TKT 4108 Advanced

Structural Dynamics

Session 4

Soil-Structure Interaction (SSI)

Seismic Hazard Analysis (SHA

1
Reference
Chapter 7 in Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering
Sec. 7.5 + class notes

2
 Concept of Soil-Structure Interaction

Foundation input
motion (FIM)
Free-field motion

Soil

Rock

The motion at the base of the structure differs from the free-
field motion => SSI
3
Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis (SSI)

Two general methods

- Direct solution method (using FE tools such as ABAQUS,
SAP, etc.). See sec. 7.5.2 in Kramer’s notes

- Multi-step (superposition) methods - see sec. 7.5.2 in

Kramer’s notes, the following notes, and class notes
SSI by the
“Three-step
Solution”
Why three-step method?
Practical reasons:
- Many structural analyses for the same soil/foundation model
- Smaller models to run
- Some design packages are integrated into structural analysis tools.
- Better understanding the response and control of results

6
SSI by the “Three-step Solution”
Step 1: Already discussed (soil response)
Step 2: Foundation impedances
=> Foundation stiffness (“soil spring”), added soil mass and
damping (material + radiation)
Step 3: Already discussed (advanced dynamic analyses or code-
based methods such as EC8, etc.)

kh
kθ uFIM
cθ ch
cv kv
θFIM
 Step 2 of SSI – Foundation Impedances

Refer to class notes for determination of foundation parameters

Example :
Determine the equivalent soil spring, added soil mass and soil
damping for the two cases given below.

5.0E+11 2.5E+15
Kxx - Real, computed Krr - Real, computed
2.0E+15
4.0E+11 Kxx - Imag, computed Krr - Imag, computed

Kxx - Real, 1DOF equivalent 1.5E+15 Krr - Real, 1DOF equivalent

Rocking Stiffness, y-axis (Nm/rad)

3.0E+11 Kxx - Imag, 1DOF equivalent Krr - Imag, 1DOF equivalent
Horizontal Stiffness (N/m)

1.0E+15

2.0E+11
5.0E+14

1.0E+11 0.0E+00
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0
-5.0E+14
0.0E+00
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0
-1.0E+15
-1.0E+11
-1.5E+15
-2.0E+11
-2.0E+15

-3.0E+11 -2.5E+15
Step 2 of SSI – Foundation Impedances

Simple expressions for soil spring, mass and dashpot for circular
foundation with radius a on uniform soil with shear modulus G,
mass density ρ and Poisson’s ratio υ

Shear
wave
velocity

Ref. J.P. Wolf, 1988

Step 2 of SSI
Stiffness of
piles

Ref. EC8, part 5.

For ¨hybrid sections,
one should compute
an equivalent d & Ep
from the section’s EI
 Three-step Solution
Effects of soil-structure interaction
Consider simplified model

Base of structure can

translate
and rotate

SDOF system on compliant base

Horizontal translation
Rocking

11
 Three-step Solution
Effects of soil-structure interaction
Displacement
Displacement due
Consider simplified model due to
to rocking
distortion of
structure

Displacement
of ground Displacement
due to
horizontal
translation

SDOF system on compliant base

Horizontal translation
Rocking

12
 Three-step Solution
Effects of soil-structure interaction
Consider simplified model

With increasing foundation

flexibility,
Period lengthens
Damping increases

~
T k kh 2
= 1+ +
T ku kθ

~ ~ ξ
ξ = ξ0 + ~
(T / T ) 3

13
 Benefits of performing SSI

See Kramer, Sec. 7.5.1, for definition of the

above parameters.
By inclusion of SSI one increases the natural
period and equivalent damping of the system.
This leads to, in most structures, a reduction
of earthquake forces – i.e. often a beneficial
effect.

14
Homework 4 – Need not deliver

15
Seismic Hazard Analysis (SHA)

Deterministic SHA => DSHA

Probabilistic SHA => PSHA
Elements of PSHA (see figure)
PSHA required for major projects
remember that for ordinary
structures one can use EC 8
PSHA often produces design
Response Spectra for different
earthquake Return Periods
Most PSHA studies also suggest
typical acceleration time histories
for nonlinear structural analyses
PSHA - Example
PSHA often produces design
Response Spectra for different
earthquake Return Periods.
Why is it needed? (next slide)
Earthquake loads in codes for offshore structures

1. Design of offshore structures is often based on two levels (return periods) of

earthquakes (as opposed to building codes which are often based on one
earthquake return period).
2. Design philosophy is that soil/structure systems should be designed such
that there is no damage under the lower level earthquake while there can be
damage under the higher level earthquake but no collapse or loss of human
lives.
3. The two levels of earthquakes are often termed:
- SLE (Strength Level Earthquake), OBE (Operational Basis Earthquake),
or ELE (Extreme Level Earthquake) with return periods of typically 200-
500 years
- DLE (Ductility Level Earthquake), SSE (Safe Shutdown Earthquake), or
ALE (Abnormal Level Earthquake) with return periods of typically 1000-
5000 years
4. Soil/structure systems are expected to behave practically “elastic” under the
SLE/OBE/ELE events and are therefore allowed to be analyzed by linear
solutions
5. Nonlinear time history analyses or static pushover analyses are allowed for
DLE/SSE/ALE events.

18
Earthquake loads in codes for offshore structures

Typical earthquake return periods for SLE and DLE:

- NPD : 100 and 10,000 years
- NFPA: 500 and 5000 years
- API: no specific values, typically 200-300 and 2000-3000 years are used
- DNV: no specific values, but at least 100 years should be used for SLE
- ISO: Return periods are determined based on an accepte probability of
failure and type of structure and its ductility/reserve capacity. Typical
return periods for cases with lowest probability of failure are 300-500
years and 3000-5000 years

The idea is to design based on

the SLE event with appropriate
load factor (equal to 1.3 in DNV
and 0.9 in ISO according to Q =
1.1 G1 + 1.1 G2 1.1 Q1 + 0.9E).
Then check design for the DLE
event with earthquake load DNV
factor 1.0)

19