Modeling of Soil-Structure Interaction as Finite

Element Using Using SAP2000

Chirag N. Patel Kinjalraj Sharma H. S. Patel

Ph.D. Candidate
Faculty of Engineering
Pacific Academy of Higher
Education and Research University
Udaipur, Rajasthan, India
cnpatel.693@gmail.com
P.G. Student
Applied Mechanics Department
L. D. College of Engineering
Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
maxorgan@gmail.com
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics Department
L. D. College of Engineering
Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
dr.hspatel@yahoo.com

Abstract—Software tools are nowadays become very important
and essential for the structural problems where a lack of well-
established methods is available for analysis. Soil Structure
Interaction (SSI) analysis is similar kind of problem where all the
information about analysis is remains up to research level. In this
paper, a finite element elevated reinforced concrete water tank is
modeled and analysed considering SSI. For mounting soil effect
at the base of tank, widely used cone model and elastic solid
modeling techniques has been selected. In first method,
equivalent spring model is used at the base of water tank and for
other soil is modeled as elastic solid body. The effectiveness of
both methods is discussed as well as output results are compared
and contrast between modeling techniques using SAP2000
structural software.
Keywords-elevated water tank; soil structure interaction; spring
support; finite element; SAP2000 program
I. INTRODUCTION
Liquid storage tanks are very essential structures in water as
well as oil and gas industries. On the other hand a number of
cases of damage to tanks have been observed due to past
earthquakes. Concerning the importance of these systems,
especially their seismic safety for avoiding the adverse
consequences such as fires, explosions and environment
pollution, better understanding of their seismic behavior still
seems necessary. There are several factors, which affect the
dynamic characteristics of a liquid storage tank. It is generally
recognized that the seismic response of a structure supported
on flexible ground may diverge considerably from that of the
same structure supported on a non-deformable, rigid base. This
difference is due to the effect of the soil-structure interaction
(SSI). Over the last 40 years, the dynamic soil-structure
interaction has attracted an interest among researchers and
engineers in the fields of structural dynamics, wave mechanics
and soil dynamics over the world. The methods of their
investigations consist of experimental study and analysis
research. The analysis methods are numerical simulation
methods. Due to the underdevelopment of computer
technology, analytical method was popular in the 1970’s.
Along with the rapid progress in the art of computer science,
now software simulations are widely used to the study on soil-
structure interaction.
In addition to the determination of static behaviour,
determination of the dynamic behavior of tanks which used for
many engineering fields is also important. Soil-structure and
fluid-structure interaction are not important for ordinary
structures as to be for tanks are effective for estimation of
dynamic behaviour of elevated tanks subjected to dynamic
loads. Thus it is necessary to consider the interaction effects
correctly for elevated tanks subjected to dynamic loads like
earthquake. It is seen from literature survey that very few
studies have been carried out for elevated tanks considering
interaction effects and related parameters. The basic difference
of fixed base analysis and soil-structure interaction analysis is
that; the nodal displacement of the structure are relative to
moving base in soil-structure interaction and base movement is
function of base material provided. There are few research has
been done to obtain base movement by equivalent spring model
in which value of horizontal stiffness and rotational stiffness
are found out using either empirical relation and theoretical
approximation. The another approach is to model soil as solid
elastic material and providing a firm interface between super
structure and soil and then whole system is analysed together as
a single system. In this paper a comparison of seismic response
of an elevated reinforced concrete water tank is compared
using both the method. Modeling by both the method is
discussed and results are compared with fixed base analysis
results.
II. SOIL - STRUCTURE INTERACTION
Soil-structure interaction between a structure and the
supporting soil; is a phenomenon that influences many aspects
in the design of a structure: safety, serviceability (crack
propagation) and costs. Also, produce a significant effect on
the response of the structure and the resulting localization of
damage during seismic events. All structures are effected soil-
structure interaction with varying emphasis in the earthquake
excitation as known. Especially, for structures like elevated
water tank with slenderness and heavy mass at the top, the soil
effects should be considered for different soil properties as
substructure method to consider soil effects [1]. The estimation
of earthquake motions at the site of a structure is the most
important phase of the design or retrofit of a structure. It is
generally assumed that the elevated tanks are fixed with the
ground. So, attention is focused on the dynamic behavior of the elevated tank under seismic load of Fluid-Structure-interaction
fluid and/or supporting structure, but the effects of subsoil on problems is investigated by using added mass approach
the dynamic behavior of elevated tanks also equally important. suggested by Westergaard (1931).
Haroun and Ellaithy (1985) developed a model including an
analysis of a variety of elevated rigid tanks undergoing
translation and rotation; the model considers liquid sloshing
modes; and it assesses the effect of tank wall flexibility on the
earthquake response of elevated tanks. Resheidat and Sunna
(1986) investigated the behavior of rectangular elevated tank
during earthquakes considering soil-foundation-structure
interaction. They neglected the sloshing effects on the seismic
behavior of the elevated tanks. Haroun and Temraz (1992)
analyzed models of two-dimensional X-braced elevated tanks
supported on isolated footings to investigate the effects of
dynamic interaction between the tower and the supporting soil-
foundation system and they neglected the sloshing effects too.
As seen from studies mentioned above, very few studies have
been carried out on the soil-structure interaction effects for
elevated tanks. Generalised problem for dynamic fluid-elevated Figure 2. FEM model for fluid-strucutre-interaction added mass approach
tank-soil interaction can be seen from Fig.1. If the soil material
can be considered linear, the SAP2000 program, using the solid The general equation of motion for a system subjected to an
element, can calculate either the one-, two- or three- earthquake excitation can be written as,
dimensional free-field motions at the base of a structure.
𝑀𝑢̈ + 𝐶𝑢̇ + 𝐾𝑢 = −𝑀𝑢̈ 𝑔 (1)
In which M, C and K are mass, damping and stiffness
matrices, 𝑢̈ , 𝑢̇ and 𝑢 are the acceleration, velocity and
displacement respectively, and is the ground acceleration. In
the case of added mass approach the form of equation (1)
become as below:

𝑀∗ 𝑢̈ + 𝐶𝑢̇ + 𝐾𝑢 = −𝑀∗ 𝑢̈ 𝑔 (2)

In which M* is the new mass matrix after adding
hydrodynamic mass to the structural mass. While the damping
and stiffness matrices, are same as in equation (1).

IV. DISCRIPTION OF TANK MODEL

Figure 1. Generalised model for dynamic soil-elevated tank interaction
A reinforced concrete elevated tank is considered in seismic
Different type of soil properties has been considered for the analysis with frame supporting structure in which columns are
analysis as shown in Table I. connected by the circumferential beams at regular intervals.
The tank container is of the Intze type and filled with water to
TABLE I. DIFFERENT TYPE OF SOIL PROPERTIES
a density of 1000 kg/m3. More selected data are as described
Modulus of
Poisson Ratio
Weight per Unit in Table II. To evaluate the dynamic response of the elevated
Type of Soil Elasticity (E) Volume tanks, considering three cases; soft, medium and hard soil
(υ)
kN/m2 (kN/m3)
Hard 397649 0.3 19.8
were simulated using time history data of 6.9 magnitude
Medium 140631 0.3 18.5 earthquake with peak ground acceleration of 0.644 g as shown
Soft 33540 0.3 13.5 in Fig. 3.

