Advertisement

A two-dimensional (2-D) model of a building supported by a semi-circular flexible foundation embedded in nonlinear soil is analyzed. The building, the foundation, and the soil have different physical properties. The model is excited by a half-sine SH wave pulse, which travels toward the foundation. The results show that the spatial distribution of permanent, nonlinear strain in the soil depends upon the incident angle, the amplitude, and the duration of the pulse. If the wave has a large amplitude and a short duration, a nonlinear zone in the soil appears immediately after the reflection from the half-space and is located close to the free surface. This results from interference of the reflected pulse from the free surface and the incoming part of the pulse that still has not reached the free surface. When the wave reaches the foundation, it is divided on two parts—the first part is reflected, and the second part enters the foundation. Further, there is separation of this second part at the foundation-building contact. One part is reflected back, and one part enters the building. After each contact of the part of the wave that enters the building with the foundation-building contact, one part of the wave energy is released back into the soil. This process continues until all of the energy in the building is released back into the soil. The work needed for the development of nonlinear strains spends part of the input wave energy, and thus a smaller amount of energy is available for exciting the building.

Keywords

soil-structure interaction non-linear wave propagation energy distribution 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abdel-Ghaffar, A. M. and Trifunac, M. D. (1977) Antiplane dynamic soil–bridge interaction for incident plane SH-waves. In Proc. 6th World Conf. Earthquake Eng., Vol. 2, New Delhi, India.Google Scholar
  2. Aki, K. and Richards, P. (1980) Quantitative Seismology, Theory and Methods, San Francisco, W. H. Freeman & Co.Google Scholar
  3. Alford, R. M., Kelly, K. R., and Boore, D. M. (1974) Accuracy of finite-difference modeling of the acoustic wave equation, Geophysics 39, 834–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alterman, Z. and Karal, F. C. (1968) Propagation of elastic waves in layered media by finite difference methods, Bull. Seism. Soc. of Am. 58(1), 367–398.Google Scholar
  5. Aviles, J., Suarez, M., and Sanchez-Sesma, F. J. (2002). Effects of wave passage on the relevant dynamic properties of structures with flexible foundation, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam. 31, 139–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blume J. A. and Assoc. (1973) Holiday Inn. In L. M. Murphy (ed.), San Fernando, California, Earthquake of February 9, 1971, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C., pp. 359–394.Google Scholar
  7. Boore, D. M. (1972) Finite difference methods for seismic wave propagation in heterogeneous materials. In B. A. Bolt (ed.), Seismology, Surface Waves and Earth Oscillations, Vol. 11 of Methods in Comp. Physics, New York, pp. 1–37, Academic Press.Google Scholar
  8. Dablain, M. A. (1986) The application of high-order differencing to the scalar wave equation, Geophysics 51(1), 54–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fah, D. J. (1992) A hybrid technique for the estimation of strong ground motion in sedimentary basins, Ph.D. Dissertation, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  10. Gicev, V. (2005) Investigation of soil-flexible foundation—structure interaction for incident plane SH waves, Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. Southern California, Los Angeles, California.Google Scholar
  11. Hayir, A., Todorovska, M. I., and Trifunac, M. D. (2001) Antiplane response of a dike with flexible soil-structure interface to incident SH waves, Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng. 21, 603–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lax, P. D. and Wendroff, B. (1964) Difference schemes for hyperbolic equations with high order of accuracy, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. XVII, 381–398.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. Lee, V. W. (1979) Investigation of three-dimensional soil-structure interaction, Report No. CE 79–11, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
  14. Luco, J. E. and Wong, H. L. (1977) Dynamic response of rectangular foundations for Rayleigh wave excitation. In Proc. 6th World Conf. Earthq. Eng., Vol. 2, New Delhi, India.Google Scholar
  15. Mitchell, A. R. (1969) Computational Methods in Partial Differential Equations, New York, Willey.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Moczo, P. (1989) Finite-difference technique for SH-waves in 2-D media using irregular grids—application to the seismic response problem, Geophys. J. Int. 99, 321–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Seed, H. B. (1970) Soil problems and soil behavior. In R. L. Wiegel (ed.), Earthquake Engineering, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall, pp. 227–251.Google Scholar
  18. Todorovska, M. I., Hayir, A., and Trifunac, M. D. (2001) Antiplane response of a dike on flexible embedded foundation to incident SH-waves, Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng. 21, 593–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Trifunac, M. D. (1972) Interaction of a shear wall with the soil for incident plane SH waves, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 62(1), 63–83.Google Scholar
  20. Trifunac, M. D. (1995) Empirical criteria for liquefaction in sands via standard penetration tests and seismic wave energy, Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng. 14(6), 419–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Trifunac, M. D. and Todorovska, M. I. (1997) Northridge, California, earthquake of 17 January 1994: Density of pipe breaks and surface strains, Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng. 16(3), 193–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Trifunac, M. D. and Todorovska, M. I. (1998a) Nonlinear soil response as a natural passive isolation mechanism—the 1994 Northridge, California earthquake, Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng. 17(1), 41–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Trifunac, M. D. and Todorovska, M. I. (1998b) The Northridge, California, earthquake of 1994: Fire ignition by strong shaking, Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng. 17(3), 165–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tsynkov, S. V. (1998) Numerical solution of problems on unbounded domains: A review, Appl. Numerical Math. 27, 465–532.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. Westermo, B. D. and Wong, H. L. (1977) On the fundamental differences of three basic soil-structure interaction models, Proc. 6th World Conf. of Earth. Eng., Vol. 2, New Delhi, India.Google Scholar
  26. Wong, H. L. and Trifunac, M. D. (1974) Interaction of a shear wall with the soil for incident plane SH waves: Elliptical rigid foundation, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 64(6), 1825–1884.Google Scholar
  27. Wong, H. L. and Trifunac, M. D. (1975) Two-dimensional antiplane, building-soil-building interaction for two or more buildings and for incident plane SH waves, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 65(6), 1863–1885.Google Scholar
  28. Zahradnik, J., Moczo, P., and Hron, F. (1993) Testing four elastic finite-difference schemes for behaviour at discontinuities, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 83, 107–129.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vlado Gicev
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceGoce Delcev UniversityMacedonia

Personalised recommendations