Seismic Soil-Structure

Interaction

Dec. 12, 2002

Choi, Seokhyeon
ECI 281A
Adv. Soil Mechanics
Term Project
Contents

1. Introduction

2. Fundamental Phenomena in Soil-Pile-Structure interaction

2.1 Soil response

2.2 Kinemetic response

2.3 inertial response

3. Methods of Soil-Pile-Structure interaction Analysis

3.1 Methods of Soil Response Analysis

3.2 Methods of Soil-Pile-Structure Interaction Analysis

4. Conclusions

References

Appendix

1. Introduction
 Structures on the ground are affected by ground motion when there is

seismic loading. It also means that ground motion is influenced with the

structural response of seismic loading. Soil-Structure interaction has little effect

on the seismic response of many structures and foundation systems. However,

its effects can be significant when the structure supported on a soft soil. The

inability of the foundation to resist to deformation of soil would cause huge

damages on the structures.

The objective of this term project is to provide some important aspects of

ground motion and the interaction between soil and structure including pile

foundation. It also outlines some method of soil response analysis and soil-pile-

structure system analysis.

2. Fundamental Phenomena in Soil-Pile-Structure interaction

In considering seismic response of embedded-foundation and pile-

supported structure, it is needed to define the basic terminology of this

problem. Figure 1 is a sketch of the soil-pile-structure interaction problem. In

order to understand the dynamic response of soil-pile-structure system, we

should consider the soil deposit alone and consider the presence of a structure

and its piled foundation in the soil.

There are three key phenomena referred to as soil response, kinematic

response and inertial response. Kinematic and inertial response occur

simultaneously with only a small time lag, but they are usually considered as
separate system because it is convenient to divide them into two consecutive

phenomena.

acceleration of
structure
Soil-Pile-
Structure
System mass
Free-
Field
free-field
effective foundation acceleration
acceleration

seismic waves R,
L

soil layer

base rock
acceleration

seismic waves S,
P

Figure 1. Soil-Pile-Structure Interaction

System [modified from Gazetas et al.
(1998)]
2.1 Soil response

The soil layer overlying the rock is subjected to seismic excitation

consisting of body waves (P, S) and surface waves (R, L). The geometric and

stiffness characteristics of the soil affect the ground motions at the site. Soil

response analysis is often simplified by assuming that the seismic waves are

exclusively vertical S waves (in linear one-dimensional analysis). But inclined S

waves and surface waves from distant earthquake sources must be considered.

Completing soil response analysis depends on the numerical tools as well as on

the quality of data that are considered in this analysis. Figure 2 shows the

process of evaluation of linear one-dimensional soil response. Input motion can

be obtained by measuring directly or by records. Using the FFT, we can get

Fourier amplitude in frequency domain. After calculating the transfer function

using one of methods for soil response analysis, we can obtain Fourier

amplitude multiplied by the transfer function. After that, we can have a ground

response in time domain using the inverse FFT-1.

Input Motion
(Base rock motion)
FFT

Output Motion
Fourier Amplitude (Soil response)

Transfer
Fourier Amplitude FFT-1
function
(Multipled by
transfer function)

Figure 2. Evaluation of linear one-dimensional soil response

 The soils that lie above the bedrock largely influences ground surface

motion. The problem of soil response analysis becomes one of determining the

response of the soil deposit to the motion of the bedrock. This soil response is

called free-field motion. It is necessary to define soil environment in terms of

free-field motion or design response spectra due to the earthquake.

2.2 Kinemetic response

The piles that are subjected to follow the more-or-less wavy soil motion, tend

to provide resistance due to their flexural rigidity. The seismic waves are

reflected and scattered while the piles are being stressed by seismic loading

and experience an oscillatory motion that may differ substantially from the

free-field motion. In other words, soil displacement due to an earthquake is

affected by kinematic interaction. Figure 3(a) shows that the flexural stiffness

of the massless mat foundation prevent it from following the horizontally

varying vertical component of the free-field motion. In Figure 3(b), the rigidity

of the massless embedded foundation keeps it from following the vertically

varying horizontal free-field motion. The axial stiffness of the slab in Figure 3(c)

prevents development of the incoherent free-field motion. Kinematic

interaction will occur whenever the stiffness of the foundation system impedes

development of the free-field motions (Steven L. Kramer, 1996).

