Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison Between Two Approaches for Non-linear FEM Modelling of the Seismic Behaviour of a Coupled Soil–Structure System

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

One basic factor influencing the seismic design of new structures, as well as the retrofitting and/or improvement of existing ones, is the dynamic interaction between the foundation soil and the structure. An accurate investigation of the structure and surrounding soil is the first fundamental step in a realistic evaluation of the seismic performance of the coupled soil–structure system. The present paper deals with the dynamic behaviour of a coupled soil–structure system, i.e. a school building in Catania, characterized by a high seismic hazard. The soil properties were carefully defined by means of in situ and laboratory tests. Different 2D numerical analyses were performed, considering both free-field conditions and the soil–structure interaction (SSI), in order to evaluate quantitatively the known differences between the two types of condition. Seven accelerograms scaled at the same PHA, regarding the estimated seismicity of Catania, were adopted. Two different approaches were used to study soil-nonlinearity, which is extremely important in soil mechanics: firstly, adopting constant degraded shear modula G and increased soil damping ratios D, in line with EC8—Part 5 (2003); secondly, choosing G and D according to the effective strain levels obtained for each different input. The main goals of the paper are: (1) to highlight the importance of considering and not considering the dynamic SSI in terms of: acceleration profiles and soil filtering effect; (2) to evaluate the influence of different modelling of soil non-linearity on the dynamic response of the system; (3) to compare the response spectra obtained with that given by the Italian technical code (NTC in New technical standards for buildings, 2008).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

A :

Amplification function in the frequency domain; i.e. the ratio between the Fourier spectrum at a fixed depth and the Fourier spectrum at the base of the soil deposit

a, a g :

Acceleration

B :

Width of the structure

b :

Coefficient of reduction of the maximum acceleration expected at the site

BC 1 :

Label for boundary condition 1, for all the nodes at the base of the mesh

BC 2 :

Label for boundary condition 2, for all the nodes of the soil vertical boundaries

c′:

Cohesion of the soil

C c :

Parameter depending on the soil type

C 1 :

Coefficient proposed by NTC (2008) for the evaluation of the period of the structure

D,D(γ):

Damping ratio at the current shear strain γ

DSSI :

Dynamic soil–structure interaction

e 0 :

Void ratio

E :

Young modulus

E* :

Degraded Young modulus

FEM :

Finite element method

FF :

Free field

f :

Frequency

f input :

Frequency of the input

f FF :

Soil frequency evaluated considering the FF alignment

f SSI :

Soil frequency evaluated considering the SSI

F 0 :

Seismic parameter: ratio of the spectral acceleration of the constant spectral acceleration branch to the peak ground acceleration

G, G(γ):

Shear modulus at the current shear strain γ

G 0 :

Shear modulus at small strains

G s :

Specific gravity

g :

Gravity acceleration

H :

Height of the soil deposit

h :

Height of the structure

I A :

Intensity of Arias

K h :

Horizontal seismic coefficient

K v :

Vertical seismic coefficient

n :

Porosity

PHA :

Input peak horizontal acceleration

R a :

Amplification ratio, i.e. the ratio between the maximum acceleration at a fixed depth and the maximum acceleration at the base of the soil deposit

RCT :

Resonant column test

S :

Soil factor by NTC (2008)

S a :

Spectral acceleration

SLO :

Limit state of operability

SLD :

Limit state of damage limitation

SLV :

Limit state for life safety

SLC :

Limit state for collapse prevention

SDMT :

Seismic dilatometer Marchetti test

S S :

Stratigraphic amplification coefficient

S T :

Topographical coefficient

SSI :

Soil–structure interaction

T :

Period

T c :

Seismic parameter: upper limit of the period of the constant spectral acceleration branch

T FB :

Natural period of the fixed-base structure

T SSI :

Natural period of the structure including the soil

T STRU :

Natural period of the structure

T INP :

Predominant period of the input motion

U 2 :

Displacement in y-direction

U 3 :

Displacement in z-direction

V s :

Shear waves velocity

V s * :

Degraded shear wave velocity

w :

Natural water content

z :

Vertical axis (depth)

α :

Rayleigh damping factor

β :

Rayleigh damping factor

φ′:

Angle of shear strength

γ :

Shear strain

γ dry :

