Numerical Simulation of the Upper

Structure Reaction in Different

Properties of Foundation Soil and
Underground Water Levels During an
Earthquake
Ming-xun Hou
School of Civil Engineering and Transportation, South China University of
Technology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510641, China
e-mail: 375415280@qq.com

Ying-guang Fang
School of Civil Engineering and Transportation, South China University of
Technology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510641, China
e-mail: fangyg@scnu.edu.cn

Ren-guo Gu *
School of Civil Engineering and Transportation, South China University of
Technology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510641, China
e-mail: gugool@foxmail.com

Li-min Wu
Guangzhou City Construction College, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510641,
China
e-mail: 735644721@qq.com

ABSTRACT
In this paper, use the PLAXIS finite element program, through the calculation of a 6-storey
frame structure in different geological conditions, different foundation stiffness and
different groundwater conditions, to analyze the effects on structure seismic response of
three factors mentioned above which cannot be fully considered in the current seismic
design seismic, whereby some useful suggestions benefit to conceptual design and seismic
calculation has been obtained.

KEYWORDS: finite element; PLAXIS; foundation; structure

INTRODUCTION
The issues regarding combined action of superstructure and foundation is hot subject in
geotechnical engineering filed. For a long time, due to the limit of calculation methods,
superstructure and foundation are usually separated for calculation in actual engineering design.
In the current seismic design, the seismic influence coefficient of the building structure is
determined according to site (foundation) category, design earthquake grouping, seismic
intensity, structure natural frequency and damping ratio, which can determine the seismic force
- 1611 -

Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. H

1612

structure suffered, and then make the corresponding cross-sectional anti-seismic checking
calculation and anti-seismic deformation calculation, to determine safety performance of antiseismic capacity.
In the seismic design, soil is to be considered by the site classification and design response
spectrum. But in the actual process of earthquake action, earthquake action is generally
considered as periodic excitation source on overlaying bedrock; seismic force effects on
foundation and superstructure after passing through upper soil layer, and the properties of
foundation soil have important impact on characteristics of structure seismic response. [1-4]
Under dynamic load effect, soil body and structure as a weighted whole, deformation and
motion controls each other. Regardless the properties of soil or structure, such as the
distribution, deformation modulus and damping of soil, the rigidity, shape and size of structure
etc., will affect the dynamic characteristics of soil and structure system[5-9].
Therefore, the research achievement of dynamic soil-structure interaction has a very
important practical significance for guiding actual engineering design[10-13], improving structural
design methods, making calculation more reasonable and economic, guaranteeing safety
economic efficiency of structure and reducing project cost. In order to measure the factors that
cannot be fully considered in current specification, now we apply PLAXIS geotechnical finite
element program, conduct the numerical simulation for a 6-storey building.

FINITE ELEMENT MODEL ESTABLISHMENT

Geometric model
The building is constituted with foundation and overground six stories. 8m of width and
30m of length, height above ground of 6 3m = 18m, foundation depth of 3m. is The sum of
dead load and live load of each storey is 5kN/m2. The length of building is much larger than the
width, only consider the structural response of the width direction. Therefore, use plane strain
model, 15-node elements for the simulation. The foundation includes 20m thick soil layer, the
damp of building is simulated with Rayleigh damping [2].

Boundary conditions
As the impact on the soil body away from structure of load can be negligible, and therefore
virtual boundary may be introduced relatively distant from structure, and set artificial damping
boundary conditions on the virtual boundary [3], to make energy is consumed on the boundary
and do not reflect into the soil which have been intercepted.

Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. H

1613

Material properties
Table 1: Building materials' properties
Parameter

Subsoil

Unit

Material model

MC

Drainage condition TYPE

Drained

UNSAT

16.5

kNm-3

SAT

18.5

kNm-3

Osmotic coefficient kx

0.003

mday-1

Osmotic coefficient ky

0.001

mday-1

Poisson's ratio

0.25

Young modulus( static state)

6.00E+04

kNm-2

Cohesion c

15

kNm-2

Internal friction angle

25

Table 2: Foundation materials' properties

Parameter

Plank

Pillar

Unit

Material model

Elastic

Elastic

Normal Stiffness EA

8.00E+06

7.00E+05

kN/m

Flexural rigidity EI

8.00E+04

6.00E+03

kNm2/m

Specific weight

kN/m/m

Poisson's ratio

Rayleigh damping

0.01

0.01

Calculation
Calculation is processing in two steps: the first step is "plastic analysis" in the construction
process of the building; the second step is "dynamic analysis" of earthquake simulation, using
real the 1989 seismic acceleration data recorded by USGS, to read-in by SMC (Strong Motion
CD-ROM) format [2].

Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. H

1614

Figure 1: The finite element model

CHANGES OF FOUNDATION SOIL PROPERTIES

According to the classification of soil in Table 4.1.3 of Code for Seismic Design of Building
GB50011-2010, select five kinds of soil calculated as foundation [4]. Its physical and mechanical
properties [5] show in the following table.
Table 3: Different soil materials' properties
Medium
soft soil
15

Soft soil

Unit

19

Medium
hard soil
17

12

kN/m3

2.00E+06

8.00E+05

3.00E+05

6.00E+04

8.00E+03

kN/m2

Poisson's ratio

0.21

0.24

0.26

0.29

0.30

Rayleigh
damping
Shear wave
velocity

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

840

550

280

180

50

parameter

Rock

Hard soil

Density

22

Young modulus

m/s

Under this circumstance that the form of superstructure and the inputted seismic
acceleration data is unchanged, changing the properties of soil, calculate the seismic response in
a variety of foundation soil. Perform the comparison with the seismic response data at structure
apex.

Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. H

1615

Figure 2: The displacement response curve of Different soil materials' properties

Through the above calculation, it shows that: (1) in the process of the foundation soil
changes from rock to medium hard soil, the seismic response of structure gradually increases,
but increased significantly smaller.
2In the process of the foundation soil changes from medium hard soil to medium soft
soil, seismic response of structure is significantly increased, its maximum displacement
increases about 30%. According to the classification of field in Table 4.1.6 of Code for Seismic
Design of Building GB50011-2010, for the medium hard soil and medium soft fields with cover
layer thickness of 5-50m all belong to class field. Therefore, the seismic response of same
structure with same eigenperiod in the same area (same design earthquake grouping), should be
approximately the same, while this is inconsistent with the above calculation results.
3Through analysis of first four kinds of soil, it can be seen that with the decrease of
foundation soil strength, seismic response of structure is increasing; but when foundation soil
strength continues to decrease and turns to soft soil, the displacement of structure decreases on
the contrary, and its response spectrum shape has been changed greatly.
Reason analysis: In the soil-structure dynamic system, due to wave scattering of the
structure interface, dynamic response of the free field has changed. The presence of soil usually
amplifies the input wave of bedrock, and relative softness of soil reduces the frequency of soil structure system. Therefore the conditions of foundation are different, the properties of caused
ground motion (cycles, acceleration amplitude, etc.) are different, and thus the earthquake
effects on building are different, and the extent of generated damage to building is not the same.

Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. H

1616

CONCLUSIONS
(1) Along with the strength of the foundation soil becomes smaller; seismic response of
structure progressively increases, under normal circumstances it is larger on soft soil than on
bedrock, but not always. For the soft soil whose strength is relatively weak, because of its
superior long period, it might occur " shock insulation" phenomenon under severe earthquake.
(2) In the current seismic design calculations, only consider the difference of factors such
as different eigenperiod caused due to different foundation conditions, for foundation itself is
unstable under earthquake, occurring seismic subsidence, liquefaction, crack, slip, etc.
phenomena, could not be effectively considered in the calculation, but this kind of effect is
particularly severe in soft foundation. Therefore, in the seismic design of soft foundation, on the
basis of the calculation, necessary measures shall be taken to prevent foundation instability and
structure overturning.

