Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7
Computers and Geotechnics 33 (2006) 86–92 www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo Material damping vs. radiation damping in
Computers and Geotechnics 33 (2006) 86–92 www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo Material damping vs. radiation damping in

Computers and Geotechnics 33 (2006) 86–92

Computers and Geotechnics 33 (2006) 86–92 www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo Material damping vs. radiation damping in

www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo

Material damping vs. radiation damping in soil–structure interaction analysis

Ricardo Daniel Ambrosini *

National University of Cuyo, CONICET, Los Franceses 1537, 5600 San Rafael, Mendoza, Argentina

Received 18 August 2005; received in revised form 10 March 2006; accepted 16 March 2006 Available online 2 May 2006

Abstract

The main objective of this paper is to contribute to a quantification of the effect of soil damping on the most important design vari- ables in the seismic response of building structures with prismatic rectangular foundations. A soil–structure interaction model was used for this purpose. The physical model of the structure is based on a general beam formulation. A lumped-parameter model was adopted to represent the soil and the interaction mechanisms. The seismic load was incorporated by ground acceleration records of many earth- quakes. Finally, using the Correspondence Principle, the hysteretic and Voigt damping was incorporated into the soil model. Using the implemented models, a numerical study was carried out. The results obtained lead to an indirect assessment of the importance of energy dissipation due to soil material damping compared with the dissipation due to radiation damping. 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Soil–structure interaction; Radiation damping; Soil damping; Seismic analysis; Lumped-parameter model; Structural dynamics

1. Introduction

Seismic analysis of buildings and other engineering structures is often based on the assumption that the foun- dation corresponds to a rigid semi-space, which is subjected to a horizontal, unidirectional acceleration. Such a model constitutes an adequate representation of the physical situ- ation in case of average size structures founded on sound rock. Under such conditions, it has been verified that the free field motion at the rock surface, i.e., the motion that would occur without the building, is barely influenced by its presence. The hypothesis looses its validity when the structure is founded on soil deposits, since the motion at the soil surface, without the building, may be significantly altered by the presence of the structure. The latter, in turn, has its dynamic characteristics, namely the vibration modes and frequencies modified by the flexibility of the supports. Thus, there is a flux of energy from the soil to the structure,

* Tel.: +54 2627 420211; fax: +54 261 4380120. E-mail address: dambrosini@uncu.edu.ar .

0266-352X/$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2006.03.001

and then back from the structure into the soil, in a process that is known in seismic engineering as soil–structure inter- action (SSI). Procedures to take into account soil–structure interac- tion in the seismic analysis of buildings were reviewed, among others, by Dutta and Roy [1] and Antes and Spyr- akos [2] . Many papers following the so-called impedance functions approach may be mentioned, significant ones being those by Wong and Luco [3] , Wong et al. [4] and Crouse et al. [5] . Numerous contributions found in the lit- erature use the lumped-parameter models: Richart et al. [6] , Veletsos and Wei [7] and Wolf and Somaini [8] . Many authors follow the direct method, e.g. Viladkar et al. [9] . On the other hand, the substructure approach and the BEM are used by Hayashi and Takahashi [10] . Moreover, Yazdchi et al. [11] employed the coupled finite-element– boundary-element technique (FE–BE). The similarity- based methods were developed by Wolf and Song [12] , a simple and fast evaluation method of SSI effects of a par- tially embedded structure was developed by Takewaki et al. [13] and the coupled finite–infinite element method was used by Khalili et al. [14] and Yerli et al. [15] . The