Dry unit weight

ν :

Poisson ratio

ω :

Angular frequency

References

  • Abate G, Massimino MR (2016) Dynamic soil–structure interaction analysis by experimental and numerical modelling. Riv Ital Geotecn 50(2):44–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Abate G, Massimino MR (2017a) Numerical modelling of the seismic response of a tunnel-soil-aboveground building system in Catania (Italy). B Earthq Eng 15(1):469–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abate G, Massimino MR (2017b) Parametric analysis of the seismic response of coupled tunnel-soil aboveground building systems by numerical modelling. B Earthq Eng 15(1):443–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abate G, Caruso C, Massimino MR, Maugeri M (2007) Validation of a new soil constitutive model for cyclic loading by fem analysis. Solid Mech Appl 146:759–768

    Google Scholar 

  • Abate G, Massimino MR, Maugeri M (2015) Numerical modelling of centrifuge tests on tunnel–soil systems. B Earthq Eng 13(7):1927–1951

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abate G, Massimino MR, Romano S (2016) Finite element analysis of DSSI effects for a building of strategic importance in Catania (Italy). In: Proceedings of VI Italian conference of researchers in geotechnical engineering—geotechnical engineering in multidisciplinary research: from microscale to regional scale, CNRIG2016. Procedia Engineering, vol 158. pp 374–379

  • Abate G, Gatto M, Massimino MR, Pitilakis D (2017) Large scale soil-foundation-structure model in Greece: dynamic tests vs FEM simulation. In: Papadrakakis M, Fragiadakis M (eds) Proceedings of 6th ECCOMAS thematic conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering. COMPDYN 2017. Rhodes Island, Greece, 15–17 June 2017

  • Abate G, Corsico S, Grasso S, Massimino MR, Motta E (2018a) Dynamic behaviour of coupled soil-structure systems by means of FEM analysis for the seismic risk mitigation of INGV building in Catania (Italy). Ann Geophys. https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-7739

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abate G, Grasso S, Massimino MR, Pitilakis D (2018b) Some aspects of DSSI in the dynamic response of fully-coupled soil-structure systems. Riv Ital Geotecn (to be published)

  • ADINA (2008) Automatic dynamic incremental nonlinear analysis. Theory and modelling guide. ADINA R&D, Inc., Watertown

    Google Scholar 

  • Anastasopoulos I, Loli M, Georgarakos T, Drosos V (2013) Shaking table testing of rocking—isolated bridge pier on sand. J Earthq Eng 17:1–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behnamfar F, Alibabaei H (2017) Classical and non-classical time history and spectrum analysis of soil–structure interaction systems. B Earthq Eng 15:931–965. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-9991-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bienen B, Gaudin C, Cassidy MJ (2007) Centrifuge tests of shallow footing behavior on sand under combined vertical-torsional loading. Int J Phys Mod Geotech 2:1–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Biondi G, Maugeri M (2005) Seismic response analysis of Monte Po hill (Catania). WIT Trans State Art Sci Eng. https://doi.org/10.2495/1-84564-004-7/10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biondi G, Condorelli A, Maugeri M, Mussumeci G (2004) Earthquake-triggered landslides hazard in the Catania area. WIT Trans Ecol Environ. https://doi.org/10.2495/risk040111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biondi G, Cacciola P, Cascone E (2009) Site response analysis using the Preisach formalism. In: Proceedings of 12th international conference on civil, structural and environmental engineering computing 2009, Madeira, Portugal, 1–4 Sep 2009

  • Calvi GM, Cecconi M, Paolucci R (2014) Seismic displacement based design of structures: relevance of soil–structure interaction. Geotech Geol Earthq 28:241–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caruso S, Ferraro A, Grasso S, Massimino MR (2016) Site response analysis in eastern sicily based on direct and indirect Vs measurements. Proceedings of 1st IMEKO TC4 International Workshop on Metrology for Geotechnics, MetroGeotechnics 2016, Benevento, Italy, 17–18 March 2016, pp 115–120

  • Castelli F, Lentini V, Maugeri M (2008) One-dimensional seismic analysis of a solid-waste landfill. In: Proceedings of AIP conference, vol 1020, No. 1. pp 509–516

