Computers and Geotechnics 33 (2006) 86–92
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 lumpedparameter 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; Lumpedparameter 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 semispace, 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. Email address: dambrosini@uncu.edu.ar .
0266352X/$  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 socalled 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 lumpedparameter 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 ﬁniteelement– boundaryelement 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 semicircular foundation on a uniform halfspace. 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 thinwalled beams, which was modiﬁed to include the eﬀects of shear ﬂexibility and rotatory inertia in the stress resultants, as well as var
iable crosssectional 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, fourthorder partial diﬀerential equations with three unknowns. Using the Fourier transform, an equivalent sys tem in the frequency domain, with 12 ﬁrstorder 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 ﬁrstorder 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 lumpedparameter 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 nonnegligible dynamicstiﬀness 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
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 staticstiﬀness coeﬃcient. Applying curveﬁtting 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 freeﬁeld motion, by an approximate analytical solution developed by Harada et al. [25] and used, among
others,
n ^{0} _{G} ; g _{G} ^{0} ; / _{x}_{G} 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 freeﬁeld 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 _{e}_{q} 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
_{x}_{G} Þ
0
z
/ _{y}_{x} _{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
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 crosssectional area.
2.4. Solution method
The system (2) may be integrated using standard numer ical procedures, such as the fourthorder Runge–Kutta method, the predictor–corrector algorithm or other approaches. In order to solve the twopoint 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 Fouriertransformed 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 ﬃ a _{0} ð 1 l _{s} i Þ a ^{l}^{2} ﬃ 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 _{c}_{x} / f _{k}_{x}
(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} _{r}_{y} 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 ^{2}^{l} ^{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 _{h}_{x} 1 a ^{2} _{h}_{x} þ i a _{0} c ^{l} ^{} n þ K _{h}_{x} _{k}_{x} 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
_{k}_{x} þ i a _{0} c _{0} _{h}_{x} f
f
l
cx
2
6 _{1} _{} l 1ry a ^{2}
^{} n þ K _{r}_{y} 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} _{0}_{t} 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 _{0}_{h} ^{l} ¼ c _{0}_{h} þ ^{2} ^{l} ^{s}
a
0
l
^{l} _{0}_{h} ¼ l _{0}_{h} þ ^{c} ^{0}^{h} ^{l} ^{s}
a
0
2
6
c ^{l} _{0}_{r} ¼ c _{0}_{r} þ ^{2} ^{l} ^{s} 4 1 ^{l} ^{1}^{r} ^{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} _{0}_{r} ¼ l _{0}_{r} þ ^{l} ^{s}
0
a
2
6
4
^{c} 0r ^{þ} l ^{1}^{r}
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} ^{1}^{t} ^{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 _{0}_{h} þ 2 f _{k} l _{s}
a _{0} c _{0}_{h} 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 lumpedparameter 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 socalled noncausal 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 noncausal linearhysteretic system turn out to match those of a causal nonlinear 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 soilstructure 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 .
b) TORRES DEL MIRAMAR  FIRST FLOOR
14.00
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 

Crosssectional 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 _{m}_{b} (MN) 
M _{m}_{b} (MN m) 
g _{m}_{t} (cm) 
Q _{m}_{b} (MN) 
M _{m}_{b} (MN m) 
g _{m}_{t} (cm) 
Q _{m}_{b} (MN) 
M _{m}_{t} (MN m) 
g _{m}_{t} (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 linearhysteretic frequencydependent 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 _{m}_{b} , maximum base overturning moment, M _{m}_{b} and max imum top displacements, g _{m}_{t} . In Fig. 4 , the timehistory 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
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 fullscale 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 EngASCE
1990;116(3):432–49.
[6] Richart F, Hall J, Woods R. Vibrations of soils and foundations. Englewood Cliﬀs (NJ): PrenticeHall; 1970. [7] Veletsos AS, Wei YT. Lateral and rocking vibration of footings. J Soil Mech Found DivASCE 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 timedomain 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 ﬁniteelement–boundaryelement method. Soil Dynam Earthquake Eng 1999;18:499–517.
[12] Wolf JP, Song Ch. Finiteelement 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 twophase 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 twodimensional soil–structure interaction problems. Soil Dynam Earthquake Eng 2003;23:249–53. [16] Selvadurai APS, Sepehr K. Twodimensional discrete element simu lations of ice–structure interaction. Int J Solids Struct 1999;36:
4919–40.
[17] Meek JW, Wolf JP. Material damping for lumpedparameter 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–structureinteraction. Englewood Cliﬀs:
PrenticeHall; 1985. [21] de Barros FCP, Luco JE. Dynamic response of a twodimensional semicircular 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 multistorey 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 SpectraEERI 1990;6(3):
595–611.
[31] Coull A. Interactions between coupled shear walls and cantilever cores in threedimensional regular symmetrical crosswall 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 pressuredependent moduli and damping for the seismic analysis of deep sites. Soil Dynam Earthquake Eng
2002;22:959–65.
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.