R.D. Ambrosini / Computers and Geotechnics 33 (2006) 86–92

87

discrete element technique is used, among others, by Sel- vadurai and Sepehr [16] for the analysis of ice–structure interaction. In general, most of the papers of SSI are based on the assumption that the soil is a perfectly elastic medium that dissipates energy only by radiation of waves toward infin- ity. Then, the main objective of this paper is to contribute to a quantification of the effect of the material damping of soil on the most important design variables in seismic prob- lems, such as total base shear, base overturning moment and top displacements. The problem of soil material damping has been ana- lysed, among others, by Wolf and Somaini [8] , Meek and Wolf [17] , Sienkiewicz [18] and Lutes and Sarkani [19] . In the specialised literature, there is no agreement in relation to the importance of the material damping. For example, Richart et al. [6] say that the geometrical damping is the principal factor in the attenuation of R waves. This crite- rion is commonly adopted in engineering applications because the work is based on the assumption that the soil is a perfectly elastic medium and the material damping is neglected. On the other hand, Sienkiewicz [18] states that the energy dissipation by material damping may be of the same order of magnitude as the geometrical damping by wave radiation. Moreover, according to Wolf [20] , in case of shallow layers of soil, the radiation damping can be drastically reduced and material damping is the primary source of energy dissipation in the medium. de Barros and Luco [21] studied the effects of material damping on the impedance functions and scattering coefficients for a semi-circular foundation on a uniform half-space. Signifi- cant effect has been observed in the stiffness coefficients at high frequencies and in the damping coefficients at low frequencies, but the effect of damping on the scattering coefficients is small. In this paper, the results obtained lead to an indirect assessment of the importance of energy dissipation due to soil material damping compared with the dissipation due to radiation damping, and it can be stated that the material damping of soil is an important parameter and must be included in the analysis of soil structure interaction, espe- cially to determine the maximum top displacements.

2. Description of the models

At this point, the structure and soil models used in the analysis, will be briefly described. Basically, these models were presented by Ambrosini [22] and more details can be found in Ambrosini et al. [23] .

2.1. Structure model

The physical model of the structure, presented by Ambrosini et al. [24] , is based on a general formulation of beams based on Vlasov’s theory of thin-walled beams, which was modified to include the effects of shear flexibility and rotatory inertia in the stress resultants, as well as var-

iable cross-sectional properties. In addition, a linear visco- elastic constitutive law was incorporated. A seismic load- ing, introduced by a ground acceleration record, consti- tutes the external load. The elements mentioned above lead to a system with three, fourth-order partial differential equations with three unknowns. Using the Fourier transform, an equivalent sys- tem in the frequency domain, with 12 first-order partial dif- ferential equations having 12 unknowns is formed. The scheme described above is known in the literature as ‘state variables approach’. Six geometric and six static unknowns are selected as components of the state vector v viz., the dis- placements n and g , the bending rotations / x and / y , the normal shear stress resultants Q x and Q y , the bending moments M y and M x , the torsional rotation, h and its spa- tial derivative, h 0 , the total torsional moment, M T and the bimoment, B

v ð z; x Þ¼f g ; / y ; Q y ; M x ; n ; / x ; Q x ; M y ; h ; h 0 ; M T ; B g T ð 1 Þ

The system is:

o v

o

ð 2 Þ

ð 3 Þ

in which A is the system matrix and q , the external load vector. In order to facilitate the numerical solution, the real and imaginary parts of the functions are separated, obtain- ing a final system of 24 first-order partial differential equa- tions with 24 unknowns.

z q ð z; x Þ¼f 0 ; 0 ; q x ; 0 ; 0 ; 0 ; q y ; 0 ; 0 ; 0 ; m A ; 0 g T

¼ Av þ q

2.2. Soil model

On basis of the review of literature, and in view of the main objective of this work, a lumped-parameter model, based indirectly on homogeneous, isotropic and elastic halfspace theory, was adopted to represent the soil and the interaction mechanisms. The model, presented by Wolf and Somaini [8] , has been formulated for the rectangular foundations embedded in the halfspace and it can represent the coupling between horizontal and flexural vibration modes. It has been formed by a set of masses, spring and dampers, combined adequately with the purpose of repre- senting the ‘exact’ solution to a greater range of frequen- cies. The model is illustrated in Fig. 1 , for horizontal and rocking or flexural vibration modes. It is important point out that, for an embedded foundation, a non-negligible dynamic-stiffness coefficient which couples the horizontal and rocking degrees of freedom referred to the centre 0 of the basemat (see Fig. 1 ) arises. To take this effect into account, the discrete model corresponding to the horizon- tal degree of freedom is connected eccentrically to point 0 and the vertical bar connecting the horizontal spring and dashpot to point 0 is rigid. The vertical and torsional degrees of freedom are uncoupled and consequently are independent. For these modes, the fundamental lumped- parameter model presented by Wolf and Somaini [8] could be used.

88

R.D. Ambrosini / Computers and Geotechnics 33 (2006) 86–92

Fig. 1. Soil model.
Fig. 1. Soil model.

The dimensionless coefficients of masses c 0 , c 1 , and of dampers l 0 , l 1 , are functions of the physical properties of the soil (shear modulus G s , density q s and Poisson’s ratio m s ) and of the foundation dimensions. These coefficients have been introduced as:

M

0 ¼ b 2

2

c

s

K c 0

ð4a Þ

M

1 ¼ b 2

c 2

s

K c

1

ð 4b

Þ

C 0 ¼ b

c s

C 1 ¼ b

c s

in which b is half of the width of the foundation and K rep- resents the static-stiffness coefficient. Applying curve-fitting techniques over a range of frequency, the coefficients c 0 , c 1 , l 0 and l 1 have been determined for a specific component of the motion and it can be found in [8] . The shear wave velocity has been defined as:

K

l

0

K

l

1

ð4c

ð 4d

Þ

Þ

c s ¼

s

ffiffiffiffiffi

G

s

q s

ð5 Þ

There are coefficients for each degree of freedom of the foundation and in Fig. 1 , only those corresponding to hor- izontal and rocking vibrations have been presented. The dimensionless coefficients c 0 , c 1 , l 0 and l 1 are given by Wolf and Somaini [8] to all DOF. The dimensionless fre- quency, a 0 is defined as:

a 0 ¼ x b

ð6 Þ

c s

2.3. Input motion

The effective seismic motion (ESM) was obtained, start- ing with the free-field motion, by an approximate analytical solution developed by Harada et al. [25] and used, among

others,

n 0 G ; g G 0 ; / xG and / y G are:

by

0

Ganev

0

et

al.

[26] .

The

ESMs

(a) For horizontal components

n

0

G

n

G

¼ g 0 ¼

G

g

G

(

sin kd

kd

0 : 63

0 6 kd 6 p = 2

kd > p = 2

ð 7 Þ

in which n G and g G are the free-field ground motions, d is the depth of embedment ( Fig. 2 ) and the coefficient, k is evaluated as

k ¼ x

8 Þ

c s

ð

(b) For rotational components

/

0

xG a

n

G

¼

/

0

yG a

g

¼

G

8

>

>

>

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

<

> >

>

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

:

0 : 4 d ð 1 cos kd Þ

a

ð 0 : 405 0 : 05 d = a Þ

ð 1 cos kd Þ

0 : 4 d = a

0 : 405 0 : 05 d = a

0

6

d = a

6 1

 

0 6 kd

6 p = 2

 

d = a

> 1

0

6

d = a

6 1

 

kd > p = 2

 

d = a

> 1

ð 9 Þ

in which a is the radius of the foundation. As the soil model, proposed by Wolf and Somaini [8] , was developed for rectangular foundations of dimensions 2 b · 2 l, the equivalent radius proposed by Meek and Wolf [17] for rocking vibration has been used:

a ¼ r eq ¼

r

4

3

bl

p

ð b 2 þ l 2 Þ

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

8

Then, the components of load vector (3) are:

qF T ð n 0 G þ

q y ¼ qF T ð g 0 G þ

q x ¼

z

/

0

xG Þ

0

z

/ yx G Þ

h

m A ¼ qF T a y ð n G 0 þ z / x G Þ a x ð g G 0 þ z /

0

0

y G Þ

i

ð

10 Þ

11a

ð 11b

ð

Þ

Þ

ð 11c Þ

d
d

Soil deposit

Fig. 2. Flexible foundation model.

R.D. Ambrosini / Computers and Geotechnics 33 (2006) 86–92

89

in which q denotes the mass density of the beam material, a x and a y are the coordinates of the shear centre and F T is the cross-sectional area.

2.4. Solution method

The system (2) may be integrated using standard numer- ical procedures, such as the fourth-order Runge–Kutta method, the predictor–corrector algorithm or other approaches. In order to solve the two-point boundary value problem encountered, the latter must be transformed into an initial value. To incorporate the interaction model, described in Sec- tion 2.2 , in the analysis, the boundary conditions, which to a fixed end, were:

ð12 Þ

n ¼ g ¼ / x ¼ / y ¼ h ¼ h 0 ¼ 0

It must be replaced by the motion equations of the soil model, except the condition, h 0 = 0.

3. Soil damping

In this paper, the second important source of energy dis- sipation, soil material damping, has been introduced by applying the correspondence principle which states that the damped solution can be obtained from the elastic one by replacing the elastic constants with the corresponding complex ones, multiplying by 1 + 2i l s , in which l s is the soil damping ratio and i = p 1. The essential concept is the direct mathematical correspondence between the gov- erning equations for the Fourier-transformed linear visco- elastic problem and the original small strain elasticity problem with the same boundary conditions. A detailed treatise on the correspondence principle is given by Chris- tensen [27] . In the following, only the development and results obtained for hysteretic damping are shown, although sim- ilar procedure could be used for Voigt or viscous damping. Then, using the correspondence principle, the shear modulus of elasticity of the soil is replaced by:

ð13 Þ

G s ! G s ð1 þ 2i l s Þ

For the hysteretic damping, G s and l s are frequency- independent. The damping ratio is related to the angle of mobilised internal friction for the soil, d , by [17] :

l s ¼ 0 : 5 tan d

Since the maximum upper limit of d is the angle of repose of sand slopes, around 35 , tan d can never exceed about 0.7, which implies that the upper limit of the damp- ing ratio is around 0.35. Neglecting the terms, l 2 in relation to 1, the dimension- less frequency coefficient becomes:

a l ¼

ð14 Þ

s

p ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi a 0 ð 1 l s i Þ a l2 a 2 ð 1 2 l s i Þ

1 þ 2 l s i

0

0

a

0

ð15 Þ

0

Using Eq. (13) , the equilibrium equations of the model presented in Fig. 1 , in the ZX plane, are:

(a) Horizontal vibration

Q x ¼ K hx

2

1 a l

0 0hx

l a c

s

0

0hx

þ i a

þ

K hx f kx

1 l a c

s

0

0hx

F x

þ i a

0

0

c

0hx

þ

2

l

s

a

0

n

c

0hx

F x

þ

2

l

s

a

0

/ x

In which F x = f cx / f kx

(b) Rocking vibration

M y ¼ K hx f kx

þ

K ry

8

>

<

>

:

0

B

@

1

1 l a c

s

0

0

hx

F x

þ ia

0

c

0

hx

F x

þ

2l

s

a

0

n

1

l 1 ry a 2

0

1 þ l 2

1ry a 0 2

2

1ry

c

a 2

0 l 0 ry l s a 0 l 1 ry

1 ry

l 1 ry a 0 2

c

1 þ l 2

1ry a 0 2

2

1ry

c

2

1 þ l 2

c

1ry a 0 2

2

1ry

1

C

A l s a 0 c 0 ry þ i a 0 4

2

6

l

1 ry

l 1 ry a 0 2

c

1 ry

1 þ l 2

1ry a 0 2

c

2

1

ry

þ c 0 ry þ 2l s

a

0

2l s

l 1 ry a 0 2

a

0

1 þ l 2

1ry a 0 2

2

1ry

c

0

B

@ 1

1

1 þ l 2

1ry a 0 2

c

2

1

ry

1

C

A

3 9

>

5

;

>

=

7

/ x

(c) Torsional vibration

ð 16 Þ

ð

17Þ

M T ¼ K t

8

>

<

>

:

1

l 1 t a 2

0

1

þ l 2

1 t a 0 2

t

2

c

1

l s a 0

l

1 t

l 1 t a 0 2

c

1 t

1 þ l 2

1 t a 0 2

t

2

c

1

0

B

@ 1

2

1 þ l 2

1 t a 0 2

t

2

c

1

1

C

A

2

6

þi a 0 4

l

1 t

l 1 t a 0 2

þ 2 l s 2 l s

a

0

a

0

l 1 t a 0 2

c

1 t

1

þ l 2

1 t a 0 2

t

2

c

1

1 þ l 2

1 t a 0 2

t

2

c

1

0

B

@ 1

1

1 þ l 2

1 t a 0 2

t

2

c

1

1

C

A

3 9

>

7 5

;

>

=

h

ð 18Þ

The equations in the ZY plane are similar. Eqs. (16)– (18) can be replaced by the following equations, which are similar to the undamped equations:

Q x ¼ K hx 1 a 2 hx þ i a 0 c l n þ K hx kx þ i a 0 c l

0

l

l

0

0

hx

f

l

l

0hx f cx

/ x

M y ¼ K hx

l

kx þ i a 0 c 0 hx f

f

l

cx

2

6 1 l 1ry a 2

n þ K ry 4

0

1 þ l 2

1ry a 0 2

c

2

1

ry

a 2 l l

0 0 ry

þ

0

B

ia 0 @

l

1ry

l 1 ry a 0 2

c

1 ry

1 þ l 2

1 ry a 0 2

2

1ry

c

1

C

3

7

þ c l A 5/ x

0ry

2

6

M T ¼ K t 4

0

B

1 l 1 t a 2 a 2 0t þ i a 0 @

0

1 þ l 2

1t a 0 2

c

2

1

t

0

l

l

l

1 t

l 1 t a 0 2

c

1t

1 þ l 2

1 t a 0 2

t

2

c

1

1

C

3

7

þ c l A 5 h

0

t

ð 19a Þ

ð 19bÞ

ð 19cÞ

90

R.D. Ambrosini / Computers and Geotechnics 33 (2006) 86–92

Comparing Eqs. (16)–(18) and (19) it leads to:

c 0h l ¼ c 0h þ 2 l s

c 0 h l ¼ c 0 h þ 2 l s

a

0

l

l 0h ¼ l 0h þ c 0h l s

a

0

2

6

c l 0r ¼ c 0r þ 2 l s 4 1 l 1r a 2

a

0

0

1 þ l 2

1 r a 0 2

r

2

c

1

0

B

@ 1

1

1 þ l 2

1 r a 0 2

r

2

c

1

1

C

A

3

7

5

l

l 0r ¼ l 0r þ l s

0

a

2

6

4

c 0r þ l 1r

1 r

l 1r a 0 2

c

1 þ l 2

1 r a 0 2

r

2

c

1

0

B

@ 1

2

1 þ l 2

1 r a 0 2

r

2

c

1

0t ¼ 2 l s

c l

a

0

2

6

4 1 l 1t a 2 1 þ l 2

0

1 t a 0 2

t

2

c

1

0

B

@ 1

1

1 þ l 2

1 t a 0 2

t

2

c

1

3

C

A 5

7

1

l

2

6

4

l

0t ¼ l s

0

l

1t

l 1t a 0 2

a

c

1t

1 þ l 2

1 t a 0 2

t

2

c

1

0

B

@ 1

2

1 þ l 2

1 t a 0 2

t

2

c

1

1

C

A

3

7

5

l

f

k

¼ f k a 0 c 0 h f c l s

l

f ¼

c

a 0 f c c 0h þ 2 f k l s

a 0 c 0h þ 2 l s

1

C

A 5

3

7

ð

ð

20a Þ

20b Þ

ð

20c Þ

ð 20d Þ

ð 20e Þ

ð 20f Þ

ð 20g Þ

ð

20h Þ

In the lumped-parameter models, these modified coeffi- cients are mechanically equivalent to augment each original spring by a dashpot and each original dashpot by a mass attached to it, in parallel, by pulleys [17] . The hysteretic damping presents the important advan- tage of being independent of the excitation frequency and dependent of the strain magnitude, which is realistic because it matches with the experimental results. However, it presents a theoretical problem that, as Crandall [28] dem- onstrated, the response begins before the excitation. This so-called non-causal behaviour is obviously impossible and confirms that the augmenting dashpots and pulley masses, inversely proportional to frequency (see Eq. (20) ), do not exist in reality. In spite of this, the results are correct because, as Meek and Wolf [17] demonstrated, the spring and damping coefficients of the non-causal linear-hysteretic system turn out to match those of a causal non-linear fric- tional system, averaged over one cycle of response.

