Mathematical Analysis of Soil-structure Interaction Including Kinematic and Inertial Interaction Effects

Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 320 - 336 http://dx.doi.org/10.22436/jmcs.012.04.08

Download PDF

Download XML

• Export citations
  • CITATIONS & REFERENCES
  • EndNote (.ENW)
  • Mendeley, JabRef (.BIB)
  • Papers, Zotero, Reference Manager, RefWorks (.RIS)
  • ARTICLE CITATION
  • EndNote (.ENW)
  • Mendeley, JabRef (.BIB)
  • Papers, Zotero, Reference Manager, RefWorks (.RIS)
  • REFERENCES
  • EndNote (.ENW)
  • Mendeley, JabRef (.BIB)
  • Papers, Zotero, Reference Manager, RefWorks (.RIS)

• 4611 Downloads
• 5500 Views

Authors

Leila Khanmohammadi - Ph.D student of civil engineering, Babol University of Technology. Javad Vaseghi Amiri - Associate professor, civil engineering department, Babol University of Technology. Mohammad Reza Davoodi - Assistant professor, civil engineering department, Babol University of Technology. Mohammad Ali Ghannad - Professor, civil engineering department, Sharif University of Technology.

Abstract

In this research, both kinematic interaction (KI) and inertial interaction (II) effects of soil-structure interaction (SSI) on inelastic seismic demands of structures are investigated. Site effect is also considered only by applying ground motions recorded at site classes D and E (as defined in NEHRP[1] and FEMA-440 [2]) that on them SSI effect is considerable. Carrying out a parametric study, the structure and underlying soil are modeled as a Single Degree Of Freedom (SDOF) structure with elasto-plastic behavior and a mathematical simplified 3DOF system, based on the concept of Cone Models, respectively. Also the foundation is considered as a rigid cylinder embedded in the soil with different embedment ratios. Then the whole soil-structure systems are analyzed under 30 ground motion recorded at site classes D and E and a comprehensive parametric study is performed for a wide range of non-dimensional parameters defining SSI problem. Results indicated that ignoring SSI causes considerable and in some cases un-conservative differences in seismic demands of structures. In the case of embedded foundation, it is observed that rocking input motion due to KI plays the main role and increase the structural demands especially in deep foundation embedment and slender buildings located on soft soils. Consequently, comparing the results with and without inclusion of SSI effects reveals that both II and KI effects of SSI play an important role in analyses or design procedures and ignoring them may cause un-conservative results in cases of deep embedded foundation and slender structures.

Share and Cite

Keywords

• soil-structure interaction
• cone model
• foundation embedment
• kinematic interaction (KI)
• Inertial interaction (II)
• Strength reduction factor
• ductility demand
• Elastic and inelastic seismic demands

MSC

•  74L10
•  74H45

References

• [1] BSSC, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures, FEMA-450, Washington (2003)
  • Google Scholar


• [2] FEMA-440, Improvement of nonlinear static seismic procedures, ATC-55 Draft, Washington (2005)
  • Google Scholar


• [3] A. S. Veletsos, J. W. Meek, Dynamic Behavior Building-Foundation Systems, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamic, 34 (1974), 121–138.


• [4] A. S. Veletsos, V. V. D Nair, Seismic Interaction of Soil on Hysteretic foundation, Journal of Structural Division (ASCE), 101 (1975), 109–129.
  • Google Scholar


• [5] J. P. Wolf , Dynamic Soil-structure Interaction, Prentice Hall , New Jersey (1985)
  • Google Scholar


• [6] J. Aviles, L. E. Perez-Rocha, Diagrams of Effective Periods and Damping of Soil-structure Systems, Journal of Geotechnical and Geo-environmental Engineering, 125 (1999), 711–715.
  • View Article
  • Google Scholar


• [7] J. Bielak, Dynamic Response of Non-linear Building-foundation Systems, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamic, 6 (1978), 17–30.
  • View Article
  • Google Scholar


• [8] J. Aviles, L. E. Perez-Rocha, Soil-structure Interaction in Yielding Systems, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamic, 32 (2003), 1749–1771.
  • View Article
  • Google Scholar


• [9] J. Aviles, L. E. Perez-Rocha, Design Concepts for Yielding Structures on Flexible Foundation, Engineering Structure, 27 (2005), 443–454.
  • View Article
  • Google Scholar


• [10] Y. O. Beredugo, M. Novak, Coupled horizontal and rocking vibration of embedded footings, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 9(4) (1972), 477–497.
  • View Article
  • Google Scholar


• [11] F. Elsabee, E. Kausel, J. M. Roesset, Dynamic stiffness of embedded foundations, Proceedings of the ASCE Second Annual Engineering Mechanics Division Specialty Conference, North Carolina, (1977), 40–43.
  • Google Scholar


• [12] J. P. Morray, Kinematic interaction problem of embedded circular foundations, M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1975)
  • Google Scholar


• [13] J. E. Luco, H. L. Wong, M. D. Trifunac, A note on the dynamic response of rigid embedded foundations, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 4(2) (1975), 119–127.
  • View Article
  • Google Scholar


• [14] J. Bielak, Dynamic behavior of structures with embedded foundations, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 3(3) (1975), 259–274.
  • View Article
  • Google Scholar


• [15] E. Kausel, R. V. Whitman, J. P. Morray, F. Elsabee, The spring method for embedded foundations, Nuclear Engineering and Design, 48 (1978), 377–392.
  • View Article
  • Google Scholar


• [16] J. Aviles, L. Perez-Rocha, Effects of foundation embedment during building–soil interaction, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 27(12) (1998), 1523–1540.
  • View Article
  • Google Scholar


• [17] I. Takewaki, N. Takeda, K. Uetani , Fast practical evaluation of soil–structure interaction of embedded structures, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 23(3) (2003), 13-20
  • View Article
  • Google Scholar


• [18] A. S. Veletsos, B. Verbic, Dynamics of elastic and yielding structure–foundation systems, Proceedings of Fifth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Rome, Italy, (1973), 2610–2613.
  • Google Scholar


• [19] J. Bielak, Dynamic response of non-linear building–foundation systems, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics , 6(1) (1978), 17–30.
  • View Article
  • Google Scholar


• [20] F. P. Muller, E. Keintzel , Ductility requirements for flexibly supported anti-seismic structures, Proceedings of the Seventh European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Athens, Greece, 3 (1982), 27–34.
  • Google Scholar


• [21] J. P. Stewart, C. Comartin, J. P. Moehle, Implementation of soil–structure interaction models in performance based design procedures, Proceedings of the Third UJNR Workshop on Soil–Structure Interaction. Menlo Park. CA. U.S.A. , (2004), 29–30.
  • Google Scholar


• [22] J. P. Wolf, Foundation Vibration Analysis using Simple Physical Models, Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1994)
  • Google Scholar


• [23] S. L. Kramer, Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1996)
  • Google Scholar


• [24] A. S. Veletsos, Dynamic of structure-foundation systems, In: Hal WJ, editor, Structural and Geotechnical Mechanics, Prentice- Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ. A Volume Honoring N.M. Newmark, (1977), 333–361.
  • Google Scholar


• [25] M. A. Ghannad, A study on the effect of soil-structure interaction on the dynamic properties of structures using simplified methods, Ph.D. thesis. Japan, Nagoya University (1998)
  • Google Scholar


• [26] J. W. Meek, J. P. Wolf, Cone models for embedded foundation, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division (ASCE), 120(1) (1994), 60–80.
  • View Article
  • Google Scholar


• [27] ATC-3-06, Applied Technology Council , Tentative provisions for the development of seismic regulations for buildings, California (1978)
  • Google Scholar