INFLUENCE OF STRUCTURE-SOIL-INTERACTION ON IMPEDANCE

FUNCTIONS: ANALYSIS, QUANTIFICATION, DESIGN PROPOSALS

Carole PINEAU1, Frédéric BARBIER1, Jean-Mathieu RAMBACH1, Julien CLEMENT2,

François TARALLO2, Jean-Philippe TARDIVEL2

ABSTRACT

Accounting for soil-structure interaction (SSI) is necessary for realistic seismic modeling in structural dynamics
for design and safety purposes. Most studies with the conventional sub-structure method consider a soil-structure
system divided in two sub-structures: a) the “engineered” structure or “superstructure” and b) the remaining
unbounded soil. Soil-structure interaction is taken into account through impedance functions associated with a
springs and dampers system integrating soil stiffness. In most cases, studied buildings are considered as
“isolated” from the surrounding structures. The purpose of this paper is to quantify the effect of structure-soil-
structure interaction (SSSI) related to the surrounding heavy structures in comparison with classical soil-
structure interaction on the definition of impedance functions.
In current design and assessment methods, emphasis has often been given to aspects such as the deconvolution
of the seismic signal, the transient nature of seismic loading, the effect of embedment, etc… In the study of soil-
structure interaction, remains, however, a strong simplifying assumption which is the consideration of buildings
as being isolated from adjacent massive structures. This paper highlights that, for some specific configurations,
some attention shall be given on the SSSI effect, especially when the dynamic response of a building is sought
with increased precision, and considering its neighboring massive structures.

Keywords:
Impedance functions;Structure-Soil-Structure Interaction;Massive adjacent structures; Sub-structure method

1. INTRODUCTION

Accounting for soil-structure interaction (SSI) is necessary for realistic seismic modeling in structural
dynamics for design and safety purposes. Most studies with the conventional sub-structure method
consider a soil-structure system divided in two sub-structures: a) the “engineered” structure or
“superstructure” and b) the remaining unbounded soil. Soil-structure interaction is taken into account
through impedance functions associated with a springs and dampers system integrating soil stiffness.
In most cases, studied buildings are considered as “isolated” from the surrounding structures. The
purpose of this paper is to quantify the effect of structure-soil-structure interaction (SSSI) related to
the surrounding heavy structures in comparison with classical soil-structure interaction on the
definition of impedance functions. Hereafter are presented the results of a soil-structure interaction
study for an industrial building (B1) considering several configurations including the presence or not
of a heavier neighboring building (B2).

1
GDS, Géodynamique et Structure, Montrouge, France, carole.pineau@geodynamique.com
2
IRSN, Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire, Fontenay-aux-Roses, France
2. SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION – IMPEDANCE FUNCTIONS

In current assessment methods of soil-structure interaction (SSI), the conventional sub-structure

method is considered. This procedure splits the soil-structure system in two sub-structures, the
interaction of which is generated through impedance functions.

Respecting the actual standards, specifically the ASN guidelines (ASN 2/01) and the Eurocodes, it is
admitted to take into consideration the following simplifying assumptions:
 The influence of neighboring structures is disregarded
 The building of interest is often considered founded superficially
 The site is assumed to consist of visco-elastic horizontal soil layers
 In the case of shallow foundation with a regular shape, coupling terms between translation and
rotation can be neglected

Impedance functions represent the link between soil domain and structure domain. These functions
consist of springs and dampers system which integrated soil stiffness for a frequency range (defined
between 0.1 and 15 Hz for the actual study). On the structural side, some calibration are required
based on these impedance functions and on the structure natural frequencies in order to define soil-
structure interaction frequencies and a corresponding set of spring and dampers which will modelled
the soil stiffness in the superstructure model.

Dynamic impedance functions represent the stiffness matrix of the soil-foundation system for a
harmonic unit load applied at the center of foundation. Stiffness terms of the impedance matrix
correspond to real part of reactions forces exerted on massless foundation when subjected to unit
harmonic displacement in each degree of freedom. Damping terms which represents the amount of
dissipated energy by means of radiation and hysteretic damping of soil correspond to the imaginary
part of the impedance functions.

Hereafter are presented typical impedance functions for a circular foundation on homogeneous soil,
according to the following analytic formulation of dynamic impedance.

