Abstract
Due to the increased need of storage, larger and higher structures are being built all over the world, thus requiring a more careful evaluation of the mechanical performance of their foundation deposits both in terms of bearing capacity and compressibility behaviour. The design of such structures and their serviceability and stability is largely governed by the effects of the dynamic loading conditions principally because of their significantly elevated risk in seismic prone zones. In this paper, numerical analyses using an advanced constitutive model, able to account for the initial soil structure and its progressive degradation, have been performed to investigate the seismic response of a silo foundation built on structured clays. The proposed analyses involve the use of a fullycoupled finite element approach. For the dynamic simulations, three different input motions have been selected form earthquake databases according to the seismic hazard study of the specific site. The results of the silo dynamic response are illustrated in terms of signal amplification, permanent excess pore water pressures, accumulated displacements and structure induced degradation during and after the seismic loading. The dynamic behaviour of the footing indicates that extreme earthquake events can induce large destructuration in natural clays, leading to ground settlements up to twice the observed ones under static loads, which need to be properly accounted for in the design. This suggests that there are significant advantages in using advanced models which recognise the existence of initial soil structure and its subsequent damage due to the applied dynamic loads.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
 \(A\) :

Parameter controlling relative proportion of distorsional and volumetricdestructuration
 \(B\) :

Stiffness interpolation parameter
 \(B\) :

Normalised distance between bubble and structure surface
 \(b_{\mathrm{max}}\) :

Maximum value of \(b\)
 \(F\) :

Structure yield surface
 \(f_{r}\) :

Reference yield surface
 \(f_{b}\) :

Bubble yield surface
 \(G\) :

Shear modulus
 \(H\) :

Plastic modulus
 \(H_{c}\) :

Plastic modulus at conjugate stress
 \({{\varvec{I}}}\) :

Second rank identity tensor
 \(K\) :

Bulk modulus
 \(k\) :

Parameter controlling rate of loss of structure with damage strain
 \(M_{\theta }\) :

Dimensionless scaling function for deviatoric variation of critical state stress ratio
 \(\bar{{{\varvec{n}}}}\) :

Normalised stress gradient on the bubble
 \(p\) :

Mean effective stress
 \(p_{c}\) :

Stress variable controlling size of the surfaces
 \(q\) :

Scalar deviator stress
 \(R\) :

Ratio of sizes of bubble and reference surface
 \(r\) :

Parameter describing ratio of sizes of structure and reference surfaces
 \(r_{0}\) :

Initial value of \(r\)
 \(\mathbf{s}\) :

Tensorial deviator stress
 \(u\), \(\Delta u\) :

Pore and excess pore pressure
 \(v\) :

Specific volume
 \(\bar{\varvec{\alpha }}\) :

Location of the centre of the bubble
 \(\hat{\varvec{\alpha }}\) :

Location of the centre of the structure surface
 \(\varepsilon _{v}^{p}\) :

Volumetric strain
 \(\varepsilon _{q}^{p}\) :

Deviatoric strain
 \(\varepsilon _{d}\) :

Damage strain
 \(\gamma \) :

Cyclic shear strain amplitude
 \(\bar{{\gamma }}\) :

Unit weight
 \(\varvec{\eta }_0\) :

Dimensionless deviatoric tensor (anisotropy of structure)
 \(\kappa ^{*}\) :

Slope of swelling line in ln\(v\) : ln\(p\) compression plane
 \(\lambda ^{*}\) :

Slope of normal compression line in ln\(v\) : ln\(p\) compression plane
 \(\mu \) :

Positive scalar of proportionality
 \(\nu \) :

Poisson’s ratio
 \(\varvec{\sigma }\) :

Effective stress tensor
 \(\varvec{\sigma }_{c}\) :

Conjugate stress
 \(\psi \) :

Stiffness interpolation exponent
 \(a_{\mathrm{max}}\) :

Earthquake maximum acceleration
 \(D\) :

Damping ratio
 \(I_{a}\) :

Arias intensity
 \(M_{W}\) :

Earthquake moment magnitude
 \(P\) :

Probability of exceedance
 \(T_{90}\) :

Earthquake effective duration
 \(T_{R}\) :

Return period
 \(\alpha \), \(\beta \) :

Modal damping coefficients
 \(\beta _{1}\), \(\beta _{2}\), \(\beta _{1}^{*}\) :

Generalised Newmark parameters
 \(\lambda \) :

Annual frequency of exceedance
 \(\omega \) :

Angular frequency
References
Alyami M, Rouainia M, Wilkinson SM (2009) Numerical analysis of deformation behaviour of quay walls under earthquake loading. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29(3):525–536
Arias A (1970) A measure of earthquake intensity. In: Hansen RJ (ed) Seismic design for nuclear power plants. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge, pp 438–483
Asaoka A, Nakano M, Noda T (2000) Superloading yield surface concept for highly structured soil behavior. Soils Found 40(2):99–110
Bell RA, Iwakiri J (1980) Settlement comparison used in tankfailure study. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 2: 153–169
Biot MA (1941) General theory of threedimensional consolidation. J Appl Phys 12:155–164
Bjerrum L, Overland A (1957) Foundation failure of an oil tank in Fredrikstad, Norway. In: Proceedings of 4th international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, vol 1 pp 287–290
Bozozuk M (1979) Problems with concrete tower silos. Can Agric Eng 21(2):69–77
Burghignoli A, D’Elia M, Miliziano S, Soccodato FM (1999) Analisi dei cedimenti di un silo fondato su terreni argillosi cementati. Rivista Italiana di Geotecnica 3:23–36
Burghignoli A, Cocciuti M, Miliziano S, Soccodato FM (2003) Evaluation of the advanced constitutive modelling for cemented clay soils: a case history. Math Comput Model 37:631–640
Burland JB (1969) Deformation of soft clay beneath loaded areas. Proc VII ICSMFE Mexico City 1:55–63
Burland JB (1990) On the compressibility and shear strength of natural clays. Géotechnique 40(3):329–378
Castro G, Christian JT (1976) Shear strength of soils and cyclic loading. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 102(GT9):887–894
Chan AHC (1995) User Manual for DIANASWANDYNE II. University of Birmingham, UK
Clough RW, Penzien J (1993) Dynamics of structures, 2nd edn. McGrawHill, New York
Cotecchia F, Chandler RJ (1997) The influence of structure on the prefailure behaviour of a natural clay. Géotechnique 47(3):523–544
Dafalias YF, Popov EP (1975) A model of nonlinearly hardening materials for complex loading. Acta Mechanica 21(3):173–192
D’Elia M, Miliziano S, Soccodato FM, Tamagnini C (1999) Observed and predicted behaviour of a silo founded on a cemented soft clayey soil. In: Jamiolkowski Lancellotta, Presti Lo (eds) Prefailure deformation characteristics of geomaterials. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 741–748
de Sanctis L, Russo G (2008) Analysis and performance of piled rafts designed using innovative criteria. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 134(8):1118–1128
Dogangun A, Karaca Z, Durmus A, Sezen H (2009) Cause of damage and failures in silo structures. J Perform Constr Facil 23:65–71
EERI (2009) Learning from Earthquakes. The Mw 6.3 Abruzzo, Italy, Earthquake of April 6, 2009, EERI Special Earthquake Report, June 2009
Elia G, Amorosi A, Chan AHC, Kavvadas M (2011a) Fully coupled dynamic analysis of an earth dam. Géotechnique 61(7):549–563
Elia G, Amorosi A, Chan AHC, Kavvadas M (2011b) Numerical prediction of the dynamic behaviour of two earth dams in Italy using a fullycoupled nonlinear approach. Int J Geomech 11(6):504–518
Elia G, Rouainia M (2013) Seismic performance of earth embankment using simple and advanced numerical approaches. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 139(7):1115–1129
EN 1998–1 (2004) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. CEN European Committee for Standardization, Bruxelles, Belgium
Fioravante V, Jamiolkowski M, Lancellotta R (1994) An analysis of pressuremeter holding tests. Géotechnique 44(2):227–238
Gens A, Nova R (1993) Conceptual bases for a constitutive model for bonded soils and weak rocks. In: Anagnostopoulos et al. (eds) Proceedings of international confernce on hard soils–soft rocks, Athens. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 485–494
Gonzáles NA, Rouainia M, Arroyo M, Gens A (2012) Analysis of tunnel excavation in London clay incorporating soil structure. Géotechnique 62(12):1095–1109
Gruppo di Lavoro MPS (2004) Redazione della mappa di pericolosità sismica prevista dall’Ordinanza PCM 3274 del 20 marzo 2003—Rapporto Conclusivo per il Dipartimento della Protezione Civile, INGV, MilanoRoma, 65 pp. \(+\) 5 appendici
Katona MG, Zienkiewicz OC (1985) A unified set of single step algorithms Part 3: the Betam method, a generalisation of the Newmark scheme. Int J Num Methods Eng 21:1345–1359
Kianoush MR, Ghaemmaghami AR (2011) The effect of earthquake frequency content on the seismic behavior of concrete rectangular liquid tanks using the finite element method incorporating soilstructure interaction. Eng Struct 33:2186–2200
Kwok AOL, Stewart JP, Hashash YMA, Matasovic N, Pyke R, Wang Z, Yang Z (2007) Use of exact solutions of wave propagation problems to guide implementation of nonlinear seismic ground response analysis procedures. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 133(11):1385–1398
Leroueil S, Vaughan PR (1990) The general and congruent effects of structure in natural soils and weak rocks. Géotechnique 40(3):467–488
Liu MD, Carter JP (2002) A structured Cam clay model. Can Geotech J 39:1313–1332
Livaoglu R (2008) Investigation of seismic behavior of fluidrectangular tanksoil/foundation systems in frequency domain. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 28:132–146
M. LL. PP. (2008) Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni. DM 14 gennaio 2008, Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana, 29
Moslemi M, Kianoush MR (2012) Parametric study on dynamic behavior of cylindrical groundsupported tanks. Eng Struct 42:214–230
Muir Wood D (1980) Yielding in soft clay at Bäckebol Sweden. Géotechnique 30(1):49–65
Panayides S, Rouainia M (2012) Influence of degradation of structure on the behaviour of a fullscale embankment. Can Geotech J 49:344–356
Pastor M, Zienkiewicz OC, Chan AHC (1990) Generalized plasticity and the modelling of soil behaviour. Int J Number Anal Methods Geomech 14:151–190
Penman ADM (1978) Soilstructure interaction and deformation problems with large oil tanks. Ground Eng 11:22–51
Rampello S, Callisto L (2003) Predicted and observed performance of an oil tank founded on soilcement columns in clayey soils. Soils Found 43(4):229–241
Ricceri G (1974) Fondazioni di serbatoi metallic. Rivista Italiana di Geotecnica 3:123–133
Roscoe KH, Burland JB (1968) On the generalized stressstrain behaviour of “wet” clay. Engineering plasticity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 535–609
Rouainia M, Muir Wood D (2000) A kinematic hardening constitutive model for natural clays with loss of structure. Géotechnique 50:153–164
Rouainia M, Muir Wood D (2001) Implicit numerical integration for a kinematic hardening soil plasticity model. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 25:1305–1325
Sangrey DA, Henkel DJ, Esrig MI (1969) The effective stress response of a saturated clay soil to repeated loading. Can Geotech J 6(3):241–252
Sekhar CD, Somnath D, Rana R (2009) Dynamic behavior of R/C elevated tanks with soilstructure interaction. Eng Struct 31:2617–2629
Sezen H, Livaoglu R, Dogangun A (2008) Dynamic analysis and seismic performance evaluation of aboveground liquidcontaining tanks. Eng Struct 30:794–803
Towhata I (2008) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Springer, Berlin
Trifunac MD, Brady AG (1975) A study of the duration of strong earthquake ground motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 65:581–626
Vucetic M, Dobry R (1991) Effects of the soil plasticity on cyclic response. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 117(1):89–107
Zhao J, Sheng D, Rouainia M, Sloan SW (2005) Explicit stress integration of complex soil models. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 29:1209–1229
Zienkiewicz OC, Chan AHC, Pastor M, Schrefler BA, Shiomi T (1999) Computational geomechanics (with special reference to earthquake engineering). Wiley, Chichester
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix 1: Numerical formulation of the finite element code
In the context of FE analysis, assuming that the relative velocity of the fluid phase is negligible, the system of ordinary equation that results from the \(up\) formulation can be written as follows (Biot 1941; Zienkiewicz et al. 1999):
where u is the solid phase displacement vector and p is the pore fluid pressure vector, [\(M\)] is the mass matrix, [\(K\)] is the stiffness matrix, [\(C\)] is the viscous damping matrix, [\(Q\)] is the coupling matrix between the motion and flow equations, [\(H\)] is the permeability matrix, [\(S\)] is the compressibility matrix, \(\mathbf{f}^{p}\) is the force vector for the fluid phase and \(\mathbf{f}^{s}\) is the force vector for the solid phase. Frequency dependent viscous damping is included via the Rayleigh damping matrix (Clough and Penzien 1993):
where the factors \(\alpha \) and \(\beta \) are related to the modal damping coefficients according to the relationship:
These coefficients can be calculated by selecting one value of damping ratio \(D\) and two frequencies, \(\omega _{m}\) and \(\omega _{n}\), outside which damping is larger than the selected value.
The algebraic counterparts of Eq. (1) are obtained by applying a timeintegration scheme. Assuming that the values of displacements, pore pressures and their time derivatives \(\left\{ {\mathbf{u}_n ,\dot{\mathbf{u}}_n ,\ddot{\mathbf{u}}_n ,\mathbf{p}_n ,\dot{\mathbf{p}}_n } \right\} \) have been obtained at time \(t_{n}\), the integration consists of updating \(\left\{ {\mathbf{u}_{n+1} ,\dot{\mathbf{u}}_{n+1} ,\ddot{\mathbf{u}}_{n+1} , \mathbf{p}_{n+1} ,\dot{\mathbf{p}}_{n+1} } \right\} \) at the next time step \(t_{n+1}\) according to the Generalised Newmark scheme (Katona and Zienkiewicz 1985). In particular, for the solid phase:
Similarly for the fluid phase:
where the coefficients:
are typically chosen for unconditional stability of the recurrence scheme (Zienkiewicz et al. 1999). The substitution of the above approximations into Eq. (1) leads to a system of coupled nonlinear equations which are solved iteratively by the FE code using the NewtonRaphson procedure.
Appendix 2: Constitutive model formulation
Figure 18 shows the three characteristic surfaces of the RMW model in the \(p:q\) plane and its formulation is summarised in the following. The expression of the reference surface is:
The bubble surface is written as:
The structure surface is given by:
where \(p_{c}\) is the effective stress which defines the size of the reference surface, \(R\) is the size of the bubble, \(M_{\theta }\) is a dimensionless scaling function for deviatoric variation of the critical state stress ratio, \(\varvec{\eta }_0\) a deviatoric tensor controlling the structure, \(r\) is the ratio of the sizes of the structure and the reference surfaces, \(p\) and \({\varvec{s}}\) are the mean pressure and deviatoric stress tensor and the symbol ‘:’ indicates a summation of products. Since the model describes the response of the soil skeleton, all stresses are effective stresses (the primes have been dropped for simplicity). The dots over symbols indicate an infinitesimal increment of the corresponding quantity, whereas boldface symbols indicate tensors.
The scalar variable \(r\), which is a monotonically decreasing function of both plastic volumetric and shear strain, represents the progressive degradation of the material as follows:
where \(\lambda ^{*}\) and \(\kappa ^{*}\) are the slopes of normal compression and swelling lines in the ln\(v\) : ln\(p\) compression plane (being \(v\) the soil specific volume) and \(k \) is a parameter which controls the structure degradation with strain. The rate of the destructuration strain \(\dot{\varepsilon }_d \) is assumed to have the following form:
where \(A \) is a nondimensional scaling parameter and \(\dot{\varepsilon }_q^p \) and \(\dot{\varepsilon }_v^p \) are the plastic shear and volumetric strain rate, respectively.
Volumetric hardening rule is adopted in the model, where the change in size of the reference surface, \(p_{c}\), is controlled only by plastic volumetric strain rate, \(\dot{\varepsilon }_v^p \), given by:
If a stress increment requires movement of the bubble relative to the structure surface, the following kinematic hardening is invoked:
where \(\bar{\varvec{\alpha }}\) and \(\hat{\varvec{{\alpha }}}=p_c \left[ {r{{\varvec{I}}}+\left( {r1} \right) \varvec{\eta }_0} \right] \) denote the locations of the centre of the bubble and structure surface respectively, \(\varvec{\sigma }_{c}\) is the conjugate stress and \(\mu \) is a positive scalar of proportionality. It should be noted that the centre of the structure surface and the deviator of \(\hat{\varvec{\alpha }}\) represents the anisotropy of the soil due to structure. The deviator of \(\hat{\varvec{\alpha }}\) therefore degrades to zero as \(r\) degrades to unity.
The plastic modulus \(H\) is assumed to depend on the distance between the current stress and the conjugate stress and is given by:
where \(H_{c}\) is the plastic modulus at the conjugate stress, \(B\) and \(\psi \) are two additional material properties, \(b=\bar{{{\varvec{n}}}}:(\varvec{\sigma }_c \varvec{\sigma })\) is the normalised distance between the bubble and the structure surface and \(b_{\max } =2(r/R1)\bar{{\varvec{n}}}:(\varvec{\sigma } \bar{\varvec{\alpha }})\) is its maximum value.
Finally, the bulk and shear moduli, \(K\) and \(G\), are assumed to depend linearly on the mean effective pressure \(p\):
where \(\nu \) is a constant Poisson’s ratio.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Elia, G., Rouainia, M. Performance evaluation of a shallow foundation built on structured clays under seismic loading. Bull Earthquake Eng 12, 1537–1561 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s1051801495913
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s1051801495913