 (a) (b) (c)

Figure 3. Kinematic interaction with free-field motions indicated by dashed lines

2.3 Inertial response

The pile-foundation motion induces oscillations in the super-structure. The

inertial forces which are generating in the superstructure masses produce

dynamic forces and overturning moments at its base that are transmitted onto

the piles and into the ground. Therefore, the piles are subjected to have new

dynamic movements, deflections, and curvatures while the footing and the

superstructure undergo further dynamic displacements and accelerations.

3. Methods of Soil-Pile-Structure interaction Analysis

Soil-Pile-Structure interaction analysis is consisted with two main analyses.

One is for soil response analysis and the other is for Soil-Pile-Structure system

analysis. Table 1 shows the methods of each analysis.

 Table 1. Methods of analysis

Analysis Method
One-dimensional Method
Soil response analysis
Two- and Three-dimensional
Method
Direct Method
Soil-Pile-Structure system
analysis
Multistep method

Soil response analysis can be obtained by using one of methods in Table 1 in

linear or in nonlinear condition. Methods for Soil-Pile-Structure system analysis

can be divided into two main categories as shown in Table 1. There are many

methods of analysis related to the multistep method. It is referred to the

appendix A.

3.1 Methods of Soil Response Analysis

Soil response analysis can be performed using 1-dimensional analysis. 1-

dimensional analysis has some assumptions as you look at Table 2 below.

Linear or Nonlinear approach is used according to the soil conditions. 2- and 3-

dimensional soil response analyses also have some assumptions. Linear or

Nonlinear approach is used to obtain the soil response from the base rock

motion. These analyses can be performed solving the equation of motion. For

the loading induced by base rock motion, the equation of motion looks like this.

Here, [M] is the mass matrix, [C] is the damping matrix, [K] is the stiffness
 ..
matrix of soil and u b (t ) is the base rock acceleration.

.. . ..
[ M ] {u} [C ] {u} [ K ] {u} [ M ] [1] u b (t )

Table 2 shows the comparison of each method for soil-response analysis.

Table 2. Comparison of methods for soil response analysis

Assumptions Linear Nonlinear

Direct numerical
All boundaries Evaluation of Transfer
integration with a small
are horizontal. Function
time step in the time
Ground response Stress-Strain
domain.
is caused by SH- relationship
Stress-Strain
waves is not used.
relationship
1-D Soil and bedrock Producing reasonable
is used.
surface are ground response for
Producing reasonable
extended problems where strain
ground response for
infinitely levels remain low.
problems where strain
in horizontal
levels remain low and
direction
high.
Global equation of
Soil is treated as Global equation of
motion
a motion
Consider discretization
2-D continuum in incremental form
Boundary conditions
and Soil response is Using cyclic nonlinear
- Elementary
3-D described by the stress-strain model or
Boundary
response of the constitutive model.
- Viscous Boundary
nodal point.
- Consistent Boundary

Linear 1-dimensional soil response analysis produces reasonable result only

when strain levels remain low while nonlinear 1-dimensional analysis produces

reasonable result when strain levels remain low or high. In 2- and 3-

dimensional analysis, we should consider descritization and boundary condition

because the influence of boundary condition is significant as the size of the

discritized region decreases.

3.2 Methods of Soil-Pile-Structure Interaction Analysis

Soil-Pile-Structure system as shown in Figure 1 is analyzed with two main

methods; Direct method and Multistep method.

In direct method, the entire soil-pile-structure system is modeled and

analyzed in a single step. When there are embedded pile, the base rock

motions are specified along the base of the model as an input motion. If there

is no embedded pile the input motion in this case will be free-field motion along

the all boundaries. Solving the equation of motion for the whole system, the

relative displacements of the system can be obtained.

On the other hand, the entire soil-pile-structure system is divided into two

systems in Multistep method of analysis. Kinematic interaction system and

Inertial interaction system are used in the analysis. Displacement vector of

whole system can be obtained by superposing kinematic displacement vector

and inertial displacement vector as shown the following equation.

.. ..
{u} {u kin } {u iner }

Figure 4, 5 shows kinematic interaction system and inertial interaction system

respectively. Kinematic interaction is also called wave scattering effect. This

can be analyzed by solving the following equation of motion. Here, [M so] is the
mass matrix disregarding mass of superstructure, [K] is the stiffness matrix

including damping effects.

.. ..
[ M so ] {u kin } [ K ] {u kin } [ M so ] {u b }

After assuming that there is no mass of superstructure, we can obtain

kinematic displacement by solving this equation. In this equation, the input

..
motion is the base rock acceleration {u b } .

In inertial interaction system, the inertial displacement vector can be obtained

by solving the following equation of motion.

.. .. ..
[ M st ] {u iner } [ K ] {u iner } [ M st ] ({u kin } {u b } )

Here, [Mst] is the mass matrix considering mass of superstructure only. The

input motion in this equation is the combination of kinematic acceleration and

base rock acceleration. Table 3 shows the comparison of methods for soil-pile-

structure system analysis.

Table 3. comparison of methods for soil-pile-structure system analysis

Direct Method of Analysis Multstep Method of Analysis

 Modeling entire system Decomposing entire system
Using the equation of into two parts
motion - Kinematic interaction
system
- Inertial interaction system
Using the equation of
motion
Most often used in practice
Two boundaries are
available
- Viscous boundary
- Consistent boundary

No mass of
superstructure

seismic waves R,
L

Base rock
acceleration

seismic waves S,
P

Figure 4. Kinematic Pile Response Analysis

Interaction
[modified from Gazetas et al. (1998)]
Mass of superstructure

akin

Figure 5. Inertial Soil-Structure Interaction

[modified from Gazetas et al. (1998)]
4. Conclusions

Soil-Structure interaction analysis is very complicate, so we should

completely understand the phenomenon of soil response and structural

response to analyze the interaction between soil and structure. Through

studying of this subject, conclusions are made as the following

1. Linear one dimensional response analysis cannot be applied at high strain

level because its result is not reasonable in this case.

2. In two- and three dimensional soil response analysis, as the size of the

discretized region decreases, the influence of boundary condition becomes

more significant.

3. Soil-Pile-Structure interaction analysis is complicate so that we should know

 the assumptions and limitations on each method of analysis.

4. Experimental data is required to examine whether each method of analysis

is correctly performed or not.

References

1. Gazetas, G. and Mylonakis, G. (1998). Seismic Soil-Structure Interaction:

New Evidence and Emerging Issues. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering

and Soil Dynamics III, ASCE, pp. 1119-1174.

2. Jennings, P.C. and Bielak, J. (1973). Dynamics of Building-Soil Interaction.

Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. Vol. 63, No. 1, pp. 9-48.

3. Novak, M., and Nogami, T., and Aboul-Ella, F. (1978). Dynamic Reactions for

Plane Stain Case. Jnl. Engineering Mech. Div. ASCE, Vol. 104, pp. 953-959.

4. Reese, L.C., Cox, W.R., and Koop, F.D. (1974). Analysis of Laterally Loaded

Piles in Sand. Proc. 6 th Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas,

Paper 2080,

pp. 473-483.
5. Steven L. Kramer (1996). Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Prentice-

Hall, Inc.

pp. 254-305.

6. Ross W. Boulanger, Christina J. Curras, Bruce L. Kutter, Daniel W. Wilson, and

Abbas Abghari (1999). Seismic Soil-Pile-Structure Interaction Experiments

and Analysis. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering.

pp.750-759.

7. George Mylonakis and George Gazetas (2002). Kinematic Pile Response to

Vertical P-wave Seismic Excitation. Journal of Geotechnical and

Geoenvironmental Engineering.

pp. 860-867.

Appendix A. Methods for Kinematic and Inertial response in Multistep method

Multistep Method
 Single pile
- Beam-on Dynamic Winkler-Foundation model
- Extended-Tajimi formulation
- Finite element formulations
- Semi-analytical and boundary element
Kinematic response formulations
Pile group
- Simplified wave-transmission model
- Extended-Tajimi formulation
- Semi-analytical and boundary element
formulations
Single Pile
- Simple closed-form soulutions
- Empirical nonlinear models(p-y and t-z curves)
- Beam-on Dynamic Winkler-Foundation model
- Extended-Tajimi formulation
- Novaks plane-strain formulation
- Finite element formulations
- Semi-analytical and boundary element
Pile-head
formulations
impedances
Inertial Pile group

respons - Superposition method(using dynamic interaction

e factors)
- Extended-Tajimi formulation
- Finite element formulations
- Other simplified solutions
- Semi-analytical and boundary element
formulations
Accounting for Soil-Pile-Structure through
Superstructure frequency-dependent foundation springs and
seismic dashpots from analysis of Pile-head impedances
response and using the seismic response from analysis of
kinematic response as foundation input motion
Appendix B. Pictures of the damage suffered by the Hashin Expressway, Kobe
1995.