Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Seismic Response of Rocking Shallow Foundation in RC Framed Structure: A Parametric Study

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Vibration Engineering & Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This article concentrates on rocking foundation which is one of the most effective design alternatives to safeguard the super structure from excessive damage due to higher lateral forces during severe earthquakes.

Methods

The present study aims to illustrate the beneficial effects of rocking foundations on the overall seismic performance of high-rise Reinforced Concrete (RC) frame structures by comparing with its conventionally designed foundation and fixed base counterparts. Within the OpenSees framework the rocking foundation and conventionally designed foundations are modelled as Beam on Nonlinear Winkler Foundation (BNWF) and super structure elements are modelled using fiber section approach with distributed plastic hinges.

Results

Nonlinear static pushover analyses revealed that allowing rocking at the footing level increases yield and peak displacement by about 9% to 34% without significant reduction in the strength of the structures. Further, plastic displacement capacity is enhanced with increasing rocking effect, indicating the beneficial effect of foundation rocking on the overall seismic performance of the structure. Based on the results obtained from nonlinear dynamic time history analyses, it is ascertained that the moment transferred from column to foundation, owing to seismic action, decreases by 20% to 50% with a reduced peak roof acceleration and increasing settlement at the base of the foundation with increasing foundation rocking. However, the maximum settlement did not exceed permissible limits mentioned in Indian standards. From the fragility assessment, it is noticed that the increasing foundation rocking substantially reduces the collapse probability by a maximum of 10% than the fixed base counterparts for the 8-storey and 10-storey structures resting on dense and very dense sand.

Conclusions

The findings from this study shows that it is desirable to under-proportion the size of footings with reduced earthquake loads by up to 50%, in order to improve the overall seismic behaviour of RC-framed structures during severe earthquake events.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the author, upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Bertero VV (1977) Strength and deformation capacities of buildings under extreme environments. Struct Eng Struct Mech 53(1):29–79

    Google Scholar 

  2. Paulay T (1999) A simple seismic design strategy based on displacement and ductility compatibility. Earthq Eng Eng Seismol 1(1):51–67

    Google Scholar 

  3. Priestley, M. (2000) Performance based seismic design. 12 WCEE. Auckland, New Zealand.

  4. IS1904 (2021) Code of practice for design and construction of foundations in soils: general requirements. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  5. Massone LM et al (2012) Seismic design and construction practices for RC structural wall buildings. Earthq Spectra. 28(1_suppl1):245–256. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.4000046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kam WY, Pampanin S (2011) The seismic performance of RC buildings in the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Struct Concrete. 12(4):223–233. https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201100044

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Nakamura Y (1996) Waveform and its analysis of the 1995 Hyogo-Ken-Nanbu earthquake II. JR Earthq Inf 23:9–16

    Google Scholar 

  8. Saatcioglu M et al (2013) Performance of reinforced concrete buildings during the 27 February 2010 Maule (Chile) earthquake. Canadian J Civ Eng. 40(8):693–710. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2012-0243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dönmez C, Pujol S (2005) Spatial distribution of damage caused by the 1999 earthquakes in Turkey. Earthq Spectra. 21(1):53–69. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1850527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gelagoti F et al (2012) Rocking isolation of low-rise frame structures founded on isolated footings. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 41(7):1177–1197. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.1182

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Apostolou M, Gazetas G, Garini E (2007) Seismic response of slender rigid structures with foundation uplifting. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng. 27(7):642–654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2006.12.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hakhamaneshi M et al (2020) Database of rocking shallow foundation performance: slow-cyclic and monotonic loading. Earthq Spectra. 36(3):1585–1606. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293020906564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Raychowdhury P, Hutchinson TC (2009) Performance evaluation of a nonlinear Winkler-based shallow foundation model using centrifuge test results. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 38(5):679–698. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.902

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gajan S, Kutter BL (2009) Contact interface model for shallow foundations subjected to combined cyclic loading. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 135(3):407–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gajan S et al (2005) Centrifuge modeling of load-deformation behavior of rocking shallow foundations. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng. 25(7–10):773–783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2004.11.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gajan S et al (2021) Effects of rocking coefficient and critical contact area ratio on the performance of rocking foundations from centrifuge and shake table experimental results. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Deng L, Kutter BL (2012) Characterization of rocking shallow foundations using centrifuge model tests. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. 41(5):1043–1060. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.1181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sharma K, Deng L (2020) Field testing of rocking foundations in cohesive soil: cyclic performance and footing mechanical response. Can Geotech J 57(6):828–839. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2018-0734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Deng L, Kutter BL, Kunnath SK (2014) Seismic design of rocking shallow foundations: displacement-based methodology. J Bridge Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-009-9111-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Paolucci R (1997) Simplified evaluation of earthquake-induced permanent displacements of shallow foundations. J Earthq Eng. 1(03):563–579. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469708962378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hakhamaneshi M, Kutter BL (2016) Effect of footing shape and embedment on the settlement, recentering, and energy dissipation of shallow footings subjected to rocking. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng. 142(12):04016070. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Liu W et al (2015) Seismic behavior of frame-wall-rocking foundation systems. II: dynamic test phase. J Struct Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Loli M et al (2014) Centrifuge modeling of rocking-isolated inelastic RC bridge piers. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. 43(15):2341–2359. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Cheng C-T (2007) Energy dissipation in rocking bridge piers under free vibration tests. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. 36(4):503–518. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hung H-H, Liu K-Y, Chang K-C (2014) Rocking behavior of bridge piers with spread footings under cyclic loading and earthquake excitation. Earthq Struct. 7(6):1001–1024. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2014.7.6.1001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Veletsos AS, Tang Y (1987) Rocking response of liquid storage tanks. J Eng Mech. 113(11):1774–1792. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1987)113:11(1774)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Haroun MA, Ellaithy HM (1985) Model for flexible tanks undergoing rocking. J Eng Mech. 111(2):143–157. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1985)111:2(143)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Anastasopoulos I, Drosos V, Antonaki N (2015) Three-storey building retrofit: rocking isolation versus conventional design. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. 44(8):1235–1254. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. IS1893 (2016) Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  32. IS875-1 (1987) Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for buildings and structures. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  33. IS875-2 (1987) Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for buildings and structures. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  34. IS13920 (2016) Ductile design and detailing of reinforced concrete structures subjected to seismic forces—code of practice (first revision). Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  35. IS456 (2000) Indian standard plain and reinforced concrete-code of practice (fourth revision). Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  36. Petrangeli M, Pinto PE, Ciampi V (1999) Fiber element for cyclic bending and shear of RC structures. I: Theory. J Eng Mech. 125(9):994–1001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kent DC, Park R (1971) Flexural members with confined concrete. J Struct Div 97(7):1969–1990

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Scott BD, Park R, Priestley MJ (1982) Stress-strain behavior of concrete confined by overlapping hoops at low and high strain rates. J Proc 79(1):13–27

    Google Scholar 

  39. Hisham, M. and M. Yassin (1994) Nonlinear analysis of prestressed concrete structures under monotonic and cycling loads. University of California, Berkeley Ph D thesis.

  40. Filippou FC, Popov EP, Bertero VV (1983) Effects of bond deterioration on hysteretic behavior of reinforced concrete joints. Report (University of California, Berkeley. Earthquake Engineering Research Center) ; no. UCB/EERC 83-19, pp 102–107

  41. McKenna F et al (2010) OpenSees. University of California, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  42. IS6403 (1981; Reaffirmed 2021) Code of practice for determination of bearing capacity of shallow foundations. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.

  43. Terzaghi K (1997) PECK, RB-1967 “soil mechanics in engineering practice. John Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  44. Peck RB, Hanson WE, Thornburn TH (1991) Foundation engineering. John Wiley & Sons

    Google Scholar 

  45. Bowles JE, Guo Y (1996) Foundation analysis and design, vol 5. McGraw-hill, New York

  46. Engineers, U.A.C.o. (1990) Engineering and Design: Settlement Analysis. Engineering Manual No. 1110–1–1904.

  47. Raychowdhury P (2008) Nonlinear Winkler-based shallow foundation model for performance assessment of seismically loaded structures. University of California, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  48. Vecchio FJ, Emara MB (1992) Shear deformations in reinforced concrete frames. ACI Struct J 89(1):46–56

    Google Scholar 

  49. FEMA356 (2000) Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  50. Naeim F (1989) The seismic design handbook. Springer Science & Business Media, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  51. Wang T et al (2021) Seismic force demands on acceleration-sensitive nonstructural components: a state-of-the-art review. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 20:39–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Huang B, Wensheng Lu (2021) Evaluation of the floor acceleration amplification demand of instrumented buildings. Advances in Civil Eng. 202:1–20

    Google Scholar 

  53. Calvi PM, Sullivan TJJE (2014) Estimating floor spectra in multiple degree of freedom systems. Earthq Struct. 7(1):17–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Engineers, A.S.o.C. (2013) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. American Society of Civil Engineers. https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/9780784412916

  55. Barbat AH, Pujades LG, Lantada N (2006) Performance of buildings under earthquakes in Barcelona, Spain. Comput-Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng 21(8):573–593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Hazus (2003) HAZUS-MH technical manual. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington.

  57. Haldar P (2013) Seismic behavior and vulnerability of Indian RC frame buildings with URM infills. Department of earthquake engineering. Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors cordially acknowledge resources provided by the Indian Institute of Technology Ropar and Ministry of Human Resources and Development (MHRD), Govt. of India.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Ropar, Ropar, India

    R. Manoj Kannan, N. James & P. Haldar

Authors
  1. R. Manoj Kannan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. N. James
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. P. Haldar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. Haldar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kannan, R.M., James, N. & Haldar, P. Seismic Response of Rocking Shallow Foundation in RC Framed Structure: A Parametric Study. J. Vib. Eng. Technol. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42417-024-01333-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42417-024-01333-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation