Seismic codes based equivalent nonlinear and stochastic soil structure interaction analysis

• Autorzy: Guellil Mohamed Elhebib , Harichane Zamila , Çelebi Erkan

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.2478/sgem-2020-0007

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The aim of this study is to consider the effects of the variation of shear modulus ratio (G/G₀) and damping ratio (ξ) of soil, obtained by a linear iterative method based on the design spectra of seismic codes, the soil environment in terms of uncertainties in shear modulus using Monte Carlo simulations and the foundation damping (ξ_f) of flexible base for analyses of the Soil-Structure Interaction (SSI) problems. A squat structure with circular shallow foundation resting on a soil layer over a homogeneous half-space is studied by using cone model and considering seismic zone effect on structural response. Firstly, after showing the effects of the correction of G and ξ on impedance functions and the responses of soil-foundation-structure system, a study is carried out to compare these effects to those of the modelling of uncertainties in shear modulus as random variations. Secondly, a comparative analysis on design response spectra and base shear forces was carried out for four seismic codes (Algerian Seismic Rules RPA99- 2003, Eurocode 8-2004, International Building Code IBC-2015 and Indian Code IS-1893-2002) considering the three cases of SSI: SSI effects (initial G and ξ), nonlinear SSI (corrected G and ξ) and stochastic SSI (random G with COV = 20%) compared to the fixed base case. Results show that the correction of G and ξ, according to the equivalent nonlinear method in all the cases, leads to a remarkable decrease in peak responses but show a huge amount of reduction in the second study for IBC-2015 and IS-1893-2002 codes compared to the other codes.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

shear modulus; damping; uncertainties; linear iterative method; seismic code

• Wydawca: De Gruyter
• Czasopismo: Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica
• Rocznik: 2021
• Tom: Vol. 43, nr 1
• Strony: 1--14
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 65 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Guellil Mohamed Elhebib

