International Journal of Civil Engineering

, Volume 16, Issue 9, pp 1157–1173 | Cite as

Effect of Peripheral Wall Openings in Basement and Number of Basement Floors on the Base level of Braced Framed Tube System

  • Mohsen TehranizadehEmail author
  • Mohammad Sadegh Barkhordari
Research paper


For seismic design, the base is defined as the level at which the seismic ground motion is considered to be transferred on to the structure. Although there are many factors affecting the base level, for a typical building without a basement, the base is generally considered near the ground level. This study aims to examine the influence of both, peripheral wall openings in the basement and the number of basement floors, on the base level under near-field earthquakes, taking into account the effect of soil–structure interaction. To this end, five 2D metal-braced frame models with different number of floors and the soil around them were subjected to near-field earthquakes. The basement beams and columns were assumed to be buried within the peripheral basement wall. The results showed that where the opening was greater than 50%, the base level had to be considered one story lower than the ground level, thus, disregarding the effect of openings in high-rise structures could lead to non-conservative results. Moreover, it was concluded that in case the basement beams and columns were buried in the peripheral basement wall so as to provide sufficient stiffness, increasing the number of basement floors from 3 to 6 had little effect on the base level of the studied soil–structure system.


Base level High-rise structures Near-field earthquake Soil–structure interaction Nonlinear dynamic analysis 


  1. 1.
    Bielak J (1974) Dynamic behaviour of structures with embedded foundations. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 3(3):259–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Roesset J, Seismic response of structures on embedded foundations. WIT Trans Built Environ, 1970. 23Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kausel E et al (1978) The spring method for embedded foundations. Nucl Eng Des 48(2–3):377–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Apsel R, Luco J (1987) Impedance functions for foundations embedded in a layered medium: an integral equation approach. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 15(2):213–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gazetas G, Stokoe KH (1991) Free vibration of embedded foundations: theory versus experiment. J Geotech Eng 117(9):1382–1401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gadre A, Dobry R (1998) Lateral cyclic loading centrifuge tests on square embedded footing. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 124(11):1128–1138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cai Y et al (2009) Vertical dynamic response of a rigid foundation embedded in a poroelastic soil layer. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 33(11):1363–1388CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Turan A, Hinchberger SD, El Naggar MH (2013) Seismic soil–structure interaction in buildings on stiff clay with embedded basement stories. Can Geotech J 50(8):858–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sert S, Kılıç AN (2016) numerical investigation of different superstructure loading type effects in mat foundations. Int J Civ Eng 14(3):171–180MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Homaei F, Shakib H, Soltani M (2017) Probabilistic seismic performance evaluation of vertically irregular steel building considering soil–structure interaction. Int J Civ Eng 15(4):611–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tehranizadeh M, Barkhordari MS, Sepehr Moosavi SV (2017) Base level investigation in various buildings and corresponding effective factors. J Struct Constr Eng 4(Special Issue 1):5–16Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kelly D (2009) Location of base for seismic design. Structure Magazine, US, December 2009, pp 8–11.
  13. 13.
    Elias WK (2012) MF, Identifying the fixed base location of building structures under seismic excitation. Int J Sci Res (IJSR) 3(12):2612–2618Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Elgamal A et al (2003) Modeling of cyclic mobility in saturated cohesionless soils. Int J Plast 19(6):883–905CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yang Z, Elgamal A (2002) Influence of permeability on liquefaction-induced shear deformation. J Eng Mech 128(7):720–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yang Z, Elgamal A, Parra E (2003) Computational model for cyclic mobility and associated shear deformation. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 129(12):1119–1127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yang Z, Lu J, Elgamal A (2008) OpenSees soil models and solid-fluid fully coupled elements. User’s manual, Version 1Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gu Q et al (2009) Finite element response sensitivity analysis of multi-yield-surface J 2 plasticity model by direct differentiation method. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 198(30):2272–2285CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kausel E (1988) Local transmitting boundaries. J Eng Mech 114(6):1011–1027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kausel E, Tassoulas JL (1981) Transmitting boundaries: a closed-form comparison. Bull Seismol Soc Am 71(1):143–159MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wriggers P, Van TV, Stein E (1990) Finite element formulation of large deformation impact-contact problems with friction. Comput Struct 37(3):319–331CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wriggers P, Zavarise G (2004) Computational contact mechanics. In: Encyclopedia of computational mechanics, vol 2. Wiley, pp 195–226.;jsessionid=6CEB7A981A54C923F8565C11136ECD59.f02t04?userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=
  23. 23.
    McKenna F (2011) OpenSees: a framework for earthquake engineering simulation. Comput Sci Eng 13(4):58–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mazzoni S et al (2006) OpenSees command language manual. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Geotechnical Analysis Examples (2016) QuakeCoRE NZ center for earthquake resilience. The New Zealand Centre for Earthquake Resilience.
  26. 26.
    Filippou FC, Popov EP, Bertero VV (1983) Effects of bond deterioration on hysteretic behavior of reinforced concrete joints. University of California, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, USAGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Taucer F, Spacone E, Filippou FC (1991) A fiber beam-column element for seismic response analysis of reinforced concrete structures, vol 91. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California Berkekey, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Saatcioglu M, Razvi SR (1992) Strength and ductility of confined concrete. J Struct Eng 118(6):1590–1607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lowes L, Oyen P, Lehman D (2009) Evaluation and calibration of load-deformation models for concrete walls. Spec Publ 265:171–198Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wong P, Vecchio F (2002) VecTor2 and Form Works user’s manual. Civil Engineering. University of Toronto, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yassin MHM and B. University of California, Nonlinear analysis of prestressed concrete structures under monotonic and cyclic loads. 1994, UMI Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pugh JS, Lowes LN, Lehman DE (2015) Nonlinear line-element modeling of flexural reinforced concrete walls. Eng Struct 104:174–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Davoodi M et al (2012) Effects of near-field and far-field earthquakes on seismic response of sdof system considering soil structure interaction. In: 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Lisbon, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Newmark NM, A Method of Computation for Structural Dynamics. ASCE J Eng Mech Div, 1959 85(3): 67–94Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hashash YMA et al (2016) DEEPSOIL V6.1, User Manual. Board of Trustees of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, ILGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hosseinzadeh N, Davoodi M, Roknabadi ER (2009) Comparison of soil-structure interaction effects between building code requirements and shake table study. J Seismol Earthq Eng 11(1):31Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Iran University of Science and Technology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohsen Tehranizadeh
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mohammad Sadegh Barkhordari
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringAmirkabir University of TechnologyTehranIran
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringAmirkabir University of TechnologyTehranIran

Personalised recommendations