4. Numerical analysis and results

The numerical analysis was performed using the pro- gram DAYSSI (dynamic analysis of soil-structure interac-

tion, Ambrosini [22] ) that was developed incorporating the models described above. With the purpose of represent-

ing many real situations, a set of three structures, defined in Table 1 with the average plan shown in Fig. 3 , and three

ground acceleration records, defined in Table 2 , will be used. The remaining input data used in the analysis are pre- sented in Table 3 .

15.24 6.096 4.572 6.096 0.305 1.524
15.24
6.096
4.572
6.096 0.305
1.524
a) CENTRAL CORE BUILDING 30.225 Wall width 0.40 m 4.55 8.20 9.40 8.20 4.55 34.90
a) CENTRAL CORE BUILDING
30.225
Wall width
0.40 m
4.55
8.20
9.40
8.20
4.55
34.90

b) TORRES DEL MIRAMAR - FIRST FLOOR

14.00

6.70 6.70 14.70 6.70 6.70 6.00 6.00 6.00 7.00 0.20
6.70 6.70
14.70
6.70 6.70
6.00
6.00
6.00
7.00
0.20

c) CORE AND WALLS BUILDING

Fig. 3. Plan view of the structures.

Table 1

Table 2 Ground acceleration records used

 

Structures used

 

Ground

Earthquake

Record

D t a (s) Duration a (s)

 

Building

Description

H a (m)

T 1 b (s)

Reference

acceleration

 

B1

Central core building Torres del Miramar Core and walls building

57.2

0.60

[29]

A1

Caucete 1977

San Juan Vin˜ a del Mar

0.04

10

B2

55.9

1.03

[30]

A2

Chile 1985

0.017

35

B3

48.0

0.87

[31]

S20W

a Total height of the building.

 

A3

Loma Prieta 1989 Santa Cruz

0.02

20

b Fundamental period determined by DAYSSI.

a Used in the analysis.

 

R.D. Ambrosini / Computers and Geotechnics 33 (2006) 86–92

 

91

Table 3 Input data used in the analysis

 

Building

Structure properties

 

Foundation properties

 

Soil properties

 

Cross-sectional area (m 2 )

Shear centre

Mass density (kg/m 3 )

 

Dimensions (m)

Depth of

Shear modulus

Mass density (kg/m 3 )

Poisson

coordinates (m)

 

embedment (m)

 

(MPa)

modulus

B1

6.5

5.99, 0.0

2400

15.24 · 15.24 22.96 · 22.96 14.0 · 41.7

3.0

35

1600

0.3

B2

24.0

0.0,

0.0

2400

6.0

60

1600

0.3

B3

18.12

0.0, 3.0

2400

3.0

50

1600

0.3

Table 4

 

Results obtained

 

Alternative

 

Fixed base

SSI l s = 0

 

SSI l s = 0.25

 

Q mb (MN)

M mb (MN m)

g mt (cm)

Q mb (MN)

M mb (MN m)

g mt (cm)

 

Q mb (MN)

M mt (MN m)

g mt (cm)

B1A1

G s = 35 G s = 60 G s = 50

2.495

34.5

2.6

1.827

33.1

4.3

1.732

24.0

2.6

B2A2

35.390

1261.9

22.8

21.120

954.5

23.2

17.406

848.8

19.9

B3A3

38.209

800.1

9.7

24.036

443.1

11.2

22.398

296.9

7.1

In connection with the soil damping ratio, besides the limiting value given in Section 3 , there are important differ- ences in the literature. For example, Sienkiewicz [18] , uses 0.05 and Meek and Wolf [17] , based on laboratory experi- ments presented by Gazetas [32] use 0.25 at a strain of about 0.01. A value of 0.25 has been used in this paper, which is in agreement with the low frequencies values of the linear-hysteretic frequency-dependent model presented by Assimaki and Kausel [33] . The results obtained are presented in Table 4 , summa- rised in the form of the most important design variables in seismic problems, such as maximum total base shear, Q mb , maximum base overturning moment, M mb and max- imum top displacements, g mt . In Fig. 4 , the time-history of the top displacements for the alternative B3A3 G s = 50 MN/m 2 , has been presented for the cases: l s = 0 (only geometrical damping) and l s = 0.25 (material and geometrical damping).

5. Discussion and conclusions

Based on the results obtained above, the following observations and conclusions can be stated:

The material damping of soil is an important parameter and must be included in the analysis of soil structure inter- action, especially to determine the maximum top displace- ment, in which the differences are significant. The decrease of the base shear force and base overturn- ing moment due to the flexibility of the foundation corre- sponds, on an average, 70% to radiation damping and 30% to material damping. However, there are special cases in which the greater reduction is due to hysteretic damping. For example, in the alternative B1A1 ( Table 4 ) for the base overturning moment, the dissipation due to geometrical damping is only about 14%. It is well known that for stiff structures having height/ width ratios greater than one, the rocking motion is the

0.15 us=0.25 us=0 0.1 0.05 0 -0.05 -0.1 -0.15 0 5 10 15 20 25
0.15
us=0.25
us=0
0.1
0.05
0
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Disp. (m)

Time (sec)

Fig. 4. Top displacement. Alternative B3A3.

92

R.D. Ambrosini / Computers and Geotechnics 33 (2006) 86–92

predominant interaction effect. In this case, especially for low frequency rocking, very little energy is dissipated by the radiation of waves, so the relative importance of mate- rial damping is much more than in translation. As it can be seen in Table 4 , this effect is fulfilled because in the base overturning moment, the reduction is more important due to material damping. As it can be seen in Fig. 4 , the importance of the soil material damping in the response of displacements is very significant in bringing down the peak of the displacements as well as in the fast attenuation of the free vibrations after the end of the earthquake (20 s in Fig. 4 ). The change in natural frequencies due to the effect of the soil material damping is negligible, for which the change in the response, presented in Table 4 , is due only to the effect studied in this study.

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank the collaboration of Profs. Jorge Riera and Rodolfo Danesi and the help received from Ms. Amelia Campos in the English revision. More- over, the financial support of the CONICET and the Uni- versidad Nacional de Cuyo is gratefully acknowledged.

References

[1] Dutta SC, Roy R. A critical review on idealization and modeling for interaction among soil–foundation–structure system. Comput Struct

2002;80:1579–94.

[2] Antes H, Spyrakos CC. Soil–structure interaction. In: Beskos D, Anagnostopoulos S, editors. Computer analysis and design of earth- quake resistant structures. A handbook. Southampton, UK, Boston, USA: Computational Mechanics Publications; 1996. p. 271–332. [3] Wong HL, Luco JE. Tables of impedance functions for square foundations on layered Media. Soil Dynam Earthquake Eng

1985;4:64–81.

[4] Wong HL, Trifunac MD, Luco JE. A comparison of soil–structure interaction calculations with results of full-scale forced vibration test. Soil Dynam Earthquake Eng 1988;7(1):22–31. [5] Crouse CB, Hushmand B, Luco JE, Wong HL. Foundation imped- ance functions: theory versus experiment. J Geotech Eng-ASCE

1990;116(3):432–49.

[6] Richart F, Hall J, Woods R. Vibrations of soils and foundations. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall; 1970. [7] Veletsos AS, Wei YT. Lateral and rocking vibration of footings. J Soil Mech Found Div-ASCE 1971:1227–48. [8] Wolf JP, Somaini D. Approximate dynamic model of embedded foundation in time domain. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam

1986;14:683–703.

