Advertisement

Seismic soil response of scaled geotechnical test model on small shaking table

  • Erkan Çelebi
  • Fatih GöktepeEmail author
  • Ahmad Jawad Omid
ICCESEN 2017
  • 18 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Geo-Resources-Earth-Environmental Sciences

Abstract

This research comprises a series of shaking table tests and finite element analyses of scaled soil-foundation model to determine the dynamic interaction effects between the foundation and the underlying soil. The purpose of this work is to specify a realistic geometric scaling coefficient for test model to be used in a small-capacity shaking table. The scaling factor addressed in this study involves not only geometric similarity but also kinematic and dynamic similarity with the real system. The free-field soil response under different earthquake excitations for both real system and scaled test model was directly performed by using 2D finite element method under plane-strain conditions. The kinematic interaction of the shallow foundation slab on free-field motion was also examined. In this computational model, the behavior of the soil medium is idealized by linear elastic-perfectly plastic assumption with a yield surface according to Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion. Two different earthquake acceleration records as Chi-Chi (1999) and Loma Prieta (1989) have been carried out at the bedrock level of the soil-foundation system for this study. By comparing the results of the numerical analysis with data from the laboratory tests, the proposed geotechnical model can properly simulate the seismic response of the full-scale real system. It can be concluded that the kinematic interaction effects are negligible in the low frequencies. It should be noted that the local soil properties have considerably amplified the earthquake response of the free-field motions in comparison to the bedrock excitations.

Keywords

Finite element analysis Soil-foundation interaction Shaking table Scaled test model Free-field motion 

Notes

Funding information

This study is supported financially by the Sakarya University Scientific Research Project Units under the Project number of 2015-40-01-048 K 120970 and this support is greatly acknowledged.

References

  1. Aldaikh H, Alexander NA, Ibraim E, Oddbjornsson O (2015) Two dimensional numerical and experimental models for the study of structure–soil–structure interaction involving three buildings. Comput Struct 150:79–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brinkgreve RBJ, Al-khoury R, Bakker KJ, Bonier PG, Brand PJ, Broere W, Burd HJ, Solty G, Vermeer PA, Haag DD (2002) Plaxis finite element code for soil and rock analyses. Published and Distributed by AA. Balkema Publisher, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  3. Chunyu T, Congzhen X, Hong Z, Jinzhe C (2012) Shaking table model test and seismic performance evalution of Shangai Tower. Int J High-Rise Build 1(3):221–228Google Scholar
  4. Gazetas G (1991) Formulas and charts for impedances of surface and embedded foundations. J Geotech Eng 117(9):1363–1138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Guoxing G, Su C, Xi Z, Xiuli D, Chengzhi Q, Zhihua W (2015) Shaking-table tests and numerical simulations on a subway structure in soft soil. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 76:13–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hirave V, Kalyanshetti M (2018) Seismic response of steel braced building frame considering soil structure interaction (SSI): an experimental study. J Inst Eng India Ser A 99(1):113–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hokmabadi AS, Fatahi B, Samali B (2014) Assessment of soil–pile–structure interaction influencing seismic response of mid-rise buildings sitting on floating pile foundations. Comput Geotech 55:172–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hosseinzadeh NA, Nateghi F (2004) Shake table study of soil structure interaction effects on seismic response of single and adjacent buildings. In: 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., CanadaGoogle Scholar
  9. Kausel E (2010) Early history of soil–structure interaction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30(9):822–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Li PZ, Hou XY, Liu YM, Lu XL (2012) Shaking table model tests on dynamic structure-soil structure interaction during various excitations. In: 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, LisboaGoogle Scholar
  11. Lu X, Zou Y, Lu W, Zhao B (2007) Shaking table model test on Shanghai World Financial Center Tower. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36:439–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lu J, Elgamal A, Yan L, Law KH, Conte JP (2011) Large-scale numerical modeling in geotechnical earthquake engineering. Int J Geomech 11(6):490–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lu X, Yin X, Jiang H (2013a) Shaking table scaled model test on a high-rise building with CFT frame and composite core wall. Europ J Envr Civ Eng 17(8):616–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lu X, Wang B, Jiang H, Li J, Lu W (2013b) Shaking table tests on a complex high-rise structure with two towers and lapping transfers columns. J Earthq Tsun 07(04):1250030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Menglin L, Huaifeng W, Xi C, Yongmei Z (2011) Structure–soil–structure interaction: literature review. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 31(12):1724–1731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Meymand PJ (1998) Shaking Table Scale Model Tests of Non-linear Soil-Pile Superstructure Interaction in Soft Clay. Ph.D. Dissertation, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, U.C. BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  17. 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(9):824–8534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pitilakis D, Dietz M, Wood DM, Clouteau D, Modaressia A (2008) Numerical simulation of dynamic soil–structure interaction in shaking table testing. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 28(6):453–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Stewart AE, Dowd S, Keyse SM, McDonald NQ (1999) Crystal structure of the MAPK phosphatase Pyst1 catalytic domain and implications for regulated activation. Nat Struct Biol 6(2):174–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Tabatabaiefar SHR, Fatahi B, Samali B (2016) Numerical and experimental investigations on seismic response of building frames under influence of soil-structure interaction. Adv Struct Eng 17(1):109–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Turan A, Hinchberger S, El Naggar H (2009) Design and commissioning of a laminar soil container for use on small shaking tables. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29(2):404–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wang HJ, Schmidt P (2002) One-step and two-step estimation of the effects of exogenous variables on technical efficiency levels. J Prod Anal 18(2):129–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wolf JP, Song C (1996) Finite element modelling of unbounded media. USAGoogle Scholar
  24. Yazdchi M, Khalili N, Valliappan S (1999) Dynamic soil–structure interaction analysis via coupled finite-element–boundary-element method. 18(7):499–517Google Scholar
  25. Ying Z, Xilin L, Wensheng L, Zhijun H (2009) Shake table testing multi-tower connected hybrid structure. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 8:47–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erkan Çelebi
    • 1
  • Fatih Göktepe
    • 2
    Email author
  • Ahmad Jawad Omid
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering, Engineering FacultySakarya UniversitySakaryaTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Civil Engineering, Engineering FacultyBartın UniversityBartınTurkey
  3. 3.Institute of Natural SciencesSakarya UniversitySakaryaTurkey

Personalised recommendations