Interactions Sol Structure Statique

Seismic Site Response Analysis
Soil-Structure Interaction:
Basic Concepts
Steve Kramer
Steve Kramer
UniversityUniversity
of Washington
of Washington
EERI Technical
Seminar Impact of Soil-Structure Interaction on Response of Structures
Series Seminar 2: Practical Applications to Deep Foundations
Outline
Soil-structure interaction basics
Kinematic interaction
Inertial interaction
Analysis of soil-structure interaction
Effects of soil-structure interaction
Soil-pile-structure interaction basics
Deep foundations
Single pile/shaft behavior
Analysis of single piles
Forms of loading
Pile groups
Dynamic response
Methods of analysis
Conclusions
Soil-Structure Interaction
How does the presence of soil affect the response of a structure?
Soil
Rock Rock
Does the structure founded on rock respond differently than

when founded on soil?
How does the presence of a structure affect the response of the

soil?
Foundation
input motion
Free-field motion
Soil
Rock
How does the motion at the base of the structure differ

from the free-field motion?
In reality, the response of the soil affects the response of
the structure, and the response of the structure affects the
response of the soil
Two components:
Kinematic interaction Inertial interaction
Presence of stiff Inertial response of
foundation elements on or structure causes base shear
in soil cause foundation and moments which cause
motions to deviate from displacements of foundation
free-field motions. relative to free-field.
Kinematic SSI has three primary causes:

Base slab averaging – results from stiffness of foundation
Embedment – variation of ground motion with depth
Wave scattering – scattering off corners and edges
Base slab averaging – stiffness of

foundation prevents it from matching free-
field deformations. Exists even for
massless foundation.
Outline
Deep foundations
Forms of loading
Pile groups
Dynamic response
Methods of analysis
Conclusions

Flexible pile
Deformation matches free-field
deformation
Surface motion = free-field motion
No rotation at surface

Rigid pile
Deformation different than free-
field deformation – can translate
and rotate
Surface motion = free-field motion
Rotation and displacement at
surface

Embedment – reduction of ground motion with depth
Ground
motion
amplitude
decreases
with depth

Vertically
propagating
shear waves
can cause
rocking as
well as
translation

Wave scattering
reduces
amplitude of high
frequency
components
Outline
Deep foundations
Forms of loading
Pile groups
Dynamic response
Methods of analysis
Conclusions
Inertial SSI results from compliance of soil

Soil is not rigid – will deform due to loads from structure
Translation in
three directions

Rotation about
three axes
 Fx   k11 k12 k13 k14 k15 k16  u x 
 F  k k 22 k 23 k 24 k 25 k 26  u y 
 y   21
 Fz   k31 k32 k33 k34 k35 k36  u z  6 x 6 stiffness matrix to
    describe foundation
 M x  k 41 k 42 k 43 k 44 k 45 k 46   x 
compliance
M y   k51 k52 k53 k54 k55 k56   y 
    
 M z  k 61 k 62 k 63 k 64 k 65 k 66   z 

Displacement in
two directions
Rocking about
one axis
 Fx   k11 0 k13   u x  3 x 3 stiffness matrix to

  0  
 y 
F  k 22 0  u y  describe foundation
M   k 31 0 k 33   z  compliance
 z

Deformations resulting from structural forces will propagate
away from structure
Energy “removed”
from structure –
radiation damping
Outline
Deep foundations
Forms of loading
Pile groups
Dynamic response
Methods of analysis
Conclusions

Two approaches
Direct approach – model soil and structure together
Requires detailed
model of structure
and soil in one
computer program
Can handle nonlinear
soil and structural
response

Two approaches
Direct approach – model soil and structure together
Substructure approach – model separately and combine
Kinematic SSI
Inertial SSI
Can use different codes for

soil and structural response
Superposition requires
linearity
Analysis of kinematic soil-structure interaction

Analysis of kinematic soil-structure interaction
Influenced by stiffness
FIM and geometry of soil and
uFIM foundation
Model foundation as Compute foundation

massless but with input motions, uFIM
actual stiffness and FIM
Impedance function – foundation stiffness and damping

Qv
M
Qh kh
k
c ch
cv kv
Kv = kv + icvw
6 x 6 matrix of complex impedance coefficients

3 translational coefficients
3 rotational coefficients
Cross-coupling (off-diagonal) coefficients
Analysis of structure on compliant base subjected to FIM
Based on principle of
superposition – assumed
linearity
Frequently performed
using equivalent linear
approach
kh
k uFIM
c ch
cv kv
FIM
Outline
Deep foundations
Forms of loading
Pile groups
Dynamic response
Methods of analysis
Conclusions

Consider simplified model
Base of structure
can translate
and rotate
SDOF system on compliant base

Horizontal translation
Rocking

Displacement
Displacement
Consider simplified model due to rocking
due to
distortion of
structure
Displacement
of ground Displacement
due to
horizontal
translation
SDOF system on compliant base

Horizontal translation
Rocking

Consider simplified model
~
T k kh 2
 1 
T ku k
~ ~ 
  0  ~
(T / T )3
Structure on
circular footing of Period lengthening is negligible
radius, r for a soft structure on stiff soil –
it’s effects increase with
increasing structure/soil
~
T/T relative stiffness.
SSI effects are small for flexible
structure on stiff site, but
significant for stiff structure on
soft soil.
Stiff soil h/(VsT) Soft soil

Flexible structure Stiff structure
Radiation damping is negligible

for a soft structure on stiff soil –
it’s effects increase with
increasing structure/soil
relative stiffness.
Relative importance of radiation
damping decreases with
increasing h/r (increasing
rocking response).
SSI effects are small for flexible
Stiff soil h/(VsT) Soft soilstructure on stiff site, but
Flexible structure significant for stiff structure on
Stiff structure
soft soil.

SSI can decrease
Consider simplified model structural
deformations, loads
With increasing
foundation flexibility,
Period lengthens
Damping increases
~
T k kh 2
 1 
T ku k
~ ~ 
  0  ~
(T / T )3

SSI can increase total
Consider simplified model displacements
With increasing
foundation flexibility,
Period lengthens
Damping increases
~
T k kh 2
 1 
T ku k
~ ~ 
  0  ~
(T / T )3
Soil-Structure Interaction Basics
Summary
SSI is not significant for cases of flexible structures on stiff
soil deposits
SSI can be quite significant for stiff structures founded on
soft soils
Fundamental period of soil-structure system is longer than
that of fixed-base structure
Effective damping of soil-structure system is higher than
damping of structure alone
Total displacements can be increased by SSI – can be
important for closely-spaced tall structures
Neglecting SSI is equivalent to assuming the structure is
supported on rigid materials
Outline
Deep foundations
Forms of loading
Pile groups
Dynamic response
Methods of analysis
Conclusions
Deep Foundations
Why?
Poor soil conditions
Soft, weak,
compressible
Deep Foundations
Why?
Soft, weak,
compressible
Deep Foundations
Why?
Soft, weak,
compressible
Deep Foundations
Why?
Poor soil
conditions
Soft, weak,
compressible
Deep Foundations
Pile Foundations
All deep foundation photos courtesy of Geo-Photo

album (Ross Boulanger and Mike Duncan)
Deep Foundations
Pile Foundations
Note excavation
outside of forms
Deep Foundations
Pile Foundations
Note excavation
outside of forms
Deep Foundations
Drilled Shaft Foundations

Deep Foundations

Deep Foundations

Deep Foundations

Outline
Deep foundations
Forms of loading
Pile groups
Dynamic response
Methods of analysis
Conclusions
Deep Foundations
Single pile/shaft behavior – vertical loading
Applied load
High in clays (adhesion)

Low in sands (friction)
Skin resistance
Low in clays (cohesive)

High in sands (frictional)
Tip resistance
Deep Foundations
Applied load
High in clays
Low in sands
Skin resistance
Possible
momentary
suction
Zero* in clays
Zero in sands
Tip resistance
Deep Foundations
Applied load
How do we
measure vertical
Skin resistance
load resistance?
Tip resistance
Deep Foundations
Pile load test

Deep Foundations
Applied load, Q
Qult
Q
Strain
gauges Skin resistance
Tip resistance Tip Skin

Deep Foundations

Pile head load
Q Applied load, Q
displacement
Qult
Q
Qult
Strain Nonlinear soil

gauges Skinmeans
response resistance
pile
d
stiffness is not
constant
Tip resistance Tip Skin

Deep Foundations
Single pile/shaft behavior – lateral loading
Applied load No lateral load
Horizontal plane
Lateral load
Deep Foundations
Applied load No lateral load
Horizontal plane
p
Lateral load
y
Deep Foundations
Strength
Applied load p
pult
Stiffness
Horizontal plane
p
Lateral load
y
Deep Foundations
At large depths,
p
pult
Pile moves through soil

Soil appears to flow around pile
p
Soil movement in horizontal plane Lateral load
Solutions for pult available
y
Deep Foundations
At shallow depths,
p
pult
p
Lateral load
Wedge of soil is pushed up and out

Vertical and horizontal components of movement
y
Deep Foundations
At shallow depths,
Same resistance
in both directions

Deep Foundations
At shallow depths,
Symmetric loading
leads to generally
symmetric response

Deep Foundations
At shallow depths,
Much greater
resistance to loading in
upslope than
downslope direction

Deep Foundations
At shallow depths,
Symmetric loading
leads to asymmetric
response

Deep Foundations
Determination of p-y behavior – lateral load test
Applied load
Strain
gauge
pairs
Deep Foundations
Determination of p-y behavior – lateral load test
lateral soil shear bending

resistance force moment
d 2 M ( z) d2y
p M ( z )  EI 2
dz 2 dz
Deep Foundations
Determination of p-y behavior

d 2 M ( z) d2y
p M ( z )  EI 2
dz 2 dz
Deep Foundations
Determination of p-y behavior

Nonlinear soil
response means
lateral stiffness is
not constant
p
d 2 M ( z) d2y
p M ( z )  EI 2
dz 2 dz
Deep Foundations
static cyclic
sand
stiff clay
Rate-dependence has been
observed in some fine-grained
soils (increases with increasing
plasticity)
May provide ~ 10% increase in
soft clay stiffness/strength for 10-fold
increase in strain rate
Implies frequency-dependence
in dynamic stiffness
Outline
Deep foundations
Forms of loading
Pile groups
Dynamic response
Methods of analysis
Conclusions
Deep Foundations
Analysis of deep foundation response – lateral loading, single foundation
4y 2y 2y Dynamic beam on nonlinear

EI  Q  m p Winkler foundation
z 4
z 2
t 2
 y  2 y  y ff 
 P y, , ,y ff , , G , ru ,  
 t t 2
t 
Deep Foundations
Dynamic beam on nonlinear

FF Winkler foundation
NF
NF FF
NF FF
NF FF
Free-field
NF FF displacement
NF FF
NF FF
NF FF
Deep Foundations
Near-field element p
Nonlinear, inelastic
behavior close to pile
y
mnf (1,1) m (1,2) D

nf
mnf (2,1) mnf (2,2)

.y
Deep Foundations
Far-field element
Frequency-dependent
radiation damping
Deep Foundations
Far-field element
Frequency-dependent
radiation damping
y
k k k ff
1 2 3
m
ff
c c c
1 2 3
Deep Foundations
Far-field element
Frequency-dependent
radiation damping
y
k 8
k k ff
1 2 3
7
Imaginary part
6
Stiffness 5 c2 c3
m 4
ff
3
c c c Real part
1 2 2 3
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Dimensionless Frequency
Deep Foundations
Analysis of deep foundation response – vertical loading, single foundation
Discretize pile, represent nonlinear skin resistance using t-z curves

t-z
Tip resistance
mobilized at larger
Skin resistance z
displacements
generally mobilized Q
quickly
What about tip

resistance?
z
Q-z
Outline
Deep foundations
Forms of loading
Pile groups
Dynamic response
Methods of analysis
Conclusions
Deep Foundations
All forms of loading
p-y
t-z
Q-z
Deep Foundations
Vertical loading
Deep Foundations
Vertical loading
Deep Foundations
Vertical loading
Adhesion/frictional resistance
of soil and interface strength
mobilized along length of pile
Tip resistance mobilized in
bulb beneath base of
foundation
Vertical stiffness
influenced by entire
soil profile
Deep Foundations
Lateral loading at pile head
Deep Foundations
Lateral loading at pile head
Resistance (stiffness) dominated

by near-surface soils
Deeper soils don’t

contribute much to lateral
resistance (stiffness)
Single Pile Stiffness – Static Loading
KMM
KMH
Es KHH KHM
1
1
d Es *
Homogeneous soil modulus:

Rocking and
Es d ( Ep / Es* )
0.21
KHH swaying are
coupled
( Ep / Es* )
0.75
KMM 0.15 Es d 3
Es d ( Ep / Es )
0.50
KMH = KHM - 0.22 2 *
KMM
KMH
Es KHH KHM
1
1
d Es *
“Gibson soil” modulus:

0.6 Es d ( Ep / Es )
0.35
KHH *
( Ep / Es* )
0.80
KMM 0.15 Es d 3
Es d ( Ep / Es )
0.60
KMH = KHM - 0.17 2 *
KMM
KMH
Es KHH KHM
1
1
d Es *
Parabolic soil modulus:

0.8 Es d ( Ep / Es )
0.28
KHH *
( Ep / Es* )
0.77
KMM 0.15 Es d 3
Es d ( Ep / Es )
0.53
KMH = KHM - 0.24 2 *
KMM
KMH
Es KHH KHM
1
1
Layered nonlinear soil:
Use p-y analysis

Deep Foundations
Lateral loading from ground shaking – uniform soil profile
Very flexible pile
High curvatures, low

bending moments
Flexural demands can
be as high at depth as
near the surface
Pile head motion is
same as free-field
ground surface motion
Deep Foundations
Stiff pile
Low curvatures, high

bending moments
be as high at depth as
near the surface
Pile head motion is
different than free-field
ground surface motion
– reflects distribution of
motions along length of
pile
Deep Foundations
High free-field curvature

Soft at boundary
Stiff
be much higher at depth
than near surface
Deep Foundations
Stiff
High free-field curvature

at both boundaries
Soft Flexural demands can
be high at both locations
Stiff
Deep Foundations - Lateral loading summary
Inertial Kinematic Lateral

spreading
Crust
Loading from Loading from
superstructure cyclic soil
deformation
Loading from
permanent soil
deformation
Deep Foundations
All forms of loading
p-y
t-z
Q-z
Deep Foundations
Lateral loading
P
y
Liquefiable soils
d
p-y curves are “softened”
as pore pressures increase
– shape remains the same
Actual p-y behavior of

liquefied soil is more
complicated – stiffness and
shape both change
Outline
Deep foundations
Forms of loading
Pile groups
Dynamic response
Methods of analysis
Conclusions
Deep Foundations
Pile Groups
Deep Foundations
Pile Groups
Increased
Decreased
axial load –
axial load –
potential for
potential for
bearing
pullout
failure
Lateral loading of pile

groups mobilizes axial
resistance (t-z, Q-z springs)
as well as lateral resistance
(p-y springs)
Deep Foundations
Pile Groups
Axial resistance of piles

generally sufficient to
greatly reduce pile cap
rotation
Deep Foundations
Pile Groups

rotation
Deep Foundations
Pile Groups

rotation
Deep Foundations
Pile Groups

rotation
Deep Foundations
Pile Groups
3 x 3 group
Deep Foundations
Pile Groups
4 x 4 group
Deep Foundations
Pile Groups
Zones of influence overlap with each
other and with other piles
Not all piles produce same resistance
Zones of
Pile-soil-pile interaction can affect group influence
capacity and stiffness
Piles interact at spacings

less than 7-8 diameters
Deep Foundations
Pile Groups
Single pile
Row 4
Row 3
Row 2
Row 1
Row 1
Row 2
Leading row takes

