Computational Mechanics

, Volume 52, Issue 1, pp 53–64 | Cite as

A non-parametric probabilistic model for soil-structure interaction

Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

The paper investigates the effect of soil-structure interaction on the dynamic response of structures. A non-parametric probabilistic formulation for the modelling of an uncertain soil impedance is used to account for the usual lack of information on soil properties. Such a probabilistic model introduces the physical coupling stemming from the soil heterogeneity around the foundation. Considering this effect, even a symmetrical building displays a torsional motion when submitted to earthquake loading. The study focuses on a multi-story building modeled by using equivalent Timoshenko beam models which have different mass distributions. The probability density functions of the maximal internal forces and moments in a given building are estimated by Monte Carlo simulations. Some results on the stochastic modal analysis of the structure are also given.

Keywords

Soil-structure interaction Uncertainties Internal forces Seismic load 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Gazetas G (1991) Foundation vibrations, Chap. 15. Foundation engineering handbook, 2nd edn. Van Nostrand Rheinholds, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Toubalem F, Zeldin B, Thouverez F, Labbe P (1999) Vertical excitation of stochastic soil-structure interaction systems. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 125(5): 349–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Winkler E (1867) Die Lehre von der elasticitaet und festigkeit. Prag. DominicusGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fenton GA, Griffiths DV (1999) Three-dimensional probabilistic foundation settlement. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 131(2): 232–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jaynes E (1957) Information theory and statistical mechanics. Phys Rev 106(4): 620–630MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jaynes E (1957) Information theory and statistical mechanics. Phys Rev 108(2): 71–190MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shannon C (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Technol J 379: 379–423, 623–659Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kapur JN, Kesavan HK (1992) Entropy optimization principles with applications. Academic Press, Inc, BostonGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Soize C (2000) A nonparametric model of random uncertainties for reduced matrix models in structural dynamics. Probab Eng Mech 15: 277–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Soize C (2001) Maximum entropy approach for modeling random uncertainties in transient elastodynamics. J Acoust Soc Am 109(5): 1979–1996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Desceliers C, Bonnet G, Hamza S, Delmotte P (2010) Mixed nonparametric-parametric probabilistic model for earthquake reliability of an inelastic reinforced concrete frame structure. Bull Earthq Eng 8: 921–935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cottereau R, Clouteau D, Soize C (2007) Construction of a probabilistic model for impedance matrices. Comp Methods Appl Mech Eng –2268Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Alame I, Argoul P (2003) Dynamic models for elastic coupled lateral and torsional response of asymmetric multistorey buildings. 10th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering Duma (Ed), Balkerma, Rotterdam, 1995, ISBN 90 5410 528 3Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hammersley JM, Handscomb DC (1964) Monte Carlo methods. Chapman and Hall, LondonMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Clough RW, Penzien J (1975) Dynamics of structures. McGraw-Hill Inc, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boutin C, Hans S (2003) Homogenisation of periodic discrete medium: application to dynamics of framed structures. Comput Geotech 30: 303–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    United States National Strong-Motion Project. Data Sets. 20040928 17:15 UTC Mw 6.0 Parkfield, California Earthquake (Donna Lee station). http://nsmp.wr.usgs.gov/
  18. 18.
    Borcherdt RD, Johnston MJS, Glassmoyer G, Dietel Christopher (2006) Recordings of the 2004 parkfield earthquake on the general earthquake observation system array: implications for the earthquake precursors. Fault rupture, and coseismic strain changes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96(4B): S73–S89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Boore DM (2003) A compendium of P- and S- wave velocities from surface-to-borehole logging: summary and reanalysis of previously published data and analysis of unpublished Data. U. S. Geological Open-File Report 03-191Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Le TP, Argoul P, Abraham O Apport de l’analyse continue pour la méthode impact echo. Champs physiques et propagation dans les sols et les structures du génie civil. Etudes et recherches des laboratoires des ponts et chausées, SI 11. 99–114Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Serfling R (1980) Approximation theorems of mathematical statics. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Desceliers C, Soize C, Grimal Q, Talmant M, Naili S (2009) Determination of the random anisotropic elasticity layer using transient wave propagation in a fluid-solid multilayer: model and experiments. J Acoust Soc Am 125(4): 2027–2034CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Laudarin
    • 1
    • 2
  • C. Desceliers
    • 2
  • G. Bonnet
    • 2
  • P. Argoul
    • 3
  1. 1.AREVA NP, Department of FDWELyonFrance
  2. 2.Université Paris-Est, Modélisation et Simulation Multi EchelleMarne-la-ValléFrance
  3. 3.Université Paris-Est, U.R. NavierMarne-la-ValléeFrance

Personalised recommendations