[9] Viladkar MN, Godbole PN, Noorzaei J. Space frame–raft–soil inter- action including effect of slab stiffness. Comput Struct 1992;43:93–106. [10] Hayashi Y, Takahashi I. An efficient time-domain soil–structure interaction analysis based on the dynamic stiffness of an unbounded soil. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 1992;21:787–98. [11] Yazdchi M, Khalili N, Valliappan S. Dynamic soil–structure inter- action analysis via coupled finite-element–boundary-element method. Soil Dynam Earthquake Eng 1999;18:499–517.

[12] Wolf JP, Song Ch. Finite-element modelling of unbounded media. New York: Wiley; 1996. [13] Takewaki I, Takeda N, Uetani K. Fast practical evaluation of soil– structure interaction of embedded structures. Soil Dynam Earthquake Eng 2003;23:195–202. [14] Khalili N, Yazdchi M, Valliappan S. Wave propagation analysis of two-phase saturated porous media using coupled finite–infinite element method. Soil Dynam Earthquake Eng

1999;18:533–53.

[15] Yerli HR, Kacin S, Kocak S. A parallel finite–infinite element model for two-dimensional soil–structure interaction problems. Soil Dynam Earthquake Eng 2003;23:249–53. [16] Selvadurai APS, Sepehr K. Two-dimensional discrete element simu- lations of ice–structure interaction. Int J Solids Struct 1999;36:

4919–40.

[17] Meek JW, Wolf JP. Material damping for lumped-parameter models of foundations. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 1994;23:

349–62.

[18] Sienkiewicz Z. Dynamic impedances of a weakly anelastic medium. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 1993;22:1009–14 [short communication]. [19] Lutes LD, Sarkani S. Structural damping for soil–structure interac- tion studies. Struct Eng Mech 1995;3(2):107–20. [20] Wolf JP. Dynamic soil–structure-interaction. Englewood Cliffs:

Prentice-Hall; 1985. [21] de Barros FCP, Luco JE. Dynamic response of a two-dimensional semi-circular foundation embedded in a layered viscoelastic half- space. Soil Dynam Earthquake Eng 1995;14:45–57. [22] Ambrosini RD. Structural dynamic analysis considering soil–struc- ture interaction. Doctorate thesis, Fac. de Ciencias Exactas y Tec., Univ. Nac. de Tucuma´ n, Argentina; 1994 [in Spanish]. [23] Ambrosini RD, Riera JD, Danesi RF. On the influence of foundation flexibility on the seismic response of structures. Comput Geotech

2000;27:179–97.

[24] Ambrosini RD, Riera JD, Danesi RF. Dynamic analysis of thin- walled and variable open section beams with shear flexibility. Int J Numer Methods Eng 1995;38(17):2867–85. [25] Harada T, Kubo K, Takayama T. Dynamic soil–structure interaction analysis by continuum formulation method. Report of the Institute of Industrial Science 29, University of Tokyo; 1981. [26] Ganev T, Yamazaki F, Katayama T. Observation and numerical analysis of soil–structure interaction of a reinforced concrete tower. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 1995;24:491–503,. [27] Christensen RM. Theory of viscoelasticity. 2nd ed. New York:

Academic Press; 1982. [28] Crandall SH. Dynamic response of systems with structural damping. Air Force Office of Scientific Research, AFOSR 1561, MIT, Cam- bridge (MA); 1961. [29] Liaw T. Torsion of multi-storey spatial core walls. Proc ICE

1978;2(65):601–9.

[30] Wallace J, Moehle J. Evaluation of ATC requirements for soil–structure interaction using data from the 3 March 1985 Chile earthquake. Earthquake Spectra-EERI 1990;6(3):

595–611.

[31] Coull A. Interactions between coupled shear walls and cantilever cores in three-dimensional regular symmetrical cross-wall structures. Proc ICE 1973;2(55):827–40. [32] Gazetas G. Foundation vibrations. In: Fang HY, editor. Foundation engineering handbook. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold; 1991. p. 553–93 [chapter 15]. [33] Assimaki D, Kausel E. An equivalent linear algorithm with frequency- and pressure-dependent moduli and damping for the seismic analysis of deep sites. Soil Dynam Earthquake Eng

2002;22:959–65.