NPTEL- GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

Module 4
GROUND RESPONSE ANALYSIS
(Lectures 17 to 22)

Lecture 22

Topics

4.6 SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION

4.6.1 Illustration of Soil-Interaction Effects
4.7 METHODS of ANALYSIS
4.7.1 Direct Methods
4.7.2 Multiple Method
4.7.3 Kinematic Interaction
4.7.4 Inertial Interaction

4.6 SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION

Ground motions that are not influenced by the presence of structures are referred
to as free field motions. When a structure founded on solid rock is subjected to an
earthquake, the extremely high stiffness of the rock constrains the rock motion to
be very close to the free-field motion. Structures founded on rock are considered
to be fixed base structures. Computation of their response is relatively simple
using the methods.
On the other hand, the same structure would respond differently if supported on a
soft soil deposit. First, the inability of the foundation to conform to the
deformation of the free-field motion would cause the motion of the base of the
structure to deviate from the free-field motion. Second the dynamic response of
the structure itself would induce deformation of the supporting soil. This process,
in which the response of the soil influence the motion of the structure and the
response of the structure influences the motion of the soil, referred to as soil-
structure interaction.
Soil-structure interaction has little effect on the dynamic response of many
structures and foundation systems. In other cases, however, its effects can be
significant. Whether the neglect of its effects is conservative or unconservative
depends on the details of the problem at hand and must be evaluated on a case-by-
case basis.

Dept. of Civil Engg. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur 1

NPTEL- GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

4.6.1 Illustration of Soil-Interaction Effects

A simple analysis is sufficient to illustrate the most important effects of soil-
structure interaction. Following the approach of Wolf (1985), consider the case of
the simple SDOF system mounted on a rigid massless. L-shaped foundation
(figure 4.29.a) supported on an elastic soil deposit. The structure is characterized
by its mass, m, stiffness, k, and damping coefficient, c. if the material supporting
the foundation is rigid, the natural frequency of the resulting fixed-base system
would depend only on the mass and stiffness of the structure, that is,

Figure 4.29 Compliant base model with one dynamic degree of freedom: (a)
SDOF system on an elastic soil deposit; (b) idealized discrete system in
which compliance of base is represented by translational and rotational
springs and dashpots; (c) components of motion of base and mass

√ (4.69)

And the hysteretic damping ratio would be

(4.70)

If the supporting material is compliant, however, the foundation can translate and
rotate. The stiffness and damping characteristics of the compliant soil-foundation
system can be represented by the translational and rotational springs and dashpots
shown in figure 4.29. b. the foundation dashpots represent two sources of
damping; material damping caused by inelastic behavior of the soil supporting the
foundation, and radiation damping that occurs as dynamic forces in the structure
cause the foundations to deform the soil, producing stress waves that travel away
from the foundation. The amount of material damping will depend on the level of
strain induced in the soil; if the strains are high, material damping can be
substantial, but if they are low, the material damping may be negligible. In
contrast, radiation damping is a purely geometric effect that exists at low as well
as high strain amplitudes. For typical foundations, radiation damping is often
much greater than material damping.

Dept. of Civil Engg. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur 2

NPTEL- GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

The total displacements of the mass and the base of the structure can be split into
their individual components (figure 4.29.c):

(4.71.a)

(4.71.b)

Where the symbols are defined as shown in (figure 4.23c). Neglecting material
damping in the soil ( the horizontal force imposed on the soil by the
foundation would be

̇ (4.72)

Where the subscript x refers to the horizontal direction for conditions. For
harmonic excitation at frequency , material damping can be introduced by the
use of a complex stiffness, so that

(4.73)

Since ̇ , the horizontal stiffness and damping coefficients are

(4.74.a)

(4.74.b)

The first term on the right side of (equation 4.74.b) corresponds to radiation
damping, and the second to material damping. If the structure was rigid (
and the foundation unable to rotate ( , the natural frequency for
translational vibration would be

√ (4.75)

Repeating the same process for the rocking mode of vibration produces

(4.76.a)

(4.76.b)

Where the subscript denotes the absence of material damping. If the structure
was rigid ( and the foundation unable to translate ( , the natural
frequency for rocking would be

√ (4.77)

Insight into the soil-structure interaction problem can now be gained by

developing an equivalent SDOF system (i.e., a SDOF system that responds in

Dept. of Civil Engg. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur 3

NPTEL- GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

essentially the same way as the system of figure 23). Using the subscript to
describe the properties of this equivalent system, the equation of motion (for
harmonic motion) can be written as

Where is the equivalent seismic input motion. Note that the mass is the same
for the equivalent and actual models. For the equivalent system

The natural frequency of the equivalent model, , is the frequency at which the
response of the equivalent system goes to infinity for . This occur when

Or at

(4.78)
√

Equation (4.78) indicates that the natural frequency of the equivalent system is
always lower than that of the fixed base structure. In other words, an important
effect of soil-structure interaction is to reduce the natural frequency of the soil-
structure system to a value lower than that of the structure under fixed-base
conditions.

By neglecting second-order damping ratio terms, the equivalent, hysteretic

damping ratio can be expressed as

( ) (4.79)

Equation (4.79) indicates that the damping ratio of the equivalent system will, for
typical soils and of foundations, be larger than the damping ratio of the structure
itself. Consequently, another important effect of soil-structure interaction is to
increase the effective damping ratio to a value greater than that of the structure
itself.

For the fixed-based case, no translation or rotation of the base is possible, but the
base translation of the equivalent system can be shown to be

( ) (4.80)

And the base rotation

( ) (4.81)

Dept. of Civil Engg. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur 4

NPTEL- GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

Then the motion of the mass relative to the free-field motion is given by the sum
of the base displacement, the displacement of the top of the rod due to rotation
of the base, , and the displacement due to distortion of the structure, ,

[ ( ) ( ) ] (4.82)

The effect of soil structure interaction are easily illustrated in terms of the
following dimensionless parameters:

Stiffness ratio: ̅ where is the soil shear wave velocity

Slenderness ratio: ̅ where a is characteristic length of the foundation

Mass ratio: ̅ where is the mass density of the soil

Large values of the stiffness ratio correspond to situations where a relatively stiff
structure rests on a relatively soft soil. The fixed-base condition is realized at zero
stiffness ratio.

Actual foundation stiffness and damping coefficients are frequency dependent. To

illustrate the effects of soil-structure interaction, however, the following
simplified, frequency-independent expressions can be used to estimate the
stiffness and damping coefficients of a rigid circular footing of radius a

The graphs in (figures 4.30 and 4.31) show the influence of soil-structure
interaction on the natural frequency, damping ratio, and displacement
characteristics of the equivalent SDOF system. Comparing the response
characteristics of the equivalent system with the fixed-base system illustrates the
effects of soil-structure interaction.

(Figure 4.30.a) shows how the natural frequency of the equivalent SDOF system
drops below that of the fixed-based system as the stiffness ratio increases. The
effects of soil-structure interaction on the natural frequency is small at low
stiffness ratios, i.e., when the stiffness of the soil (as reflected in the shear wave
velocity) is large relative to the stiffness of the structure. For the fixed base
condition ( ̅ the natural frequency of the equivalent system is equal to the
fixed-base natural frequency. (Figure 4.24.b) illustrates the influence of soil-
structure interaction of the damping ratio of the equivalent SDOF system. For the
fixed-base condition, the damping ratio of the equivalent system is equal to the
structural damping ratio, but as the stiffness ratio increases, the effects of radiation
and soil damping become more apparent. At high stiffness ratios, structural

Dept. of Civil Engg. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur 5

NPTEL- GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

damping represents only a small part of the total damping of the system.