• Geomaterials Laboratory, Hassiba Benbouali University of Chlef, Algeria

autor

Harichane Zamila

• Geomaterials Laboratory, Hassiba Benbouali University of Chlef, Algeria

autor

Çelebi Erkan

• Civil Engineering Department, University of Sakarya, Turkey

Bibliografia

• [1] Çelebi, E., Goktepe, F., Karahan, N. (2012). Non-linear finite element analysis for prediction of seismic response of buildings considering soil-structure interaction. Natural hazards and earth system science, 12: 3495–3505.
• [2] Farghaly, A.A., Ahmed, H.H. (2013). Contribution of soil-structure interaction to seismic response of buildings. Geotechnical engineering, 17(5): 959–971.
• [3] Park, J.H., Choo, J.F., Cho, J.R. (2013). Dynamic soil-structure interaction analysis for complex soil profiles using unaligned mesh generation and nonlinear modeling approach. Structural engineering, 17(4): 753–762.
• [4] Jia, J. (2018). Soil dynamics and foundation modeling, offshore and earthquake engineering Springer nature, Bergen, Norway.
• [5] EC8-2004 (English): Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance. Part 5 : Foundation, retaining structures and geotechnical aspects.
• [6] FEMA 440 (2005), Recommended Improvements of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures, Applied Technology Council: California.
• [7] ASCE (2010): Applied Technology Council. 'Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings' ATC- 3-06: California.
• [8] Breysse, D., La Borderie, C., Elachachi, S.M., Niandou, H. (2007). Spatial variation in soil properties and their influence on structural reliability. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, 2(24): 73–86.
• [9] Cottereau, R., Clouteau, D., Soize, C. (2007). Probabilistic impedance of foundation: impact on the seismic design on uncertain soils. Earthquake engineering and structural dynamics, 1: 1–17.
• [10] Guellil, M.E., Harichane, Z., Djilali, B., Sadouki, A. (2017). Soil and structure uncetrtainty effects on the soil foundation structure dynamic response. Earthquake and structure, 2: 153–163.
• [11] Harichane, Z., Guellil, M.E., Gadouri, H. (2018). Benefits of probabilistic soil-foundation-structure interaction analysis. Inter Jour of Geotechnical earthquake engineering, 9(1): 43–64.
• [12] Pitilakisa, D., Dietz, M., Wood, D.M., Clouteau, C., Modaressi, A. (2008). Numerical simulation of dynamic soil–structure interaction in shaking table testing. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 28: 453–467.
• [13] Van Nguyen, Q., Ftahi, B., Hokmabadi, A.S. (2017). Influence of Size and Load-Bearing Mechanism of Piles on Seismic Performance of Buildings Considering Soil–Pile Structure Interaction. International Journal of Geomechanics (ASCE), DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000869.
• [14] Chehata, A., Harichane, Z., Karray, M. (2017). Non-linear soil modelling by correction of the hysteretic damping using a modified Iwan model together with Masing rules. InternatIonal Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1–13.
• [15] Brennan, A.J. Thusyanthan, N.I. Madabhushi, S.P.J. (2005). Evaluation of shear modulus and damping in dynamic centrifuge tests. Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090- 0241(2005)131:12(1488).
• [16] Kishida, T. (2016). Comparaison and correction of modulus reduction models for clays and silts. J. geotechnical and geoenvironemental Engineering.
• [17] RPA99, version (2003) Règlement parasismique Algérienne. Central national de recherche appliquée en génie parasismique.
• [18] International Building Code (IBC) (2015) Chapter 16 – Section 1613 ICC Central Regional Office, Country Club Hills (IL, USA).
• [19] IS 1893-2002 Part-1 Criteria For Earthquake Resistant Deign of Structures Part-1 General Provisions And Buildings Fifth Revision.
• [20] Zhang, L., Ahmari, S. (2011). Nonlinear analysis of laterally loaded rigid piles in cohesive soil. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech, DOI: 10.1002/nag.1094
• [21] Ravikumar, C.R., Gunneswara, T.D.R. (2012). Study of soil interaction in a model building frame with plinth beam supported by pile group. International Journal of Advanced Structural Engineering, 4(11): 1–15.
• [22] Truty, A. (2018). On consistent nonlinear analysis of soil– structure interaction problems. Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica, 40(2): 86–95.
• [23] Haldar, S., Basu, D. (2016). Analysis of Beams on Heterogeneous and Nonlinear Soil. International Journal of Geomechanics. International Journal of Geomechanics, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000599.
• [24] Tsai, C.C., Liu in, H.W. (2017). Site response analysis of vertical ground motion in consideration of soil nonlinearity. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 102: 124–136.
• [25] Jastrzębska, M., Lupieżowiec, M., Uliniarz, R., Jaroń, A. (2014). Analysis of the vibration propagation in the subsoil. Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica, 26(3): 9–19. DOI: 10.2478/sgem- 2014-0023.
• [26] Okada, T., Fujita, K., Takewaki, I. (2016). Robustness evaluation of seismic pile response considering uncertainty mechanism of soil properties. Innovative infrastructure solutions, DOI 10.1007/s41062-016-0009-8.
• [27] Chowdhury, I., Dasgupta, S.P. (2009). Dynamics of structure and foundation – A Unified Approach, 2. Applications. Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK.
• [28] Raychowdhury, P., Singh, P. (2012). Effect of nonlinear soil-structure interaction on seismic response of low-rise SMRF buildings. Earthquake Engineering And Engineering Vibration, 11(4) : 541–551. DOI: 10.1007/s11803-012-0140-2.
• [29] Hu, Q., Li, H., Yang, G., Cai, Y. (2019). Effects of uncertainty of dynamic shear modulus ratio on design ground motion. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 56(2): 82–90. DOI 10.1007/s11204-019-09574-x.
• [30] Uzielli, M., Lacasse, S., Nadim, F., Phoon, K.K. (2016). Soil variability analysis for geotechnical practice. Conference: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Characterisation and Engineering Properties of Natural Soils, At Singapore. DOI: 10.1201/NOE0415426916.ch3.
• [31] Manolis, G.D. (2002). Stochastic soil dynamic. International Journal of Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 22(1): 3–15.
• [32] Cao, Z., Wang, Y., Li, D. (2016). Efficient Monte Carlo Simulation of Parameter Sensitivity in Probabilistic Slope Stability Analysis. Probabilistic Approaches for Geotechnical Site Characterization and Slope Stability Analysis, 169–184.
• [33] Djilali Berkane, H., Harichane, Z., Guellil, M.E., Sadouki, A. (2018). Investigation of Soil Layers Stochasticity Effects on the SpatiallyVarying Seismic Response Spectra. Indian geotechnical journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-018-0301-y.
• [34] Górska, K., Muszyński, Z., Rybak, J. (2012). Displacement monitoring and sensitivity analysis in the observational mathod. Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica, 35(3), 14(4): 25–43. DOI: 10.2478/sgem-2013-0028.
• [35] Baecher, G.R., Christian, J.T. (2003). Reliability and statistics in geotechnical engineering. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, England.
• [36] Martín, J. Pérez, C.J. (2008). Application of a generalized lognormal distribution to engineering data fitting. Proceedings of the European safety and reliability conference, Esrel 2008, and 17th SRA-Europe, Valencia, Spain, September, 22–25, 2008.
• [37] Bulleit, W. (2008). Uncertainty in Structural Engineering. Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, ASCE, 13(1): 24–30. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0680.
• [38] Stewart, J.P., Kim, S., Bielak, J., Dobry, R., Power, M.S. (2003). Revisions to soil-structure interaction procedures in NEHRP design provisions. Earthquake Spectra, 19(3): 677–96.
• [39] Lutes, L.D., Sarkani, S., Jin, S. (2000). Response variability of an SSI system with uncertain structural and soil properties. Engineering Structures, 22(6): 605–620.
• [40] Badaoui, M., Berrah, M.K., Mébarki, A. (2009). Soil height randomness influence on seismic response: Case of an Algiers site. Computers and Geotechnics, 36: 102–12.
• [41] Moghaddasi, M., Cubrinovski, M., Chase, J.G., Pampanin, S., Carr, A. (2011). Effects of soil-foundation-structure interaction on seismic structural response via robust Monte Carlo simulation. Engineering Structure, 33: 1338–1347.
• [42] Mirzai, F., Mahsuli, M., Ghannad, M.A. (2016). Probabilistic analysis of soil-structure interaction effects on the seismic performance of structures. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, DOI: 10.1002/eqe.2807.
• [43] Kumar, M., Dass, Goel, M., Matsagar, V.A., Rao, K.S. (2014). Response of semi-buried structures subjected to multiple blast loading considering soil–structure interaction. Indian geotechnical journal, DOI 10.1007/s40098-014-0143-1.