TABLE II. STRUCTURAL DATA FOR FRAME TYPE STAGING

III. FLUID STRUCTURE INTERACTION Capacity of the tank 1000 m3
The water tank is modeled as two mass model as per Unit weight of concrete 25 kN/m3
GSDMA guidelines [2] and suggested by George Thickness of Top Dome 0.15 m
W. Housner (1963) [3]. The convective mass is added as lump Rise of Top Dome 2.2 m
mass with member having rotational restrains at node while Size of Top Ring Beam 0.35 m × 0.35 m
released in translation and the impulsive mass is added in the Diameter of tank 13.6 m
density of cylindrical wall as shown in Fig. 2. The analysis of Height of Cylindrical wall 6.8 m
Thickness of Cylindrical wall 0.33 m
 Size of Middle Ring Beam 1.2 m × 0.6 m
Rise of Concal dome 2.35 m
Thickness of Conical shell 0.5 m
Rise of Bottom dome 1.6 m
Thickness of Bottom dome shell 0.2 m
Number of Columns 8
Number of Bracings Level 3
Size of Bottom Ring Beam 1 m × 1.2 m
Distance between intermidiate bracing 4m
Height of Stsging above Foundation 16 m
Diameter of Columns 0.75 m
Size of Bracing 0.5 m × 0.5 m
Figure 3. Generalised model for dynamic soil-elevated tank interaction
V. EQUIVALENT SPRING MODEL
There are different ways to consider the soil-structure
interaction. First of them is the modifying method that can be
constructed by modifying the fixed base solution of the
structural system (Veletsos and Meek 1974). This method has
been widely used in the studies (Aviles and Suarez 2001) and
the codes such as ATC-1978 (Veletsos etc. 1988), FEMA 368-
369 (2001), and Eurocode-8 (2003). To represent the property
of the elastic or viscoelastic half-space accurately, the spring
and dashpots are required to depend on the frequency of
excitation (Wu and Smith 1995). The second one is the
substructure method that can consider the frequency-dependent
or independent dynamic stiffness and the damping of the
soil/foundation system. If the frequency-dependent dynamic
stiffness or the damping is required to be considered, the
governing equation for the structure-foundation system is
expressed and solved in the frequency domain using Fourier or
Laplace transformation (Wu and Smith 1995, Aviles and Perez-
Rocha 1998, Takewaki 2003). The third one is the direct
method. Here, finite element and boundary element methods or
a mixture of these are used in the time or frequency domain
(Wolf and Song 1996a, 1996b, Wolf 2003). The most striking
feature in an unbounded soil is the radiation of energy towards
infinity, leading to so-called radiation damping even in a linear
system. Mathematically, in a frequency-domain analysis, the
dynamic stiffness relating the amplitudes of the displacements
to those of the interaction forces in the nodes of the structure-
soil interface of the unbounded soil is a complex function. This
occurs when the unbounded soil consists of a homogeneous
half-space (Wolf 2002).
Therefore, Wolf and Meek (1992, 1993) have proposed a
cone model, an example of the substructure method, for
evaluating the dynamic stiffness and the effective input motion
of a foundation on the ground as shown in Fig. 4. Wolf and
Preisig (2003) adopted this method for the layered half-space.
Compared to more rigorous numerical methods, this cone
model requires only a simple numerical manipulation within
reasonable accuracy (Wolf 1994, Takewaki 2003). In this
method super structure is assumed to be supported on springs.
These springs represent the horizontal, rocking, vertical and
torsion stiffness of the soil. The stiffness of the spring depends
on the modulus of sub grade reaction of soil. The most popular
model is the Winkler's model. The basic limitations of Winkler
hypothesis is that this model cannot account for the dispersion
of the load over a gradually increasing influence area with
increase in depth. Springs are assumed independent, so the
effect of the externally applied load gets localized to the sub
grade only to the point of its application. This implies no
cohesive bond exists among the particles comprising soil
medium. The raft is model as thick plate and elastic modulus is
provided to raft material in such manner, it behaves as a rigid
body. The values for spring model are calculated as follows
considering freedom with corresponding apex ratio (opening
angle), wave-propagation velocity and distortion.
Figure 4. Cones for various degrees of freedom (Wolf 1994).
In SAP2000 software, water tank is modeled by providing
spring of calculated stiffness in different directions at the base,
directly through joint spring and also restrain in the horizontal
and rotational direction. As shown in Fig. 5, static stiffness
values of rigid circular foundation is considered and provided
in form of spring as per equation given in Table III; where, G:
shear modulus, r0: radius of circular foundation, υ: Poisson
ratio.
TABLE III. STATIC STIFFNESS VALUES OF RIGID CIRCULAR FOUNDATION
Vertical Horizontal Rocking Torsional
Stiffness
(Kv ) (KH ) (KR ) (KT )
Foundation 8𝐺𝑟03
4𝐺𝑟0 8𝐺𝑟0 16𝐺𝑟03
with no
embedment 1−𝜐 2−𝜐 3(1 − 𝜐) 3
 Figure 5. Spring assignment to the base of SAP2000 model

VI. EQUIVALENT ELASTIC SOLID MODEL

Figure 7. Material property of elastic solid at the base of SAP2000 model

VII. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Roof and sloshing displacement are compared with respect
to time, for time history data of Loma Prieta. Graph
overlapping has been displayed over here. The Base reaction of
water tank is not directly attained in solid model as SAP2000
shows base reaction of support while we need reactions at the
base of tank. Hence the base reaction is obtained from column
shear and moment and only maximum values are compared
with spring model. Here all displacements are in meter and
base shear in kN and base moment in kNm.

Figure 6. Elastic solid to the base of SAP2000 model

In this method the whole soil mass is divided into small

elements connected at node points. Then theses elements may
assign the corresponding soil property. Disadvantage of this
method is high cost of analysis. In present study finite element
modeling has been done as elastic solid model as shown in Fig.
6. Properties for solid element has been applied based on
properties of different type of soil; especially modulus of
elasticity and poison ratio as shown in Fig. 7. In this type of
Figure 8. Comparision of roof displacement time history for soft soil
model it is assumed that soil has only finite extent in all
direction. Means infinite extent of soil is converted into finite
one. In present study the width and depth of soil is taken as 5
and 3 times of water tank base dimension relatively in the
corresponding direction. At the base of system fixed supports
are provided and at periphery vertical rollers are provided.
Here only elastic modulus of soil and Poisson’s ratio of
undrained condition is taken and soil is modeled as eight
nodded brick element with three degrees of freedom at each
nod. The size of the elements should be such that aspect ratio
remains between 1 - 1.5.

Figure 9. Comparision of roof displacement time history for medium soil


Figure 10. Comparision of roof displacement time history for hard soil
The graph shows that for hard soil, ther is not much
variance in pick value of both model but just a little bit increase
in solid model compared to spring model. Same thing is
obsereved in medium soil for the roof displacement. In the soft
soil, sudden and very large variation occurs and that is quite
visible compared to medium and hard soil.
Figure 11. Comparision of base shear for different soil and base
Figure 12. Comparision of overturning moment for different soil and base
From above results, it is proved that elastic solid model
give lower response compared to spring model. Also, it has
been seen that soft soil strata for spring base gives much
change in the value of overturning moment. So, it can be useful
to say that method of modeling depends on soil configuration
as well as confinement of finite elements also. It means if a
hard stratum is observed beneath the structure to be analyzed, it
is favorable to use spring model as it saves time for modeling
and analysis. Because running the analysis of fine mesh solid
model consumes lots of time and processer usage. But for
medium or soft soil it is preferable to perform solid modeling.
REFERENCES
[1] R. Livaoglu and A. Dogangun, “A Simple Seismic Analysis Procedure
for Fluid-Elevated Tank-Foundation/Soil Systems”, 6th International
Congress on Advances in Civil Engineering, October – 2004, pp. 570-
580.
[2] IITK-GSDMA Guidelines for Seismic Design of Liquid Storage Tanks
Provisions with commentary and explanatory examples.
[3] George W. Housner, “The dynamic behaviour of water tanks”, Bulletin
of the Seismological Society of America, February-1963, Vol-53, No.2,
Pg. 381-387.
[4] Edward L. Wilson, “Three-Dimensional Static and Dynamic Analysis of
Structures,”University of california at Berkely.
[5] Wilson. E.L. and Habibullah. A. 2003, “Structural Analysis Program
SAP2000. “ User’s manual, Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley,
Calif.