Rows 3-5
greatest load
Trailing rows take less
load
Group effects handled
Trailingby p-multipliers
Leading
rows row
Multiple cycles can
diminish row effects
Deep Foundations
Pile Groups
Leading row takes

greatest load
Trailing rows take less
load
Group effects handled
by p-multipliers
Mokwa, 1999 Multiple cycles can
diminish row effects
Deep Foundations
Pile Groups
Single pile has greater

bending moment
Leading row piles have
largest M in group
Trailing row moments
stabilize after Row 3
Rollins et al., 2005
Deep Foundations
Pile Groups – Embedded pile cap
Passive resistance
on pile cap
Pile cap can provide

substantial contribution
to lateral resistance
(stiffness)
Effectiveness can be
affected by compaction
of backfill soils
Deep Foundations
Pile Groups – High overturning moment
M
High axial demands

placed on outer rows of
M
piles – upward and
downward
Can lead to yielding of
 these piles – plastic
deformation of soils
Deep Foundations
Pile Groups – High overturning moment
M
Dissipated High axial demands

energy placed on outer rows of
M
piles – upward and
downward
Can lead to yielding of
 these piles – plastic
deformation of soils
Outline
Deep foundations
Forms of loading
Pile groups
Dynamic response
Methods of analysis
Conclusions
Single Pile Stiffness – Dynamic Loading
Under harmonic loading, pile will respond (deform) harmonically

Both amplitude and phase of response will vary with frequency
Can model resistance (pile impedance) as having two parts
Elastic resistance – K(w) In phase
Viscous resistance – C(w) 90o out of phase
Can model dynamic stiffness using stiffness multiplier
K(w) = k(w)Kstatic
Deep Foundations – Dynamic Amplification Factors
αo = ωd / VS
Frequency dependence for

single piles not that strong
Not uncommon to assume
k(w) ~ 1
Outline
Deep foundations
Forms of loading
Pile groups
Dynamic response
Methods of analysis
Conclusions
Methods of Analysis
Direct Analysis
Model entire soil-pile-structure system
Compute response in single analysis
Direct Analysis
Attach p-y
curves to all
Attach t-z curves
p-y nodes
to all nodes
t-z
Attach Q-z
curves to pile
tip nodes Q-z
Direct Analysis
Apply depth-varying Coupled analysis

free-field motions to free of soil-pile-
ends of p-y, t-z, and Q-z structure system
elements
Compute resulting
response p-y
t-z
Q-z
Substructure Modeling
Cut piles at mudline and replace with springs/dashpots

Apply kinematic pile motions at mudline to free ends of
horizontal, vertical, and rotational springs
Compute resulting response
Substructure Modeling
Cut column at pile cap and replace with springs/dashpots

Apply kinematic pile cap motions to horizontal, vertical,
and rotational springs at centroid of pile cap
Substructure modeling can provide exact
Compute resulting response
solution for linear system
Can iterate to approximate nonlinear
effects using equivalent linearization
No direct way to handle nonlinear systems
Outline
Deep foundations
Forms of loading
Pile groups
Dynamic response
Methods of analysis
Conclusions
Conclusions
Physical behavior of deep foundations is complicated
For buildings …
… kinematic interaction can affect foundation input motions
… inertial interaction effects are more significant
For bridges, wharves, etc.
… kinematic interaction effects can be very significant
… kinematic effects due to permanent deformations can be critical
… inertial interaction effects can still be important
For inertial interaction, estimation of stiffness becomes important
… single piles – resistance mostly flexural
… pile groups – resistance provided by flexural and axial components
… pile cap stiffness can be significant – backfill characteristics important
Approximations to actual behavior frequently required – requires
communication between structural and geotechnical engineers
Thank you
References
Gazetas, G. (), Chapter 15 in Foundation Engineering Handbook, Winterkorn and Fang,

Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Lam, I.P. and Law, H. (2000). “Soil-structure interaction of bridges for seimsic analysis,”
Technical Report MCEER-00-0008, 119 pp.
Mokwa, R.L. (1999). “Investigation of the Resistance of Pile Caps to Lateral Loading,”
Ph.D. Dissertation, Virginia Tech.
Rollins, K.M., Lane, J.D., Gerber, T. M. (2005). "Measured and Computed Lateral
Response of a Pile Group in Sand," J. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engrg., ASCE
Vol. 131, No. 1, p. 103-114.
Stewart, J.P. (2000). “Variations between foundation-level and free-field earthquake ground
motions” Earthquake Spectra, 16 (2), 511-532.
Stewart, J.P., Fenves, G.L. and Seed, R.B. (1999). “Seismic soil-structure interaction in
buildings. II: Analytical aspects,” J. Geotech. & Geoenv. Engrg., ASCE, 125 (1), 26-37.
Stewart, J.P., Seed, R.B., and Fenves, G.L. (1999). “Seismic soil-structure interaction in
buildings. II: Empirical findings,” J. Geotech. & Geoenv. Engrg., ASCE, 125 (1), 38-48.

Interactions Sol Structure Statique

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Interactions Sol Structure Statique

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Seismic Site Response Analysis

How does the presence of soil affect the response of a structure?

Does the structure founded on rock respond differently than

How does the presence of a structure affect the response of the

How does the motion at the base of the structure differ

Kinematic SSI has three primary causes:

Base slab averaging – stiffness of

Kinematic SSI has three primary causes:

Kinematic SSI has three primary causes:

Kinematic SSI has three primary causes:

Kinematic SSI has three primary causes:

Kinematic SSI has three primary causes:

Inertial SSI results from compliance of soil

Inertial SSI results from compliance of soil

Inertial SSI results from compliance of soil

 Fx   k11 0 k13   u x  3 x 3 stiffness matrix to

Inertial SSI results from compliance of soil

Analysis of soil-structure interaction

Analysis of soil-structure interaction

Can use different codes for

Analysis of kinematic soil-structure interaction

Analysis of kinematic soil-structure interaction

Model foundation as Compute foundation

Impedance function – foundation stiffness and damping

6 x 6 matrix of complex impedance coefficients

Analysis of structure on compliant base subjected to FIM

Effects of soil-structure interaction

SDOF system on compliant base

Effects of soil-structure interaction

SDOF system on compliant base

Effects of soil-structure interaction

Stiff soil h/(VsT) Soft soil

Radiation damping is negligible

Effects of soil-structure interaction

Effects of soil-structure interaction

All deep foundation photos courtesy of Geo-Photo

Drilled Shaft Foundations

Drilled Shaft Foundations

Drilled Shaft Foundations

Drilled Shaft Foundations

Single pile/shaft behavior – vertical loading

High in clays (adhesion)

Low in clays (cohesive)

Single pile/shaft behavior – vertical loading

Single pile/shaft behavior – vertical loading

Pile load test

Single pile/shaft behavior – vertical loading

Tip resistance Tip Skin

Single pile/shaft behavior – vertical loading

Strain Nonlinear soil

Tip resistance Tip Skin

Single pile/shaft behavior – lateral loading

Applied load No lateral load

Single pile/shaft behavior – lateral loading

Applied load No lateral load

Single pile/shaft behavior – lateral loading

Single pile/shaft behavior – lateral loading

Pile moves through soil

Single pile/shaft behavior – lateral loading

Wedge of soil is pushed up and out

Single pile/shaft behavior – lateral loading

Wedge of soil is pushed up and out