• [44] Wolf, J. P., Deeks, A. J. (2004). Foundation Vibration Analysis : a Strength of Materials Approach. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
• [45] Pradhan, P.K., Baidya, D.K., Ghosh, D.P. (2004). Dynamic response of foundation resting on layered soil by cone model. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng, 24(6): 425–34.
• [46] Pradhan, P.K., Mandal, A., Baidya, D.K., Ghosh, D.P. (2008). Dynamic response of machine foundation on layered soil. Geotech. Geol. Eng, 26(4): 453–68.
• [47] Azarhoosh, Z., Ghodrati Amiri, G.R. (2010). Elastic Response of Soil-Structure Systems Subjected to Near-Fault Rupture Directivity Pulses. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering - Proceedings of Sessions of Geoshanghai 2010. Geotechnical special publication; 201: American Society of Civil Engineers 1801 Alexander Bell Drive Reston, Virginia, 20191-4400.
• [48] Meek JW, Wolf JP. Cone models for homogeneous soil I. Geotechnical Engng Div, ASCE 1992; 118(5): 667–85.
• [49] Meek JW, Wolf JP. Cone models for soil layer on rigid rock II. Geotechnical Engng Div, ASCE 1992; 118(5): 686–703.
• [50] Wolf JP, Meek JW. Cone models for a soil layer on a flexible rock half-space. Earthquake Engng Struct Dyn 1993; 22: 185–93.
• [51] Meek JW, Wolf JP. Cone models for a embedded foundation. Geotechnical Engng Div, ASCE 1994; 120(1): 60–80.
• [52] Wolf JP, Meek JW. Dynamic stiffness of foundation on layered soil half-space using cone frustums. Earthquake Engng Struct Dyn 1994; 23: 1079–95.
• [53] Mohasseb, S. Ghazanfari, N. Rostami, M. Rostami, S. (2020). Effect of Soil–Pile–Structure Interaction on Seismic Design of Tall and Massive Buildings Through Case Studies. Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology 1: 13–45. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s40515-019-00086-7
• [54] Mittal, R.K., Rawat, A., Rawat, S. (2016). Soil Structure Interaction in Indian Seismic code: Recommendations for Inclusion of Potential Factors. International journal of earth sciences and engineering, 09(03): 124–130.
• [55] Zafarkhah, E., Dehkordi, M.R. (2017). Evaluation and numerical simulation of soil type effects on seismic soil-structure interaction response of RC structures. Journal of Vibroengineering, 19(7): 5208–5230. https://doi.org/10.21595/ jve.2017.18286.
• [56] Fattah, M. Y., Al-Mosawi, M. J., Al-Ameri, A. F. I., (2017), ‘Dynamic Response of Saturated Soil - Foundation System Acted upon by Vibration’, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 21, No. 7, pp. 1158–1188, Taylor & Francis Group, LLC, DOI: 10.1080/13632469.2016.1210060.
• [57] Li, P., Lu, X. Chen, Y. (2004). Computer simulation on dynamic soil-structure interaction system. 13th World conference on Earthquake Engineering. Vancouver, Canada.
• [58] Fattah, M.Y. Al-Mosawi, M.J. Al-Ameri, F.I. (2016). Vibration response of saturated sand - foundation system. Int J of Earthquakes and Structures; 11(1): 83–107.
• [59] Fattah, M.Y. Zabar, B.Z. Mustafa, F.M. (2017). Effect of saturation on response of a single pile embedded in saturated sandy soil to vertical vibration. European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering; 24(3): 381–400. https:// doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2017.1391126.
• [60] Fattah, M.Y. Al-Neami, M.A. Jajjawi, N.H. (2014). Prediction of liquefaction potential and pore water pressure beneath machine foundations. Central European Journal of Engineering. DOI: 10.2478/s13531-013-0165-y.
• [61] 2015 NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions (2016) 'Design Examples (FEMA P- 1051/July 2016)'.
• [62] Mittal, R.K., Gajinkar, V. (2014). Evaluation of soil-structure interaction guidelines in indian seismic codes. International journal of civil engineering and technology, 5(5): 97–104.
• [63] Worku, A. (2014). Soil-structure- interaction provisions: A potential tool to consider for economical seismic design of buildings. Journal of the South African institution of civil engineering, 1(56): 54–62.
• [64] Jayalekshmi, B.R., Chinmayi, H.K. (2014). Soil–Structure Interaction effect on seismic force evaluation of rc framed buildings with various shapes of shear wall: as Per IS 1893 and IBC. Indian geotechnical journal. DOI 10.1007/s40098-014- 0134-2.
• [65] International Building Code (2006) International Code Council Inc. Falls Church, Virginia.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MNiSW, umowa Nr 461252 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2021).