Advertisement

Effects of soil–structure interaction on inelastic response of torsionally-coupled structures

  • M. Shirzadi
  • F. BehnamfarEmail author
  • P. Asadi
Original Research
  • 41 Downloads

Abstract

In this paper, effect of torsion on the inelastic responses of structures resting on a nonlinear flexible medium is studied. Similar studies have shown that soil–structure interaction can result in augmentation of nonlinear responses of lower stories. The focus here is on the plan-wise distribution of inelastic responses of a torsional structure considering soil–structure interaction (SSI). For this purpose, 4, 8, and 12-story steel structures consisting of special moment frames are considered on a relatively soft soil. A nonlinear set of non-uniform springs is used for modeling of SSI. For each building, different structural responses are calculated under 11 suitably scaled earthquake ground motions at the design basis and maximum considered earthquake hazard levels. The mass eccentricity ratio is varied from zero to 30%. The inelastic responses include the story drift ratios and distribution of plastic hinge rotations and performance levels of each story and frame. The results clearly show that SSI increases the drift ratio of the first story up to 30% regardless of the eccentricity value. On the other hand, SSI amplified the cumulative plastic hinge rotation of the upper stories, especially in the taller buildings. The maximum value of amplification exceeded 3 and it was very sensitive to the extent of eccentricity. The local amplification effect of combination of torsion and SSI was much more severe where it reached values over 8 in the outer frames of the buildings, with SSI having the larger share in amplification.

Keywords

Soil–structure interaction Torsional response Inelastic Seismic Steel structures 

Notes

References

  1. Ancheta TD, Darragh RB, Stewart JP, Seyhan E, Silva WJ, Chiou BSJ, Wooddell KE, Graves RW, Kottke AR, Boore DM, Kishida T, and Donahue JL (2013) PEER NGA-West2 database, PEER report no. 2013/03, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  2. ANSI, AISC 360 (2016) Specification for structural steel buildings. American Institute of Steel Construction, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  3. ASCE07 (2016) Minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings and other structures. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), RestonGoogle Scholar
  4. ASCE41 (2017) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings (ASCE/SEI 41-17). American Society of Civil Engineers, RestonGoogle Scholar
  5. Behnamfar F, Banizadeh M (2016) Effects of soil–structure interaction on distribution of seismic vulnerability in RC structures. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 80:73–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chopra AK (2007) Dynamics of structures: theory and applications to earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  7. Fardis MN, Bousias SN, Franchioni G, Panagiotakos TB (1999) Seismic response and design of RC structures with plan-eccentric masonry infills. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 28(2):173–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gajan S, Hutchinson TC, Kutter BL, Raychowdhury P, Ugalde JA, Stewart JP (2008) Numerical models for analysis and performance-based design of shallow foundations subjected to seismic loading. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  9. Gazetas G (1991) Foundation vibrations. In: Fang HY (ed) Foundation engineering handbook. Springer, Boston, pp 553–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ghandil M, Behnamfar F (2017) Ductility demands of MRF structures on soft soils considering soil–structure interaction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 92:203–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Harden CW (2005) Numerical modeling of the nonlinear cyclic response of shallow foundations. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  12. Karapetrou ST, Fotopoulou SD, Pitilakis KD (2015) Seismic vulnerability assessment of high-rise non-ductile RC buildings considering soil–structure interaction effects. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 73:42–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lignos DG, Krawinkler H (2010) Deterioration modeling of steel components in support of collapse prediction of steel moment frames under earthquake loading. J Struct Eng 137(11):1291–1302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott MH, Fenves GL (2006) The open system for earthquake engineering simulation (OpenSEES) user command-language manual. University of California, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  15. Minasidis G, Hatzigeorgiou GD, Beskos DE (2014) SSI in steel frames subjected to near-fault earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 66:56–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nakhaei M, Ghannad MA (2008) The effect of soil–structure interaction on damage index of buildings. Eng Struct 30(6):1491–1499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rahnama M, Krawinkler H (1993) Effects of soft soil and hysteresis model on seismic demands, vol 108. John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, StandfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Rajeev P, Tesfamariam S (2012) Seismic fragilities of non-ductile reinforced concrete frames with consideration of soil structure interaction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 40:78–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sáez E, Lopez-Caballero F, Modaressi-Farahmand-Razavi A (2011) Effect of the inelastic dynamic soil–structure interaction on the seismic vulnerability assessment. Struct Saf 33(1):51–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sotiriadis D, Kostinakis K, Morfidis K (2017) Effects of nonlinear soil–structure-interaction on seismic damage of 3D buildings on cohesive and frictional soils. Bull Earthq Eng 15(9):3581–3610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tang Y, Zhang J (2011) Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of a slender RC shear wall considering soil–structure interaction effects. Eng Struct 33(1):218–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wolf JP (1985) Dynamic soil-structure-interaction. Englewood Cliffs Inc., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  23. Zeris C, Koutras A, Gazetas G (2012) Seismic performance of a typical existing core-frame RC building with soil struct. interaction. In: Proceeding of the 15th world conference on earthquake engineeringGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringIsfahan University of TechnologyIsfahanIran

Personalised recommendations