

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

As Left hand support is fixed hence we have to eliminate row and column 1
As Left hand support is fixed hence we have to eliminate row and column 1
and 2.
Similarly, as right hand support is hinged we have to eliminate row and column
5 from the above when we have
24EI
6EI
0
L 3
L 2
8EI
2EI
[K] g =
0
L
with appropriate boundary conditions.
L
6EI
2EI
4EI
L 2
L
L
To use the spring support, the spring is now directly added to the diagonal
element of the global matrix.
Thus the combined stiffness matrix is given by
24EI
6EI
+ Ks
0
L 3
L
2
8EI
2EI
[K ] g =
0
L
L
6EI
2EI
4EI
L 2
L L
The above is the normal practice adapted in global assemblage of soil spring
in a finite element assembly.
We further elaborate the phenomenon with a suitable practical numerical
example.

Example 1.2.2

Shown in Figure 1.2.5 is a bridge girder across a river is resting at points
Shown in Figure 1.2.5 is a bridge girder across a river is resting at points A and B
on rock abutments at ends, and resting on a pier at center of the girder (point C)
A 5.0 m
C 5.0 m
B
Water Level
a pier at center of the girder (point C) A 5.0 m C 5.0 m B

Figure 1.2.5 Bridge girder across abutments.

© 2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK

Dynamic soil structure interaction

11

1 4 1 2 3 3 2 4 5 A C B
1
4
1
2
3
3
2
4
5
A
C
B

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 ] = EI

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 ij ]

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 ii = 25 × 5 × 2.5/9.81 = 31.85 kN · sec 2 /m. Mass moment of inertia at each node is given by J ii = 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

1 3 5 2 4 A C K z
1
3
5
2
4
A
C
K
z

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 = LxB , 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