Advertisement

Displacement ratios for structures with material degradation and foundation uplift

  • Kiarash M. DolatshahiEmail author
  • Amir Vafaei
  • Kamyar Kildashti
  • Mohammadjavad Hamidia
Original Research
  • 66 Downloads

Abstract

In this paper, combined effects of material degradation, p-delta, and foundation uplift are incorporated in a soil-structure-interaction (SSI) framework to assess seismic response of a single-degree-of-freedom system. The considered phenomenological systems represent a column with a lumped mass on top is placed on a rigid foundation. The foundation is mounted on Winkler springs and dashpots to take account of soil-foundation compliance and material/radiation damping. The springs are tensionless to guarantee that uplift is properly modelled. The model is verified for two specific limit cases with the code and literature to make sure that the model is capable of capturing SSI and foundation uplift. Three sets of flexural degradations for capturing nonlinear performance of the column are defined to be categorized as low, moderate, and high degradation levels. The response of each system is then compared to the corresponding one with the elastic–perfectly plastic (EPP) material behavior. More than 150,000 analyses are conducted for several dimensionless parameters and twenty time history ground motions. The results including elastic and inelastic displacement ratios are finally compared with those stipulated by seismic codes for shallow foundations with the flexible-based condition. The results reveal that material degradation can significantly increase the displacement ratios of soil-structure systems and in some cases can lead to structural instability, which cannot be captured by conventional EPP models. More specifically, displacement ratios calculated in accordance with ASCE41-17 by assuming fixed-base model and incomplete data about level of material degradation might be underestimated, once compared to the results of more realistic conditions.

Keywords

Soil-structure interaction Material degradation Foundation uplift Displacement ratios 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The first author acknowledges the financial support provided by Sharif University of Technology.

References

  1. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2017) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings. ASCE-41-17, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  2. Applied Technology Council (ATC) (2010) Modeling and acceptance criteria for seismic design and analysis of tall buildings (ATC 72-1), Redwood, CaGoogle Scholar
  3. Aviles J, Prez-Rocha LE (2003) Soil-structure interaction in yielding systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 32(11):1749–1771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Behmanesh I, Khoshnudian F (2008) Effect of soil-structure-interaction on inelastic displacement ratios of existing structures. In: Proceedings of the 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing, China, no. 1960, pp 1–9Google Scholar
  5. Clough RW, Johnston SB (1966) Effect of stiffness degradation on earthquake ductility requirements. In: Second Japan national conference on earthquake engineering, pp 227–232Google Scholar
  6. Eads L, Miranda E, Krawinkler H, Lignos DG (2013) An efficient method for estimating the collapse risk of structures in seismic regions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 42(1):25–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eser M, Aydemir C (2011) The effect of soil-structure interaction on inelastic displacement ratio of structures. Struct Eng Mech 39(5):683–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (1980) Review and refinement of ATC 3-06 tentative seismic provision, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  9. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (1997) Nehrp guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, FEMA 273. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  10. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2005) Recommended provisions for improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures, FEMA 440, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  11. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2009) Quantification of building seismic performance factors, FEMA P695. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  12. Ghannad MA, Ahmadnia A (2006) The effect of soil-structure interaction on inelastic structural demands. Eur Earthq Eng 20(1):23Google Scholar
  13. Ghannad MA, Jafarieh AH (2014) Inelastic displacement ratios for soil-structure systems allowed to uplift. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 43(9):1401–1421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ghannad MA, Jahankhah H (2007) Site-dependent strength reduction factors for soil-structure systems. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 27:99–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ibarra LF, Krawinkler H (2005) Global collapse of frame structures under seismic excitations. Evaluation 152:1–301Google Scholar
  16. Ibarra LF, Medina RA, Krawinkler H (2005) Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34(12):1489–1511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jennings P, Bielak J (1973) Dynamics of buildings-soil interaction. Bull Seismol Soc Am 63:9–48Google Scholar
  18. Lignos D, Krawinkler H (2012) Sidesway collapse of deteriorating structural systems under seismic excitations. Report No. 177: John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering CenterGoogle Scholar
  19. Lignos DG, Krawinkler H, Whittaker AS (2011) Prediction and validation of sidesway collapse of two scale models of a 4-story steel moment frame. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 40(7):807–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Meek JW, Wolf JP (1993) Why cone models can represent the elastic half-space. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 22(9):759–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mirzaie F, Mojtaba M, Ghannad MA (2015) Probabilistic analysis of soil-structure interaction. In: 12 International conference on applications of statistics and probability in civil engineering, no. 2010, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  22. NISTGCR-12-917-21 (2012) Soil-structure interaction for building structures. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Engineering Laboratory Gaithersburg, MDGoogle Scholar
  23. Novak M (1974) Effect of soil on structural response to wind and earthquake. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 3(1):79–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Oliveto G, Caliò I, Greco A (2003) Large displacement behaviour of a structural model with foundation uplift under impulsive and earthquake excitations. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 32:369–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees) (2016) Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center; University of California; BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  26. Rahnama M, Krawinkler H (1993) Effects of soft soil and hysteresis model on seismic demands. John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering CenterGoogle Scholar
  27. Ruiz-García J, Miranda E (2004) Inelastic displacement ratios for design of structures on soft soils sites. J Struct Eng 130(12):2051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sivaselvan MV, Reinhorn AM (2000) Hysteretic models for deteriorating inelastic structures. J Eng Mech 126(6):633–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Song J, Pincheira J (2000) Spectral displacement demands of stiffness- and strength-degrading systems. Earthq Spectra 16(4):817–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Takeda T, Sozen MA, Nielsen NN (1970) Reinforced concrete response to simulated earthquakes. J Struct Div 96(12):2557–2573Google Scholar
  31. Tremblay R, Tchebotarev N, Filiatrault A (1997) Seismic performance of RBS connections for steel moment resisting frames: influence of loading rate and floor slab. In: Proceedings, Stessa’97Google Scholar
  32. Veletsos A, Meek J (1974) Dynamic behaviour of building-foundation systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 3(January):121–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Veletsos A, Newmark NM (1960) Effect of inelastic behavior on the response of simple systems to earthquake motions. In: Proceedings of the 2nd world conference on earthquake engineering, pp 895–912Google Scholar
  34. Veletsos A, Verbic B (1974) Dynamics of elastic and yielding structure-foundation systems. In: Proceedings of the 5th world conference on earthquake engineeringGoogle Scholar
  35. West ME, Haeussler PJ, Ruppert NA, Freymueller J (2014) Why the 1964 Great Alaska earthquake matters 50 years later. Seismol Res Lett 85:245–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Whittaker A, Constantinou M, Tsopelas P (1998) Displacement estimates for performance-based seismic design. J Struct Eng 124(8):905–912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wolf JP (1985) Dynamic soil-structure interaction. Prentice-Hall international series in civil engineering and engineering mechanicsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sharif University of TechnologyTehranIran
  2. 2.Centre for Infrastructure EngineeringWestern Sydney UniversitySydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Shahid Beheshti UniversityTehranIran

Personalised recommendations