CHANGES OF GROUNDWATER LEVEL

Overburden thickness in the model is 20m, process calculation when selecting groundwater
of -12m,-6m,-3m, 0m respectively.

Figure 3: The displacement response curve in different underground water level

Result analysis: when groundwater level is below -6m, no significant effect on the seismic
response of structure; underground water changes within 4-6m below ground level, has greater
effect.

Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. H

1617

CONCLUSIONS
The underground water level is shallower; generally earthquake damage is more serious.
This is mainly due to two reasons, first the shallow underground saturated soil is easy to cause
instability because of the generated super hydrostatic pressure under dynamic stress. On the
other hand, the existence of groundwater changes the dynamic characteristics of soil, making
the periodicity and acceleration amplitude of ground motion changed. Overall, the underground
water level depth has great impact on soft clay, yarn thickness such this kind of fine particles
soil, and has minor impact on coarse grained soil. Underground water changes within 4-6m
below ground level, has great effect; groundwater level is below -6m, has minor effect.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was financially supported by State Key Laboratory of Subtropical Building
Science (Grant 2012ZA04), Natural Science Foundation of China (NO. 2009ZX07423-004) and
Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant 2014ZZ0011).

REFERENCES
1. FANG Yingguang(2005) The theory and application of interaction of Geotechnical
and structural dynamic, Sciences Press,PP101-130.
2. CIVIL King Information Technology Co. Ltd. PLAXIS Geotechnical Engineering
Software User's Guide.
3. ZHAO Shaowei, Wang Bingxing, Guo Rong (2008) The application of Plaxis in the
high-way soft foundation study,Subgrade Engineering, VOl.4,NO.2,pp20-22.
4. HUANG Yongqiang, Han Honggui. Study on the stability of soil and rock mixed
filling high embankment based on Plaxis[J]. Highway engineering,2008.12,107-110.
5. LV Xiaoguang, Cui Kerui, Li Dan, Zhou Yang (2010) Analysis of the impact factors
of soil slope stability based on Plaxis,Anhui College of Architecture & Industry
Journal (Natural Science), VOl.6,pp67-71.
6. YUAN Xiaohui, HAN Yuewang, ZHONG Xiaochun (2012) Rock and Soil
Mechanics, Rock and Soil Mechanics, VOl.33, No.3, pp925932.
7. WEI Xinjian, GUO Zhiwei, WEI Gang (2011) Study of accident mechanism of shield
launching considering seepage, Rock and Soil Mechanics, VOl.32, No.1, pp106110.
8. QIN Aifang, LI Yonghe (2004) Application of artificial soil freezing reinforcement
method to shield tunneling setting out, Rock and Soil Mechanics , VOl.25, pp449
452.
9. Gentzis T, Deisman N, Chalaturnyk R J (2009) Effect of drilling fluids on coal
permeability: impact on horizontal wellbore stability, International Journal of Coal
Geology, 78(3), 177-191.

Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. H

1618

10. XU Gancheng, LI Chengxue, WANG Houyu (2009) Anaysis of influence of metro

shield tunneling crossing underneath high speed railway, Rock and Soil Mechancis,
VOl.30,No.supp2, pp269-276.
11. Goodman R E et al. (1986) A model for the mechanics of jointed rock, Proc ASCE
of J SM &F Dn, VOl.94(SM3).
12. Wu Gang, Sun Jun (1997) Damage mechanical analysis of unloading failure of intact
rock mass under complex stress state, J Hehai Univ, 23(3), 4449.
13. Heelis, M. E., Pavlovic, M. N., and West, R. P. (2004) The Analytical Prediction of
The Buckling Loads of Fully and Partially Embedded Piles, Geotechnique, Vol.
54(6), 363-373.

2014 ejge