Figure 4.30 Effect of stiffness ratio and mass ratio on (a) natural frequency, and
(b) damping ratio of soil-structure systems ( ̅
. (After Wolf, 1985)

The effects of soil-structure interaction on displacement is illustrate in (figure

4.31). The indicated maximum responses are for an artificial input motion that
produced an NRC response spectrum scaled to . In this case, the
effects of soil-structure interaction were to reduce the maximum structural
distortion, , by an amount that increased with increasing stiffness ratio and to
increase the overall displacement (relative to the free field) by an amount that
increased with increasing stiffness ratio. Thus soil-structure interaction tends to
reduce the demands on the structure, but because the foundation can translate and
rotate, increase the overall displacement. These effects can be important for tall,
slender structure or for closely spaced structures that may be subject to pounding
when relative displacements become large.

Dept. of Civil Engg. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur 6

NPTEL- GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

Figure 4.31 Response of equivalent soil-structure system to artificial time history

(̅ ̅ : (a) maximum structural
distortion; (b) maximum displacement of mass relative to free field. (After Wolf,
1985)

4.7 METHODS of ANALYSIS

Methods for the analysis of soil-structure interaction can be divided into two main
categories: direct methods and multistep methods. These are discussed below.

4.7.1 Direct Methods

In the direct method the entire soil-foundation-structure system is modeled and
analyzed in a single step. As illustrated in (figure 4.32), free-field input motions
are specified along the base and sides of the model and the resulting response of
the interacting system is computed (for a finite-element model) from the equations
of motion.

Dept. of Civil Engg. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur 7

NPTEL- GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

Figure 4.32: Direct method of soil-structure interaction analysis. Entire

problem is modeled and response to free-field motion applied at boundaries is
determined in a single step

[ ] [ ] ̈ [ ] ̈ (4.83)

Where ̈ are the specified free-field accelerations at the boundary nodal

points. The use of the direct method requires a computer program that can treat
the behavior of both the sol and the structure with equal rigor.

4.7.2 Multiple Method

Multistep methods use the principle of superposition to isolate the two primary
causes of soil-structure interaction: the inability of the foundation to match the
free-field deformation and the effect of the dynamic response of the structure-
foundation system on the movement of the supporting soil. Because they rely on
superposition, they are limited to the analysis of linear (or equivalent linear)
systems.

4.7.3 Kinematic Interaction

In the free-field an earthquake will cause soil displacements in both the horizontal
and vertical directions. If a foundation on the surface of, or embedded in, a soil
deposit is so stiff that it cannot follow the free-field deformation pattern, its
motion will be influenced by kinematic interaction, even if it has no mass. For
example the flexural stiffness of the massless mat foundation in (figure 4.33.a)
prevents it from following the horizontally varying vertical component of the free-
field motion. The rigidity of the massless embedded foundation in (figure 4.33.b)
keeps it from following the vertically varying horizontal free-field motion. The
axial stiffness of the slab in (figure 4.33.c) prevents development of the
incoherent free-field motion. In each of these cases the motion of the foundation is
influenced by kinematic interaction. Kinematic interaction, however, is not
present in all problems. If the surface foundation of (figure 4.33.a) was subjected
to vertically propagating s-waves (horizontal particle motion only), it would not
restrict the movement of the soil; consequently, no kinematic interaction would
exist. Kinematic interaction will occur whenever the stiffness of the foundation
system impedes development of the free-field motions.

Dept. of Civil Engg. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur 8

NPTEL- GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

Figure 4.33 Kinematic interaction with free-field motions indicated by dashed

lines: (a) flexural stiffness of surface foundation prevents it from following
vertical components of free-field displacement; (b) rigidity of block
foundation prevents it from following horizontal component of free-field
displacement; (c) axial stiffness of surface foundation prevents immediately
underlying soil from deforming incoherently

Kinematic interaction can also induce different modes of vibration in a structure.

Consider the embedded foundation of (figure 4.34.a). When subjected to
vertically propagating s-waves with a wavelength equal to the depth of
embedment, a net overturning moment can be applied to the foundation, thereby
causing the foundation to rock as well as translate, even though the free-field
motion is purely translational. At a different frequency (figure 4.34.b) the
wavelength may be such that rotation is inhibited. Horizontally propagating waves
can, in a similar manner, induce torsional vibration of the foundation.

The deformation due to kinematic interaction along can be computed by assuming

that the foundation has stiffness but not mass. The equations of motion for this
case are

[ ] ̈ [ ] [ ] ̈ (4.84)

Where [ ] is the mass matrix assuming that the structure and foundation are
massless. Equation (84) describes the problem illustrated in (figure 4.34.a).
(Equation 4.84) is solved for { which is referred to as the foundation input
motion.

Figure 4.34 Excitation of rocking vibrations in an embedded foundation by

vertically propagating s-waves: (a) at certain frequencies, the wavelength is
such that unbalanced overturning moments cause rocking; (b) at other
frequencies (and wavelengths), rocking may be suppressed

Dept. of Civil Engg. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur 9

NPTEL- GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

4.7.4 Inertial Interaction

The structure and foundation do have mass, however, and this mass causes them
to respond dynamically. If the supporting soil is compliant, the forces transmitted
to it by the foundation will produce foundation movement that would not occur in
a fixed-base structure. The effects of soil compliance on the resulting response are
due to inertial interaction.
The deformations due to inertial interaction can be computed from the equations
of motion

[ ] [ ] [ ] ̈ ̈ (4.85)

Where [ ] is the mass matrix assuming that the soil is massless. Note that
the right side of (equation 4.85) represents the inertial loading on the structure-
foundation system. This inertial loading depends on the base motion and the
foundation input motion, which reflects the effects of kinematic interaction. In the
inertial interaction analysis, the inertial loading is applied only to the structure; the
base of the soil deposit is stationary. (Equation 4.85) corresponds to the problem
illustrated in (figure 4.34.b).

Combination of Kinematic and Inertial Interaction: The kinematic interaction

analysis produces the motion of the massless foundation-structure system
(relative to the base) due to kinematic interaction. This motion is combined with
the base motion to produce the total kinematic motion of the foundation-structure
system. When the inertial loading that results from this kinematic motion is
applied to the foundation-structure system resting on massless soil, (equation
4.85) allows computation of the relative (to the total kinematic) motion. Adding
(equation 4.84 and 4.85) gives

[ ] ̈ [ ] ̈
[ ] ̈ [ [ ] [ ] ̈ [ ] (4.86)

Since [ ] [ ] [ ], (equation 4.86) is

equivalent to the original equations of motion

[ ] ̈ [ ] [ ] ̈

Which proves that the solution to the entire soil-structure interaction problem is
equal to the sum of the solutions of the kinematic and inertial interaction
analyses? Therefore, the multistep procedure can be summarized as follows:

1. A kinematic interaction analysis, in which the foundation-structure system

is assumed to have stiffness but no mass, is performed. This analysis
produces the foundation input motion.
2. The foundation input motion is used to apply inertial loads to the structure
in an inertial interaction analysis, in which the soil, foundation, and
structure are all assumed to have stiffness and mass.

Dept. of Civil Engg. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur 10

NPTEL- GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

If the foundation itself is rigid, the soil can be replaced by a set of equivalent
springs and dashpots in the inertial interaction analysis. The inertial interaction
analysis can then by performed by applying inertial forces to the masses of the
structure (figure 4.35.a) or by applying the input motion to the support (figure
4.35.b); the two methods are mathematically equivalent. Considerable research,
involving analytical, numerical, and experimental modeling, has produced a
variety of techniques for the evaluation of spring and dashpot constants for
foundation systems. Gazetas (1991) provided a very useful, practical series of
charts and tables for estimation of spring and dashpot coefficients for a variety of
foundation types and soil conditions. For more complicated soil and foundation
conditions, computer programs such as DYNA4 (Novak et al., 1993) allow
computation of complete foundation stiffness and damping matrices.

Figure 4.35 Equivalent formulations of inertial interaction analysis for

structures with rigid foundation: (a) inertia forces applied to each element; (b)
foundation motion applied through frequency-dependent springs and dashpots
(not shown)

Dept. of Civil Engg. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur 11