Figure 1. Impedance functions for shallow circular foundation (Pecker 1986)

2
In the context of structure design procedure, the soil-structure interaction is modeled by springs and
dampers mat distributed under the raft. Global stiffness of the soil-foundation system depends on the
excitation frequency of the foundation and eigenmodes of the building depends on the soil stiffness. It
is therefore necessary to calibrate these stiffness values according to the main modes of the structure
through an iterative procedure.

Each term of soil stiffness is calibrated taken into account a natural mode of the structure. The
longitudinal mode (X direction) is used for the calibration of translation along X-axis, rotation about
Y-axis and coupling between X-translation and Y-rotation. Similarly, the longitudinal mode in Y
direction is used for the calibration of translation along Y-axis, rotation about X-axis and coupling
between Y-translation and X-rotation. The fundamental vertical mode is used for calibration of
pumping mode and rotation about vertical axis is calibrated with the main horizontal mode.

3. ANALYSES AND QUANTIFICATION

The purpose of this this paper is to quantify the effect of structure-soil-structure interaction (SSSI)
related to the surrounding heavy structures in comparison with classical soil-structure interaction on
the definition of impedance functions.

The paper studies a configuration consisting of two industrial buildings (B1&B2), in which (B2) is
heavier than (B1). The calculation of impedance functions is carried out with the code SASSI-2010
dedicated to soil-structure interaction problems. Structural elements (foundations stick model, near-
field surrounding soil or excavated soil) are explicitly modeled with finite elements; the unbounded
soil domain is implicitly modeled as a stratigraphy of horizontal layers of infinite extension.

In this document, soil-structure interaction is performed according to the usual methods and
assumptions in the first instance. Then, a structure-soil-structure interaction study is performed
including the heavy adjacent building (B2) and results are compared to those obtained for the first SSI
model. The Figure 2 illustrates the several configurations for which soil-structure interaction for
building (B1) is assessed. A supplementary configuration is taken into consideration in order to bring
the influence of the difference of excavation level between the two considered buildings out.

Initially, classical impedance functions for building (B1) are computed. The model is defined at the
foundation level of the building (B1) and mat foundations are modeled as rigid and massless parts.
Impedance functions are computed at the control point located at the geometric center of the
foundation model.

Then, the building (B2) is added into the model by means of a lumped-mass stick model and
excavated volumetric finite elements for correction of the foundation level as shown in Figure 3. Rigid
links represented by beams of large flexural and axial rigidities are used to connect the stick model to
the basemat. Impedance functions are recomputed taking into account the embedment of building (B1)
compared to the (B2) foundation level and the presence of the building (B2) : effect of the structure-
soil-structure interaction.

The particular comparison between usual SSI computation and SSSI computation is given in Figure 4,
in terms of frequency-depending soil stiffness and damping evolution.

3
Figure 2. Studied configurations for building (B1) SSI assessment

Figure 3. Finite elements model for building (B1) SSSI assessment

4
These analyses bring out a quantification of the structure-soil-structure interaction effect on impedance
functions, for the particular studied case. For each term of the stiffness matrix, SSI impedance
functions (B1) are presented together with SSSI impedance functions (B1&B2).

Figure 4. Comparison between SSI and SSSI impedance functions for building (B1)
5
There is a strong dependence of impedance functions on the direction of solicitation with the
orientation of the buildings. For two buildings subjected to soil-structure interaction and aligned along
the Y-axis, stiffness terms related to the transversal Y-direction are more likely to be impacted by the
structure-soil-structure interaction than the stiffness terms related to the longitudinal X-direction. It
can be observed in Figure 4, for which the terms Kx, Ry and Rz are not or sparsely impacted and the
global shape of the impedance curves are similar to those for analytic curves from literature.

In order to provide additional guidance for the interpretation of results, a complementary analysis is
performed. For each of the two parts of stick model, a pseudo-transfer function in displacement is
computed for the highlighting of the natural modes. For each division of the stick model, a harmonic
excitation is imposed at a control point defined at the extremity of the division and responses for each
degree of freedom are computed at this same control point. This analysis brings the results presented
in Figure 5 and 6, respectively of each division of the (B2) simplified model. A third computation is
performed in order to highlight the coupling between the two buildings through the soil. This last
analysis consists of the assessment of the response of each division of the (B2) simplified model when
the harmonic excitation is applied at the center of the (B1) foundation. The results of the response of
(B2) foundation and of each division of the stick model are presented in Figure 7.

Figure 5. Amplifications due to the first division of the (B2) stick model

6
 Figure 6. Amplifications due to the second division of the (B2) stick model

Figure 7. (B2) behavior under (B1) loading

The complementary analysis on natural modes of the stick model representing the (B2) building
allows the following observation. For sensitive terms in this particular case, impedance functions are
sensitively affected: additional amplifications or attenuation are noteworthy corresponding to the

7
eigenmodes and the possible phase-shift of the nearby heavy structure (B2).

Eigenmodes of the nearby heavy structure (B2) are highlighted by narrow singularities on SSSI
impedance functions for pure structural modes (low damping) – for example around 0.7 Hz, 1.7 Hz,
2.2 Hz for translation terms or 3 Hz and 4 Hz for rotation terms – and larger variations for coupled
soil-structure modes (higher damping). For the present case, the dynamic terms of impedance
functions which are sparsely impacted by SSSI are covered by the usual sensitivity applied on soil
modulus (factors of 2/3 and 3/2).

As shown in Figure 2, a last configuration has been studied in order to highlight the effect of
difference of excavation level between the two structures. This configuration is constituted of (B2),
which is modeled by means and the lumped-mass stick model, and a building (B1BIS), which represents
the same footing and mass of (B1) but which is founded at an inferior level than (B2) - on the contrary
to (B1) which is founded at a superior level than (B2). The SSSI model for (B1 BIS) SSSI assessment is
shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8. Finite elements model for building (B1bis) SSSI assessment

The results of this third configuration – presented in Figure 9 – in comparison with the results obtained
for the SSSI assessment for (B1) building, bring us to notice the influence of the difference of
excavation levels between two buildings. The difference of excavation levels between (B1) and (B2)
or between (B1BIS) and (B2) correspond to a pseudo-embedment in surrounding soil and modify the
response of the foundation.

For the assessment of (B1) SSSI, the additional presence of the surrounding (B2) building into the
model correspond to simulate an excavation nearby the (B1) foundation and to decompact the soil
between the two excavation levels, even if the presence of the building brings higher stiffness in depth.
This phenomenon can be observed for translational terms of the impedance functions in Figure 4.

For the assessment of (B1BIS) SSSI, the additional presence of the surrounding (B2) building into the
model correspond to simulate an addition of soil material around the (B1BIS) foundation and so increase
stiffness of the soil below the foundation in addition to the effect due to the (B2) building. This
phenomenon can be observed for longitudinal terms of the impedance functions in Figure 9.
In this particular case, the dynamic SSSI impedance functions are more buffeted than it was for the
previous case. For a similar shape and mass, the response of buildings (B1) and (B1 BIS) are not
8
impacted in a same way by the presence of the (B2) building, due to the configuration of foundations
levels. For information, the dynamic terms of impedance functions which are less impacted by SSSI
are not fully covered by the usual sensitivity applied on soil modulus (factors of 2/3 and 3/2).

Figure 9. Comparison between SSI and SSSI impedance functions for building (B1bis)

9
4. DESIGN PROPOSALS

It is already recognized that the shape of the interaction interface between the soil and the structure
and the amount of embedment play a significant role in dynamic response of foundations. That is why
specific SSI assessment studies are usually performed, taken into consideration the particular shape of
the foundation and its embedment.

Similarly, some aspects of structure-soil-structure interaction have begun to be explored and the
following points are already noticed:

 As J. Betbeder Matibet shows (2003), the presence of a similar adjacent foundation may have
impact on amplified frequencies of the studied foundation. In his paper, two directly adjacent
foundations, having the same shape and surface loading, are taken into consideration. It is
highlighted that there is an interaction between the two buildings according to the ratio of
surface. It may be interesting to lead a similar study with two same footprints buildings, with
variant ratio of masses, variant distance between them or even variant difference of excavation
level.
 The effect of embedment of an isolated foundation is studied by Levadoux & al. (1985). Its
study precise the fact that the embedment leads to a stiffening of soil together with the
creation of new displacements boundary conditions on the exaction interface. This aspect of
rigid boundary conditions can also be noticed when considering an adjacent foundation (even
without superstructure modelling).
 The distance between two foundations is also a parameter which has an influence on
Structure-Soil-Structure interaction. For two adjacent buildings, Aubry & al. (1985) highlight
the coupling between them through the soil and admit a negligible interaction from a distance
beyond a half width of the largest one. This is an idea which would deserve be explored for
some other parameters.

These analyses performed in this paper bring out a quantification of the structure-soil-structure
interaction effect on impedance functions, for the particular studied case. For each term of the stiffness
matrix, SSI impedance functions (B1) are presented together with SSSI impedance functions
(B1&B2). The following can be noted:
 A strong dependence of direction of impedance functions with orientation of buildings.
 For sensitive terms, impedance functions are considerably affected: additional amplifications or
attenuation are noteworthy corresponding to the eigenmodes of the nearby heavy structure.
 Eigenmodes of the nearby heavy structure are highlighted by narrow singularities on SSSI
impedance functions for pure structural modes (low damping); and larger variations for
coupled soil-structure modes (higher damping).
 Difference of excavation level corresponding to a pseudo-embedment in surrounding soil is also
identified and quantified.
 Difference of excavation levels between two buildings could have a more important influence
when the studied building is located below the surrounding one.

In current design and assessment methods, emphasis has often been given to aspects such as the
deconvolution of the seismic signal, the transient nature of seismic loading, the effect of embedment,
etc… Other simplified approaches haven been proposed in relation with the modal-spectral method,
such as: the amplitude of variation range of soil stiffness, the need for studying the fixed-base case,
improvements in the analysis procedures to obtain the characteristic SSI frequency and SSSI
frequency. In the study of soil-structure interaction, remains, however, a strong simplifying
assumption which is the consideration of buildings as being isolated from adjacent massive structures.
This paper highlights that, for some specific configurations, some attention shall be given on the SSSI
effect, especially when the dynamic response of a building is sought with increased precision, and
considering its neighboring massive structures.

10
These kinds of impedance functions results obtained for SSSI consideration are not user-friendly as far
as structural mode calibration is concerned. This rather tends to perform transient dynamic analysis for
such results.

However, it may be interesting to further investigate new approaches in order to improve Structure-
Soil-Structure Interaction assessment:
 It may be appropriate to consider at least in SSI studies the footprint of the adjacent buildings,
which have an effect of free-field boundary conditions.
 If frequencies of interest of the studied structure can be identified and such an analysis
available, it may be useful (in a first approach) to apply a “SSSI coefficient” on SSI
impedance function in order to calibrate the structural frequency and so the stiffness values of
the soil springs and dampers system.
 It would be advisable to investigate at what criteria a SSSI study is unnecessary. The criteria
to be assessed could be the ratio of masses, the ratio of surfaces, the distance between the
buildings, the difference of foundation levels, the difference between the natural modes of the
structures and the natural modes of the soil, the stiffness of the ground.

5. REFERENCES

Aubry D., Chapel F., Crepel J.M. (1985). Linear seismic soil-structure interaction on a multi-layered soil, Génie
Parasismique, chap. VI-2, Presses de l’ENPC.
ASN 2/01 (2006 May). Prise en compte du risque sismique à la conception des ouvrages de génie civil
d’installations nucléaires de base à l’exception des stockages à long terme des déchets radioactifs.
Betbeder-Matibet J. (2003). Prévention parasismique, Hermès Science Publications.
Gazetas G. (1983). Analysis of machine foundation vibrations: state of the art, International Journal of Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering Vol.2 n°1.
Kausel E., Whitman A., Elsabee F. (1978).The spring method for Embedded Foundations, Nuclear Engineering
and Design, Vol. 48.
Levadoux J.N., Bonaz R. (1985) Soil-structure interaction for special conditions, Génie Parasismique, chap. VI-
3, Presses de l’ENPC.
Lysmer J., Ostadan F., Tabatabaie M., Vahdani S., Tajiran F. (2000) SASSI – A system for analysis of soil-
structure interaction. Geotechnical Engineering Division, Civil engineering Department, University of
California, Berkeley and Bechtel Power Corporation.
Pecker A. (1984). Dynamique des sols, Presses de l’ENPC.
Pecker A. (1986). Comportement des fondations sous sollicitation sismique, Revue Française de Géotechnique
n° 37.
Walter JP. (1985). Méthodes de prise en compte de l’interaction sol-structure, Génie Parasismique, chap. VI-1,
Presses de l’ENPC.

11