Advertisement

Effects of soil-foundation-structure interaction on fundamental frequency and radiation damping ratio of historical masonry building sub-structures

  • Annachiara PiroEmail author
  • Filomena de Silva
  • Fulvio Parisi
  • Anna Scotto di Santolo
  • Francesco Silvestri
Original Research
  • 52 Downloads

Abstract

Large-scale simulations and forensic analyses of the seismic behaviour of real case studies are often based on simplified analytical approaches to estimate the reduction in fundamental frequency and the amount of radiation damping induced by dynamic soil-foundation-structure (SFS) interaction. The accuracy of existing closed-form solutions may be limited because they were derived through single degree-of-freedom structural models with shallow rigid foundations placed on a homogeneous, linear elastic half-space. This paper investigates the effectiveness of those formulations in capturing the dynamic out-of-plane response of single load-bearing walls within unreinforced masonry buildings having either a shallow foundation or an underground storey embedded in layered soil. To that aim, analytical predictions based on the replacement oscillator approach are compared to results of two-dimensional dynamic analyses of coupled SFS elastic models under varying geotechnical and structural properties such as the soil stratigraphy, foundation depth and number of building storeys. Regression models and a relative soil-structure stiffness parameter are proposed to quickly predict the frequency reduction induced by SFS interaction, accounting for the presence of an embedded foundation, an underground storey and a layered soil. The effects of SFS interaction are also evaluated in terms of equivalent damping ratio, showing the limitations of simplified approaches. Since the geometric layouts considered in this study are rather recurrent in the Italian and European built heritage, the proposed procedure can be extended to similar structural configurations.

Keywords

Soil-structure interaction Historical masonry buildings Time history analysis Regression models Equivalent damping ratio Fundamental frequency of vibration 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was carried out within the framework of the 2014-2018 ReLUIS-DPC research project funded by the Italian Civil Protection Department, as part of the geotechnical Work Package 3 ‘Soil-Foundation-Structure Interaction’ and structural Research Line 1 ‘Masonry Structures’.

References

  1. Augenti N, Parisi F (2010a) Learning from construction failures due to the 2009 L’Aquila, Italy, earthquake. J Perform Constr Facil 24(6):536–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Augenti N, Parisi F (2010b) Constitutive models for tuff masonry under uniaxial compression. J Mater Civ Eng 22(11):1102–1111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Augenti N, Parisi F (2019) Teoria e tecnica delle strutture in muratura. Hoepli, Milan, Italy (in Italian) Google Scholar
  4. Augenti N, Parisi F, Prota A, Manfredi G (2011) In-plane lateral response of a full-scale masonry sub-assemblage with and without an inorganic matrix-grid strengthening system. J Compos Constr 15(4):578–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aviles J, Perez-Rocha LE (1996) Evaluation of interaction effects on the system period and the system damping due to foundation embedment and layer depth. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 15:11–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aviles J, Perez-Rocha LE (1998) Effects of foundation embedment during building-soil interaction. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 27:1523–1540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beredugo YO, Novak M (1972) Coupled horizontal and rocking vibration of embedded footings. Can Geotech J 9(4):477–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bielak J (1975) Dynamic behavior of structures with embedded foundation. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 3:259–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bruneau M (1994) State-of-the-art report on seismic performance of unreinforced masonry buildings. J Struct Eng 120(1):230–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Casciati S, Borja RI (2004) Dynamic FE analysis of south memnon colossus including 3D soil-foundation-structure interaction. Comput Struct 82:1719–1736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cattari S, Sivori D, Brunelli A, Sica S, Piro A, de Silva F, Parisi F, Silvestri F (2019) Soil-structure interaction effects on the dynamic behavior of a masonry school damaged by the 2016–2017 Central Italy earthquake sequence. In: Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Rome, 17–20 June 2019Google Scholar
  12. CEN (2004) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance—part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. EN 1998-1:2004, Comité Européen de Normalisation, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  13. Ceroni F, Sica S, Pecce MR, Garofano A (2014) Evaluation of the natural vibration frequencies of a historical masonry building accounting for SSI. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 64:95–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Conti R, Morigi M, Viggiani MB (2016) Filtering effect induced by rigid massless embedded foundations. Bull Earthq Eng 15:1019–1035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cosentini RM, Foti S, Lancellotta R, Sabia D (2015) Dynamic behavior of shallow founded historic towers: validation of simplified approaches for seismic analyses. Int J Geotech Eng 9(1):13–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. D’Ayala DF, Paganoni S (2011) Assessment and analysis of damage in L’Aquila historic city centre after 6th April 2009. Bull Earthq Eng 9(1):81–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. de Silva F, Sica S, Silvestri F, Aversa S (2016) Estimation of the ground shaking from the response of rigid bodies. Annals of Geophysics, 59, Fast Track 5 of the special issue: The Amatrice seismic sequence: preliminary data and results, 2016;  https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-7296
  18. de Silva F, Pitilakis D, Ceroni F, Sica S, Silvestri F (2018) Experimental and numerical dynamic identification of Carmine bell tower in Naples (Italy). Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 109:235–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. de Silva F, Ceroni F, Sica S, Silvestri F (2019) Fragility curves of slender towers accounting for soil-structure interaction. In: Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Rome, 17–20 June 2019Google Scholar
  20. Dominguez J (1978) Dynamic stiffness of rectangular foundations. Research Report R78-20. Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Elsabee F, Morray JP (1977) Dynamic behavior of embedded foundations. Research Report R77-33, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Faccioli E, Paolucci R, Vanini M (1998) 3D site effects and soil-foundation interaction in earthquake and vibration risk evaluation. Final report of the European research project TRISEE. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  23. Gazetas G (1983) Analysis of machine foundation vibrations: state of the art. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2:1–41Google Scholar
  24. Gazetas G (1991) Formulas and charts for impedances of surface and embedded foundations. J Geotech Eng 117:1363–1381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gazetas G (2015) 4th Ishihara lecture: soil-foundation-structure systems beyond conventional seismic failure thresholds. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 68:23–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gerolymos N, Gazetas G (2006a) Winkler model for lateral response of rigid caisson foundations in linear soil. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 26(5):347–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gerolymos N, Gazetas G (2006b) Development of Winkler model for static and dynamic response of caisson foundations with soil and interface nonlinearities. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 26(5):363–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gerolymos N, Gazetas G (2006c) Static and dynamic response of massive caisson foundations with soil and interface nonlinearities—validation and results. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 26(5):377–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Givens MJ, Mylonakis G, Stewart JP (2016) Modular analytical solutions for foundation damping in soil-structure interaction applications. Earthq Spectra 32(3):1749–1768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Guerrini G, Graziotti F, Penna A, Magenes G (2017) Improved evaluation of inelastic displacement demands for short period masonry structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 46:1411–1430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Itasca (2011) FLAC 7.0—fast lagrangian analysis of continua—user’s guide, Itasca Consulting Group, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  32. Jahankhah H, Farashahi PF (2017) The effect of foundation embedment on net horizontal foundation input motion: the case of strip foundation with incomplete contact to nearby medium. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 96:35–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jaya KP, Meher Prasad A (2002) Embedded foundation in layered soil under dynamic excitations. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 22:485–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kallioras S, Guerrini G, Tomassetti U, Marchesi B, Penna A, Graziotti F, Magenes G (2018) Experimental seismic performance of a full-scale unreinforced clay-masonry building with flexible timber diaphragms. Eng Struct 161:231–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Karapiperis K, Gerolymos N (2014) Combined loading of caisson foundations in cohesive soil: finite element versus Winkler modeling. Comput Geotech 56:100–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kausel E (2010) Early history of soil-structure interaction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30:822–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kausel E, Roesset JM (1975) Dynamic stiffness of circular foundations. J Eng Mech Div 101(6):770–785Google Scholar
  38. Kim S, Stewart JP (2003) Kinematic soil-structure interaction from strong motion recordings. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 129:323–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kuhlemeyer RL, Lysmer J (1973) Finite element method accuracy for wave propagation problems. J Soil Mech Found Div 99(SM5):421–427Google Scholar
  40. Lagomarsino S, Cattari S (2015) PERPETUATE guidelines for seismic performance based assessment of cultural heritage masonry structures. Bull Earthq Eng 13(1):13–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lourenço PB (1996) Computational strategies for masonry structures. PhD Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  42. Madiai C, Renzi S, Vannucchi G (2013) Seismic risk assessment of San Gimignano towers: Geotechnical aspects and soil-structure interaction. Geotechnology engineering for the preservation of monuments and historic sites. Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp 523–530Google Scholar
  43. Maravas A, Mylonakis G, Karabalis LD (2014) Simplified discrete systems for dynamic analysis of structures on footings and piles. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 61–62:29–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Meek W, Wolf JP (1994) Cone models for embedded foundation. J Geotech Eng 120:60–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. MIT (2018) Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni. DM 17/1/2018, Italian Ministry of Infrastructure and Transportation, Rome, Italy (in Italian) Google Scholar
  46. Mylonakis G, Gazetas G (2000) Seismic soil-structure interaction: beneficial or detrimental. J Earthq Eng 4:277–301Google Scholar
  47. Mylonakis G, Nikolaou S, Gazetas G (2006) Footings under seismic loading: analysis and design issues with emphasis on bridge foundations. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 26:824–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Parisi F, Augenti N, Prota A (2014) Implications of the spandrel type on the lateral behavior of unreinforced masonry walls. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 43(12):1867–1887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Parisi F, Balestrieri C, Varum H (2019) Nonlinear finite element model for traditional adobe masonry. Constr Build Mater 223:450–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Penna A, Morandi P, Rota M, Manzini CF, da Porto F, Magenes G (2014) Performance of masonry buildings during the Emilia 2012 earthquake. Bull Earthq Eng 12(5):2255–2273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Piro A, de Silva F, Scotto di Santolo A, Parisi F, Silvestri F (2018) Sensitivity analysis of seismic soil-cavity-structure interaction in historic urban centres. In: Proceedings of 16th European conference earthquake engineering, Thessaloniki, 18–21 June 2018Google Scholar
  52. Pitilakis D, Karatzetzou A (2015) Dynamic stiffness of monumental flexible masonry foundations. Bull Earthq Eng 13:67–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Shirato M, Kuono T, Asai R, Fukui J, Paolucci R (2008) Large scale experiments on nonlinear behavior of shallow foundations subjected to strong earthquakes. Soils Found 48:673–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sorrentino L, Liberatore L, Liberatore D, Masiani R (2014) The behaviour of vernacular buildings in the 2012 Emilia earthquakes. Bull Earthq Eng 12(5):2367–2382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Spyrakos CC, Beskos D (1986) Dynamic response of flexible strip foundation by boundary and finite elements. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 5(2):84–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stewart JP, Fenves G, Seed R (1999) Seismic soil-structure interaction in buildings. I: analytical methods. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 125:26–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stewart JP, Kim S, Bielak J, Dobry R, Power M (2003) Revisions to soil-structure interaction procedures in NEHRP design provisions. Earthq Spectra 19(3):677–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tomaževič M, Weiss P (2010) Displacement capacity of masonry buildings as a basis for the assessment of behavior factor: an experimental study. Bull Earthq Eng 8(6):1267–1294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Varun V, Assimaki D, Gazetas G (2009) A simplified model for lateral response of large diameter caisson foundations—Linear elastic formulation. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29(2):268–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Veletsos A, Meek JW (1974) Dynamic behavior of building-foundation systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 3:121–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Veletsos AS, Nair VV (1975) Seismic interaction of structures on hysteretic foundation. J Struct Eng 101:109–129Google Scholar
  62. Vuoto A, Piro A, de Silva F, Scotto di Santolo A, Parisi F, Silvestri F (2018) Seismic soil-structure interaction: two case studies in Sant’Agata de’ Goti, Italy. In: Proceedings of 16th European conference earthquake engineering, Thessaloniki, 18–21 June 2018Google Scholar
  63. Wolf J (1985) Dynamic soil-structure interaction. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Structures for Engineering and ArchitectureUniversity of Naples Federico IINaplesItaly
  2. 2.Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of Naples Federico IINaplesItaly
  3. 3.Telematic University PegasoNaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations