Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Jonathan P. Stewart
University of California, Los Angeles
Overview
A. B. C. D. Introduction General methods of analysis Inertial interaction Kinematic interaction
A. Introduction
Response dictated by interactions between: Structure Foundation Underlying soil/rock
System analysis evaluates response given freefield motion, ug No SSI when___________ SSI effect =______________
M V
p s f s p
Sa
Sa
C. Inertial Interaction
Springs used to represent soilfoundation interaction Complex-valued
Real part represents stiffness Imaginary part related to damping Combination of real and complex parts comprises Impedance function
C. Inertial Interaction
Springs used to represent soilfoundation interaction Complex-valued If rigid foundation, simplifies to:
3 springs for 2D system 6 springs for 3D system
k j = k j (a0 , ) + ic j (a0 , )
k
kz
kx
K*fixed, c kx k
System damping
0 = f + ~ i
(T T )
= 0.1
e/ru = 0 PGA > 0.2g PGA < 0.1g 20 h/r = 0.5 1.0 10 2.0 0
~ f0 (%)
12 8 4 0 0.0
h/(vs T)
0.6
(a)
0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1
T,
Sa
Sa
~ S
i
a
T
0
~ T
T
1
~ T
0
2
Period (s)
Sa
Performance point Pushover curve Reduced seismic demand (SFSI + extra str. damping)
Pushover curve
Soil springs in pushover analysis
Sd
Fixed-Base
Flexible-Base
u (translation, x or z) (rocking)
K u ru cu = u VS K r c = VS
ku = u K u
k = K
ru =
Af
r = 4 4 I f
Two aspects of impedance function analysis: 1) Static stiffness (e.g., Kx) 2) Dynamic modifiers (e.g., x, x)
8 Kx = Gru 2
8 K = Gr3 3(1 )
4 Kz = Gru 1
Used in NEHRP Provisions
FEMA-356
(K )E
e 1 2 = K + r
Rectangle:
FEMA-356
Issue: What is the effective Vs for a nonuniform profile? Vs increase with depth
Increases foundation stiffness Impedes radiation damping at large (low f) relative to halfspace
Depth
zi
=0.025
4 6
1.0
TRANSLATION
H a lf . , =
2 0. = 3
0.30
f. , H al
ROCKING
0. 1
Half., =0
=0. 1
0.5
02
BIAS
0.0 0
0 .2
n=
0.
0 0.
25
.5 =0
0.15
Ha
23
lf.,
=0
0. =
0.00
a0 = r/Vs0
a0 = r/Vs0
Analysis of If must consider shear wall configuration and potential rotational coupling between walls
2. Evaluate foundation embedment, e 3. Evaluate effective height of structure, h 4. Initial fixed base damping, i (usually 5%)
Force
k 1 Displacement
~ 2 T f 1 = 1 + s T
0 .5
Force
keff 1 Displacement
20
10 2.0 0
10
2.0
(T
eff
Limitations
If distributed shear walls, must consider coupling of wall rotations
100-0 160-0
Plan
20-0 Roof 10-0 typical 2nd 1st
Elevation @ wall
Section @ wall
Limitations
If distributed shear walls, must consider coupling of wall rotations
~ T k kh2 = 1+ + T ku k
ku
k,c h
Limitations
crx = c,x(=0)/(VLaIx)
If distributed shear walls, must consider coupling of wall rotations Analysis is conservative for:
High foundation aspect ratios (a/b > 2)
2L 2B
1.0
Footing
x y
0.8
VLa =
3.4Vs (1 )
L/B > 10 L/B = 5
0.6
0.4
cry = c,y(=0)/(VLaIy)
0.8
L/B
0.6
0.4
0.2
B a0 = VS
Limitations
If distributed shear walls, must consider coupling of wall rotations Analysis is conservative for:
High foundation aspect ratios (a/b > 2) Deeply embedded foundations (e/ru > 0.5)
3 3 2
e/r = 1 1/2 1
e/r = 1
u
1
1/2 0
1
1/2 0
a 0 = r V
a0
K u ru cu = u Vs
K r c = Vs
Limitations
If distributed shear walls, must consider coupling of wall rotations Analysis is conservative for:
High foundation aspect ratios (a/b > 2) Deeply embedded foundations (e/ru > 0.5)
0 0 2 z/r 2 G(z)/G0 4 6 8 2r G(z) , z/r 0 0 2 4 6 1/2 2/3 n=1 2 G(z)/G0 4 6 8
=0.025
4 6
BIAS
1.0
Half
TRANSLATION
., =
23 0. =
0.30
ROCKING
Ha l
0. 1
f.,
Half., =0 0.5
5 02 0. 0.5 = n=
=0. 1
0.15
0 .2 3 n= 1
lf., Ha
0. 02
0 =
0.0
0.00
5
3 .2
a0 = r/Vs0
a0 = r/Vs0
Limitations
If distributed shear walls, must consider coupling of wall rotations Analysis is conservative for:
High foundation aspect ratios (a/b > 2) Deeply embedded foundations (e/ru > 0.5)
a
vs1
vs2
D. Kinematic Interaction
Contributions from:
Base-slab averaging Foundation embedment
1.0
v = 0
0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 Disk a/b=1 a/b=1/4, 4
4
~ a 0
10
~ = a 0
be
Vs , r
b 2 + sin 2 v b e
Amplitude (|H3 |)
= 0.11
0
0 5 10
Frequency (Hz)
15
20
25
0.60
= 0.55
0.40
a
0.20
200
Vs (m/s)
400
600
b be 2 2 ~ + sin v a0 = b Vs ,r e
be ~ ao = 2Vs ,r
0.60
0.40
a
0.20
200
Vs (m/s)
400
600
Translation
1.0 0.8 Approximation Halfspace Finite soil layer
Rocking
rFIM/u g
6
uFIM/ug
e/r = 0.5
0 2
a0=r/Vs
0.0
a0
Translation
1.0 0.8 Approximation Halfspace Finite soil layer
Rocking
rFIM/u g
6
uFIM/ug
e/r = 1
0 2
a0=r/Vs
0.0
a0
Recorded Filtered
10
12
1.2
1.2 Tranfer Function Amplitude, RRS 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0.01
NWH_fn (Tm = 0.70s) Transfer Function RRS, 2% damping RRS, 5% RRS, 10% RRS, 20%
0.1
Period (s)
10
0.1
Period (s)
10
Procedure for KI
Evaluate effective foundation size, be = ab
a
Procedure for KI
Foundation/Free-Field RRS
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Period, T (s) 1 1.2
Simplified Model
be = 65 ft be = 130 ft be = 200 ft be = 330 ft
Procedure for KI
Foundation/Free-Field RRS
1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 Period, T (s) 1.6 2 C
Limitations of KI Procedure
Neglect KI effects for soft clay sites (NEHRP E) Firm rock sites (i.e., NEHRP A and B):
Neglect embedment effects Based slab averaging model conservative (overestimates RRS)
References
Apsel, R.J. and Luco, J.E. (1987). Impedance functions for foundations embedded in a layered medium: an integral equation approach, J. Earthquake Engrg. Struct. Dynamics, 15(2), 213-231. Day, S.M. (1978). Seismic response of embedded foundations, Proc. ASCE Convention, Chicago, IL, October, Preprint No. 3450. Dobry, R. and Gazetas, G (1986). Dynamic response of arbitrarily shaped foundations, J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 112(2), 109-135. Elsabee, F. and Morray, J.P. (1977). Dynamic behavior of embedded foundations, Rpt. No. R77-33, Dept. of Civil Engrg., MIT, Cambridge, Mass. FEMA-356: Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., 2000. FEMA-440: Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, June, 2005. Gazetas, G. (1991). Chapter 15: Foundation Vibrations, Foundation Engineering Handbook, H.-Y. Fang, ed., 2nd Edition, Chapman and Hall, New York, NY. Kim, S. and Stewart, J.P. (2003)."Kinematic soil-structure interaction from strong motion recordings,"J. Geotech.. & Geoenv. Engrg., ASCE, 129 (4), 323-335. Nikolaou, S., Mylonakis, G., Gazetas, G., and Tazoh, T. (2001). Kinematic pile bending during earthquakes: analysis and field measurements, Geotechnique, 51(5), 425-440. Veletsos, A.S. and Verbic, B. (1973). Vibration of viscoelastic foundations, J. Earthquake Engrg. Struct. Dynamics, 2(1), 87-102. Veletsos, A.S., Prasad, A.M., and Wu, W.H. (1997). Transfer functions for rigid rectangular foundations, J. Earthquake Engrg. Struct. Dynamics, 26 (1), 5-17. Veletsos, A.S. and Prasad, A.M. (1989). Seismic interaction of structures and soils: stochastic approach, J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 115(4), 935-956.