  • Chatterjee P, Basu B (2008) Some analytical results on lateral dynamic stiffnessfor footings supported on hysteretic soil medium. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 28(1):36–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Combescure D, Chaudat T (2000) Icons European program seismic tests on R/C walls with uplift; CAMUS IV specimen. ICONS Project, CEA/DRN/DMT Report, SEMT/EMSI/RT/00-27/4

  • EC8-Part 1 (2003) Design of structures for earthquake resistance—part 1: GENERAL rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. ENV 1998, Europ. Com. For Standard, Brussels

  • EC8-Part 5 (2003) Design of structures for earthquake resistance—part 5: foundations, retaining structures and geotechnical aspects. ENV 1998, Europ. Com. For Standard, Brussels

  • Faccioli E, Paolucci R, Vivero G (2001) Investigation of seismic soil-footing interaction by large scale cyclic tests and analytical models. In: Special presentation lecture SPL-05, Proceedings of the 4th international conference on recent advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics. San Diego, USA, 26–31 Mar 2001

  • Gajan S, Phalen JD, Kutter BL, Hutchinson TC, Martin G (2005) Centrifuge modelling of load deformation behavior of rocking shallow foundations. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 25(7–10):773–783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gatto M, Massimino MR, Pitilakis D, Rovithis E (2015) Numerical Simulation of large-scale soil-foundation-structure interaction experiments in the EuroProteas facility. In: Proceedings of 6th international conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering 6ICEGE, 1–4 Nov 2015, Christchurch, New Zealand. Paper N. 401

  • Gazetas G (1983) Analysis of machine foundation vibrations: state of the art. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2(1):2–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gazetas G (1991) Foundation vibrations. In: Fang H-Y (ed) Foundation engineering handbook, 2nd edn. Chapman and Hall, New York (Chapter 15)

    Google Scholar 

  • Gazetas G, Apostolou M (2004) Nonlinear soil–structure interaction: foundation uplifting and soil yielding. In: Proceedings of 3rd UJNR workshop on soil–structure interaction. MenloPark, California, USA (CD-ROM)

  • Grasso S, Maugeri M (2009a) The road map for seismic risk analysis in a Mediterranean City. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29(6):1034–1045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grasso S, Maugeri M (2009b) The seismic Microzonation of the City of Catania (Italy) for the maximum expected scenario earthquake of January 11, 1693. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29(6):953–962

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grasso S, Maugeri M, Monaco P, Totan F, Totani G (2011) Site effects and site amplification due to the 2009 Abruzzo earthquake. WIT Trans Built Environ 120:29–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Groholski DR, Hashash YMA, Phillips D (2010) Recent advances in non-linear site response analysis. In: Proceedings of 1st international conference on recent advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics and symposium in honor of Professor I.M. Idriss. May 24–29, 2010. San Diego

  • Karatzetzou A, Pitilakis D (2017) Modification of dynamic foundation response due to soil–structure interaction. J Earthq Eng. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2016.1264335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kutter BL, Wilson DL (2006) Physical modelling of dynamic behaviour of soil-foundation-superstructure systems. Int J Phys Mod Geotech 6(1):1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Lanzo G, Silvestri F (1999) Risposta sismica locale: teorie ed esperienze. Helvius Edizioni, Napoli

  • Lanzo G, Pagliaroli A, D’Elia B (2004) Influenza della modellazione di Rayleigh dello smorzamento viscoso nelle analisi di risposta sismica locale. In: Proc. of XI National Conference “Seismic Engineering in Italy” Genova, 25–29 Jan 2004

  • Martin CM, Houlsby GT (2001) Combined loading of spudcan foundations on clay: numerical modeling. Geotechnique 51(8):687–699

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massimino MR (2005) Experimental and numerical modelling of a scaled soil–structure system. Adv Earthq Eng 14:227–241

    Google Scholar 

  • Massimino MR, Biondi G (2015) Some experimental evidences on dynamic soil–structure interaction. In: Papadrakakis M, Papadopoulos V, Plevris V (eds) Proceedings of 5th ECCOMAS thematic conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering, Crete Island, Greece, 25–27 May 2015. COMPDYN 2015, pp 2761–2774

  • Massimino MR, Scuderi G (2009) Response of a soil–structure system to different seismic inputs. In: Sakr M, Ansal A, TC4 Committee (eds) Proceedings of earth. Geotechnical engineering satellite conference in XVII international conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering October 2–3, 2009, Alexandria (Egypt)

  • Maugeri M, Abate G, Massimino MR (2012) Soil–structure interaction for seismic improvement of Noto Cathedral (Italy). Geotech Geol Earthq 16:217–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2060-2_8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mylonakis G, Gazetas G (2000) Seismic soil-structure interaction: beneficial or detrimental? J Earthq Eng 4(3): 227–301

    Google Scholar 

  • NTC (2008) D.M.  14/01/08 - New technical standards for buildings, Official Journal of the Italian Republic, 14th January 2008 (In Italian).

  • NTC (2018) D.M. 17/01/18 - Updating of technical standards for buildings, Official Journal of the Italian Republic, 17th January 2018 (In Italian)

  • Pandey BH, Liam Finn WD, Ventura CE (2012) Modification of free-field motions by soil-foundation-structure interaction for shallow foundations. Proceedings of 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, 24–28 September, paper 3575

  • Pecker A, Chatzigogos CT (2010) Non linear soil structure interaction: impact on the seismic response of structures. In: Proceedings of XIV European conference on earthquake engineering. August 2010, Ohrid, FYROM, Keynote lecture

  • Pecker A, Paolucci R, Chatzigogos CT, Correia AA, Figini R (2013) The role of non-linear dynamic soil-foundation interaction on the seismic response of structures. B Earthq Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9457-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pitilakis D, Ilioub K, Karatzetzoua A (2018) Shaking table tests on a stone masonry building: modeling and identification of dynamic properties including soil-foundation-structure interaction. Int J Archit Herit. https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2018.1431729

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prasad SK, Towhata I, Chandradhara GP, Nanjunaswamy P (2004) Shaking table tests in earthquake geotechnical engineering. Curr Sci India 87(10):1398–1404

    Google Scholar 

  • Renzi S, Madiai C, Vannucchi G (2013) A simplified empirical method for assessing seismic soil–structure interaction effects on ordinary shear-type buildings. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 55:100–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rovithis E, Kirtas E, Bliziotis D, Maltezos E, Pitilakis D, Makra K, Savvaidis A, Karakostas C, Lekidis K (2017) A LiDAR-aided urban-scale assessment of soil–structure interaction effects: the case of Kalochori residential area (N. Greece). B Earthq Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0155-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sica S, Mylonakis G, Simonelli AL (2011) Transient kinematic pile bending in two-layer soil. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 31(7):891–905

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ueng TS, Wang MH, Chen MH, Chen CH, Peng LH (2006) A large biaxial shear box for shaking table test on saturated sand. Geotech Test J 29(1):1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Ugalde JA, Kutter BL, Jeremic B, Gajan S (2007) Centrifuge modelling of rocking behaviour of bridges on shallow foundations. In: Proceedings of 4th international conference earthquake geotechnical engineering, Thessaloniki, Greece, June 25–28 (Paper no. 1484)

  • Veletsos AS, Meek JW (1974) Dynamic behaviour of building-foundation systems. Earthq Eng Struct D 3:121–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voyagaki E, Psycharis IN, Mylonakis G (2013) Rocking response and overturning criteria for free standing rigid blocks to single-lobe pulses. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 46:85–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Financial supports provided by the POR-FESR Research Project Sicilia 2007–2013 (Line 4.1.1.1), funded by the European Community, and provided by the DPC/ReLUIS 2017 Research Project, funded by Civil Protection Department, allowed the authors to achieve the results reported in this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture, University of Catania, Viale Andrea Doria 6, 95125, Catania, Italy

    M. R. Massimino, G. Abate & S. Corsico

  2. Geotechnical Design Study “Terrasol”, Lyon, France

    R. Louarn

Authors
  1. M. R. Massimino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. G. Abate
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Corsico
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R. Louarn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. R. Massimino.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Massimino, M.R., Abate, G., Corsico, S. et al. Comparison Between Two Approaches for Non-linear FEM Modelling of the Seismic Behaviour of a Coupled Soil–Structure System. Geotech Geol Eng 37, 1957–1975 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-018-0737-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-018-0737-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation