Soil failure can be used for seismic protection of structures

Abstract

A new seismic design philosophy is illuminated, taking advantage of soil “failure” to protect the superstructure. Instead of over-designing the foundation to ensure that the loading stemming from the structural inertia can be “safely” transmitted onto the soil (as with conventional capacity design), and then reinforce the superstructure to avoid collapse, why not do exactly the opposite by intentionally under-designing the foundation to act as a “safety valve” ? The need for this “reversal” stems from the uncertainty in predicting the actual earthquake motion, and the necessity of developing new more rational and economically efficient earthquake protection solutions. A simple but realistic bridge structure is used as an example to illustrate the effectiveness of the new approach. Two alternatives are compared : one complying with conventional capacity design, with over-designed foundation so that plastic “hinging” develops in the superstructure; the other following the new design philosophy, with under-designed foundation, “inviting” the plastic “hinge” into the soil. Static “pushover” analyses reveal that the ductility capacity of the new design concept is an order of magnitude larger than of the conventional design: the advantage of “utilising” progressive soil failure. The seismic performance of the two alternatives is investigated through nonlinear dynamic time history analyses, using an ensemble of 29 real accelerograms. It is shown that the performance of both alternatives is totally acceptable for moderate intensity earthquakes, not exceeding the design limits. For large intensity earthquakes, exceeding the design limits, the performance of the new design scheme is proven advantageous, not only avoiding collapse but hardly suffering any inelastic structural deformation. It may however experience increased residual settlement and rotation: a price to pay that must be properly assessed in design.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Apostolou M, Gazetas G (2005) Rocking of foundations under strong shaking : mobilisation of bearing capacity and displacement demands. In: Proc. 1st Greece–Japan workshop, seismic design, observation, Retrofit, Athens, 11–12 October, pp 131–140

  2. Bertero V (1996) State of the art report on: design criteria. In: Proceedings of 11th world conference on earthquake engineering, Acapulco, Mexico, Oxford, Pergamon

  3. Bommer JJ, Abrahamson NA, Strasser FO, Pecker A, Bard P-Y, Bungum H, Cotton F, Faeh D, Sabetta F, Scherbaum F, Studer J (2004) The challenge of defining the upper limits on earthquake ground motions. Seismol Res Lett 70(1): 82–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Chatzigogos CT, Pecker A, Salencon J (2009) Macroelement modeling of shallow foundations. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29(6): 765–781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (1995) The Hyogo-Ken Nanbu earthquake, January 17, 1995. Preliminary EERI Reconnaissance Report

  6. EAK (2000) Greek seismic code. Organization of Seismic Planning and Protection, Athens (in Greek)

  7. EC8 (2000) Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures, part 5: foundations, retaining structures and geotechnical aspects, prEN, 1998–5 European Committee for Standardization, Brussels

  8. EKΩΣ (2000) Greek code for reinforced concrete. Organization of Seismic Planning and Protection, Athens (in Greek)

  9. Esmaeily-Gh A, Xiao Y (2002) Seismic behavior of bridge columns subjected to various loading patterns. In: PEER Report 2002/15, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley

  10. Faccioli E, Paolucci R, Vivero G (2001) Investigation of seismic soil-footing interaction by large scale cyclic tests and analytical models. In: Proc., 4th int. conf. recent advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics

  11. Fardis N, Georgarakos P, Gazetas G, Anastasopoulos I (2003) Sliding isolation of structures: effect of horizontal and vertical acceleration. In: Proceedings of fib international symposium on concrete structures in seismic regions, Athens, May 2003

  12. FEMA 356 (2000) Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington DC

  13. Frangopol DM, Curley JP (1987) Effects of damage and redundancy on structural reliability. J Struct Eng ASCE 113(7): 1533–1549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fukushima Y, Irikura K, Uetake T, Matsumoto H (2000) Characteristics of observed peak amplitude for strong ground motion from the 1995 Hyogoken Nanbu (Kobe) earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 90: 545–565

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gajan S, Phalen JD, Kutter BL, Hutchinson TC, Martin G (2005) Centrifuge modeling of load-deformation behavior of rocking shallow foundations. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 25(7–10): 773–783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gajan S, Hutchinson TC, Kutter BL, Raychowdhury P, Ugalde JA, Stewart JP (2008) Numerical models for the analysis and performance-based design of shallow foundations subjected to seismic loading. In: Rep. to Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif.

  17. Gajan S, Kutter BL (2008) Capacity, settlement, and energy dissipation of shallow footings subjected to rocking. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 134(8): 1129–1141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gazetas G, Dakoulas P, Papageorgiou AS (1990) Local soil and source mechanism effects in the 1986 Kalamata (Greece) earthquake. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 19: 431–456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gazetas G, Apostolou M, Anastasopoulos I (2003) Seismic uplifting of foundations on soft soil, with examples from Adapazari (Izmit 1999, Earthquake). In: BGA int. conf. on found. innov., observations, design & practice, Univ. of Dundee, Scotland, September 25, pp 37–50

  20. Gazetas G, Anastasopoulos I, Gerolymos N, Mylonakis G, Syngros C (2005) The collapse of the Hanshin expressway (Fukae) bridge, Kobe 1995: soil-foundation-structure interaction, reconstruction, seismic isolation, Entwicklungen in der Bodenmechanik, Bodendynamik und Geotechnik, Festschrift zum 60. Geburstag von Univ.-Professor Dr.-Ing.habil. Stavros A. Savidis (Honorary Volume for the 60th Birthday of Professor Savidis), Frabk Rackwitz, Springer, pp 93–120

  21. Gerolymos N, Gazetas G, Tazoh T (2005) Seismic response of yielding pile in non-linear soil. In: Proc. 1st Greece–Japan workshop, seismic design, observation, and retrofit of foundations, Athens, 11–12 October, pp 25–36

  22. Gerolymos N, Giannakou A, Anastasopoulos I, Gazetas G (2008) Evidence of beneficial role of inclined piles: observations and numerical results. Bull Earthq Eng 6(4):705–722 Special Issue: Integrated approach to fault rupture- and soil-foundation interaction

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gerolymos N, Drosos V, Gazetas G (2009) Seismic response of single-column bent on pile: evidence of beneficial role of pile and soil inelasticity. Bull Earthq Eng 7(2):547–573 Special Issue: Earthquake Protection of Bridges

    Google Scholar 

  24. Harden C, Hutchinson T (2006) Investigation into the effects of foundation uplift on simplified seismic design procedures. Earthq Spectra 22(3): 663–692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ishibashi I, Zhang X (1993) Unified dynamic shear moduli and damping ratios of sand and clay. Soil Found 33(1): 12–191

    Google Scholar 

  26. Iwasaki T, chm, et al (1995) In: Report on highway bridge damage caused by the Hyogo-ken Nanbu earthquake of 1995, Committee on Highway Bridge Damage, Japan

  27. Kawashima K, Nagai T, Sakellaraki D (2007) Rocking seismic isolation of bridges supported by spread foundations. In: Proc. 2nd Japan–Greece workshop on seismic design, observation, and retrofit of foundations, Tokyo, Japan, April 3–4, pp 254–265

  28. Kutter BL, Martin G, Hutchinson TC, Harden C, Gajan S, Phalen JD (2003) Status report on study of modeling of nonlinear cyclic load-deformation behavior of shallow foundations. In: PEER workshop, University of California, Davis, March 2003

  29. Makris N, Roussos Y (2000) Rocking response of rigid blocks under near source ground motions. Géotechnique 50(3): 243–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R (1988) Theoretical stress strain model for confined concrete. ASCE J Struct J 114(8): 1804–1825

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Martin GR, Lam IP (2000) Earthquake resistant design of foundations: retrofit of existing foundations. In: Proc. geoeng 2000 conference, Melbourne

  32. Mergos PE, Kawashima K (2005) Rocking isolation of a typical bridge pier on spread foundation. J Earthq Eng 9(2): 395–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Paolucci R (1997) Simplified evaluation of earthquake induced permanent displacement of shallow foundations. J Earthq Eng 1(3): 563–579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Paolucci R, Shirato M, Yilmaz MT (2007) Seismic behavior of shallow foundations: shaking table experiments vs numerical modeling. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 37(4): 577–595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Park R, Paulay T (1975) Reinforced concrete structures. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  36. Park R (1996) An analysis of the failure of the 630 m elevated expressway in Great Hanshin earthquake. Bull N.Z. Natl Soc Earthq Eng 29: 2

    Google Scholar 

  37. Pecker A (1998) Capacity design principles for shallow foundations in seismic areas. In: Proc. 11th european conference on earthquake engineering, A.A. Balkema Publishing

  38. Pecker A (2003) Aseismic foundation design process, lessons learned from two major projects: the Vasco de Gama and the Rion Antirion bridges. In: ACI international conference on seismic bridge design and retrofit, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, USA

  39. Priestley MJN (2000) Performance based seismic design. In: Proc. 12th world conference on earthquake engineering (12WCEE), Auckland, New Zealand, Paper No. 2831

  40. Priestley MJN, Seible F, Calvi GM (1996) Seismic design and retrofit of bridges. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  41. Seible F, Priestley MJN, MacRae G (1995) The Kobe earthquake of January 17, 1995; initial impressions from a quick reconnaissance. In: Structural systems research report-95/03, University of California, San Diego, 1995

  42. Shakal A, Haddadi H, Graizer V, Lin K, Huang M (2006) Some key features of the strong motion data from the M 6.0 Parkfield, California, earthquake of 28 September 2004. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96(4B): S90–S118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Tassios TP (1998) Seismic design: state of practice. In: Proceedings of 11th european conference on earthquake engineering, Rotterdam, AA Balkema, pp 255–267

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. Gazetas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Anastasopoulos, I., Gazetas, G., Loli, M. et al. Soil failure can be used for seismic protection of structures. Bull Earthquake Eng 8, 309–326 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-009-9145-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Capacity design
  • Bearing capacity failure
  • Uplifting
  • Seismic performance
  • Dynamic analysis
  • Pushover
  • Constitutive modelling
  • Calibration through experimental data