2 vues

Transféré par indah0330

Ghjkj

- MasterSeries Student-Steel & Concrete Frame
- Helical Stair - Calculation
- Perhitungan Box Culvert Single Box-1
- HSRL NEW
- Mathews and Skate Park Washrooms - Fort St. John
- Fixing System
- Variation SF
- Raft Footing - Copy
- Newsletter Park Theatre4 - Spring 2011
- RESO-1170.docx
- asce gm3 agenda
- Foundation
- Sample Suspension Form
- Manual Page 3
- Verificare Imbinare Cu Suruburi Grinda-stalp
- Project Schedule ECC Damper
- Code G_Group 28
- AISI 347347H Niobium Stabilized Austenitic Stainless
- 2 Storey Event Center
- Project Cost & Man. Assigment 2

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6

, moment

Interaction Effects frames) are often not significantly affected

8.1 Introduction by SSI.

This chapter presents simplified procedures Figure 8-1b illustrates the incorporation of

for including the effects of interaction foundation flexibility into the structural

between a structure and the supporting soils model directly. ATC-40 and FEMA 356

in a structural model for nonlinear static include provisions for estimating the

analysis procedures. There are three flexibility and strength of the foundation

primary categories of soil-structure (i.e., the properties of the springs indicated

interaction (SSI) effects. These include: in Figure 8-1b) in a structural model for

• introduction of flexibility to the soil- inelastic analysis. Those provisions

foundation system (flexible foundation normally use the free-field motion as the

effects), seismic demand with 5% damping as the

• filtering of the ground motions transmitted conventional initial value. This approach is

to the structure (kinematic effects), and capable of modeling both the structural and

• dissipation of energy from the soil- geotechnical (soil) components of the

structure system through radiation and foundation. The result is that the response

hysteretic soil damping (foundation of the overall structural system includes

damping effects). deformations (elastic and

Current analysis procedures in FEMA 356 inelastic) in the structural and geotechnical

and ATC-40 partially address the flexible parts of the foundation system. These

foundation effect through guidance on deformations are sometimes referred to as

including the stiffness and strength of the an inertial SSI effect. These improvements

geotechnical (soil) components of the in modeling can lead to significant

foundation in the structural analysis model. departures from fixed-base results and more

However, these procedures do not address accurate representation of probable

the reduction of the shaking demand on the structural response. Compared with the

structure relative to the free-field motion fixed-base modeling approach, the

caused by kinematic interaction or the predicted period of the structure lengthens,

foundation damping effect. the distribution of forces among various

Guidance on including these effects in elements changes, the sequence of

NSPs is provided in this section. A simple inelasticity and the modes of inelastic

example illustrates the application of these behavior can change, and foundation

procedures. Appendix E provides detailed mechanisms (e.g., rocking, soil bearing

information on these soil-structure failure, and pier/pile slip) can be directly

interaction effects. Figure 8-1a illustrates evaluated and considered. All of these

the assumption that the structural model is effects result in more realistic evaluation of

mounted on a rigid base that is excited by the probable structural behavior and

the free field motion. The free-field motion performance.

is the theoretical movement of a single Figure 8-1c illustrates the filtering effects

point on the surface of the ground, that soilstructure interaction can have on

assuming that there is no structure near it. the character and intensity of ground

The fixed-base modeling assumption is motion experienced by the structural

inappropriate for many structures though. model. Kinematic interaction results from

Structural systems that incorporate stiff the presence of relatively stiff foundation

vertical elements for lateral resistance (e.g., elements on or in soil that cause foundation

shear walls, braced frames) can be motions to deviate from free-field motions.

particularly sensitive to even small base Two effects are commonly identified: base

rotations and translations that are neglected slab averaging and embedment effects. The

with a fixed base assumption. Relatively base slab averaging effect can be visualized

by recognizing that the instantaneous the ASCE-7 Standard for Minimum Design

motion that would have occurred in absence Loads for Buildings and Other Structures

of the structure within and below its (ASCE, 2002) include procedures to

footprint is not the same at every point. account for this effect when using linear

Placement of a structure and foundation analysis procedures. Section 8.3

across these spatially variable motions incorporates similar, although updated,

produces an averaging effect in which the procedures for use with NSPs. In the

overall motion is less than the localized procedure, the foundation damping is

maxima that would have occurred in the linked to the ratio of the fundamental period

free field. The embedment effect is of the system on the flexible foundation to

associated with the reduction of ground that of a fixed-base model. Other factors

motion that tends to occur with depth in a affecting foundation damping are the

soil deposit. Both base-slab averaging and foundation size and embedment. The

embedment affect the character of the foundation damping is combined with the

foundation level motion (sometimes called conventional initial structural damping to

the foundation input motion, or FIM) in a generate a revised damping ratio for the

manner that is independent of the entire system, including the structure,

superstructure (i.e., the portion of the foundation, and soil. This system damping

structure above the foundation), with one ratio then modifies the foundation input

exception. The effects are strongly period- motion imparted to the system model as

dependent, being maximized at small seismic shaking demand.

periods. The effects can be visualized as a 8.2 Procedures for Kinematic Effects

filter applied to the high-frequency (short- The ground motions imposed at the

period) components of the free-field ground foundation of a structure can differ from

motion. The impact of those effects on those in the free field due to averaging of

superstructure response will tend to be variable ground motions across the

greatest for short-period buildings. A foundation slab, wave scattering, and

simplified procedure to apply these embedment effects. These effects are

principles for reduction of the spectral referred to here as kinematic interaction

amplitudes of the free field motion to effects, and they tend to be important for

generate the FIM spectrum is presented in buildings with relatively short fundamental

Section 8.2. The foundation input motion periods (i.e., periods < ∼ 0.5 s), large plan

can be applied to a fixed-base model or, as dimensions, or basements embedded 10

depicted in Figure 8-1c, can be combined feet or more in soil materials. This section

with a flexible-base model. presents procedures to account for

Figure 8-1d illustrates foundation damping kinematic effects on building structures. A

effects that are another result of inertial ratio of response spectra (RRS) factor can

soil-structure interaction in addition to be used to represent kinematic interaction

foundation flexibility. Foundation damping effects. An RRS is simply the ratio of the

results from the relative movements of the response spectral ordinates imposed on the

foundation and the supporting soil. It is foundation (i.e., the foundation input

associated with radiation of energy away motion, FIM) to the free-field spectral

from the foundation and hysteretic damping ordinates. Two phenomena should be

within the soil. The result is an effective considered in evaluating RRS: base slab

decrease in the spectral ordinates of ground averaging and foundation embedment, both

motion experienced by the structure. of which are introduced in the preceding

Although seldom used in practice the section. Baseslab averaging occurs to some

NEHRP Recommended Provisions for extent in virtually all buildings. The slab-

Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and averaging effect occurs at the foundation

Other Structures (BSSC, 2000),1 as well as level for mats or spread footings

interconnected by either grade beams or taken as average value of velocity to a depth

reinforced concrete slabs. Even if a laterally of be below foundation (ft/s)

stiff foundation system is not present, n = shear wave velocity reduction factor for

averaging can occur at the first elevated the expected PGA as estimated from Table

level of buildings with rigid diaphragms. 8-1.

The only case in which base-slab averaging

effects should be neglected is in buildings 4. Evaluate the product of RRSbsa times

without a laterally connected foundation RRSe to obtain the total RRS for each

system and with flexible floor and roof period of interest. The spectral ordinate of

diaphragms. Foundation embedment the foundation input motion at each period

effects should be considered for buildings is the product of the free field spectrum and

with basements. Such effects should not be the total RRS.

considered for buildings without

basements, even if the footings are Table 8-1 Approximate Values of Shear

embedded. Embedment effects tend to be

significant when the depth of basements is 5. Repeat steps 2 through 4 for other periods

greater than about 10 feet. The following if desired to generate a complete spectrum

simplified procedure (adapted from Kim for the foundation input motion (FIM). If

and Stewart (2003) and other sources) is desired, more detailed procedures can also

recommended for analysis of these two be used, which are described in Appendix

kinematic interaction effects as a function E. Limitations associated with application

of period, T, of the structural model: of this approach include the following, each

1. Evaluate the effective foundation size , of which is explained in Appendix E:

where a and b are the full footprint • Kinematic interaction effects should be

dimensions (in feet) of the building neglected for soft clay sites such as Site

foundation in plan view. Class E.

2. Evaluate the RRS from base-slab • Embedment effects can be neglected for

averaging (RRSbsa) as a function of period foundationsembedded in firm rock (Site

(see Figure 8-2). An approximation to the Classes A and B).

curves in Figure 8-2 is • The base-slab averaging model:

given by the following: a. underestimates reductions in ground

motions for foundation materials that

consist of firm rock (Site Classes A and B).

≥ the value for b. has not been rigorously studied for

T = 0.2 s (8-1) structures without large in-plane stiffness

(continuous mat foundation or footings

3. If the structure has a basement embedded interconnected with a reinforced slab and/or

a depth e from the ground surface, evaluate grade beams); however, it is considered

an additional RRS from embedment (RRSe) reasonable to extend its application to all

as a function of period (see Figure 8-3). The structures except those without both an

curves in Figure 8-3 are described by the interconnected foundation and rigid floor

following: and roof diaphragms.

c. has not been rigorously studied for

the larger of 0.453 or the structures with plan dimensions greater

RRSe value for T = 0.2 s. (8-2) than 200 ft.; however, it is considered

reasonable to extend the application to

where these conditions, provided that the

e = foundation embedment (in feet) foundation elements are laterally

vs = shear wave velocity for site soil connected.

conditions,

d. has not been rigorously studied for foundation modeling assumptions.

structures with pile-supported foundations; Guidelines for the evaluation of soil spring

however it isconsidered reasonable to stiffnesses are provided in FEMA 356 and

extend application to pile supported ATC-40. In those calculations, the strain-

structures in which the cap andsoil are in degraded shear modulus should be used to

contact or in which the caps are laterally represent the soil stiffness.

connected to one another by a slab or grade 2. Calculate the effective structural stiffness

beams. of the SDOF oscillator for fixed base

8.3 Procedures for Foundation Damping conditions as

Damping related to foundation-soil (8-3)

interaction can significantly supplement where M* is the effective mass for the first

damping that occurs in a structure due to mode calculated as the total mass times the

inelastic action of structural components. effective mass coefficient (see ATC-40

The damping from foundation soil Eqn. 8-21).

interaction is associated with hysteretic 3. Determine the equivalent foundation

behavior of soil(not to be confused with radius for translation as

hysteretic action in structuralcomponents) (8-4)

as well as radiation of energy into the soil where Af is the area of the foundation

from the foundation (i.e., radiation footprint if the foundation components are

damping). These foundation damping inter connected laterally.

effects tend to be important forstiff 4. Calculate the translational stiffness of the

structural systems (e.g., shear walls, braced foundation, Kx. This can be evaluated using

frames), particularly when the foundation the procedures in FEMA 356 (Chapter 4) or

soil is relatively soft (i.e., Site Classes D- ATC-40 (Chapter 10). For many

E). The effects of foundation damping are applications, the translational stiffness can

represented by a modified system-damping be estimated as

ratio. The initial damping ratio for the (8-5)

structure neglecting foundation damping is where G = effective, strain-degraded soil

referred to as βi, and is generally taken as shear modulus (see FEMA 356, Table 4.7)

5%. The damping attributed to foundation- and υ = soil Poisson’s ratio (∼0.3 for sand,

soil interaction alone (i.e., the foundation ∼0.45 for clay).

damping) is referred to as β f. Finally, the 5. Calculate the equivalent foundation

damping ratio of the complete structural radius for rotation, rθ, by first evaluating

system, accounting for foundation-soil the effective rotational stiffness of the

interaction, as well as structural damping, is foundation, Kθ, as

referred to as β0. The change in damping (8-6)

ratio from βi to β0 modifies the elastic Where h* is the effective structure height

response spectrum. The spectral ordinates taken as the full height of the building for

are reduced if β0> βi. A number of factors one-story structures, and as the vertical

influence the foundation damping factor βf distance from the foundation to the centroid

(see Appendix E). Subject to the limitations of the first mode shape for multi-story

noted below, the following simplified structures. In the latter case, h* can often be

procedure can be used to estimate β f and well-approximated as 70% of the total

the subsequent spectral ordinate change due structure height. The quantity Kx is often

to the modified damping ratio of the much larger than K* fixed, in which case an

complete structural system, β0. accurate evaluation of Kx is unnecessary

1. Evaluate the linear periods for the and the ratio, K* fixed/Kx, can be

structural model assuming a fixed base, T, approximated as zero The equivalent

and a flexible base, using appropriate foundation radius for rotation is then

calculated as

(8-7) modification procedures of FEMA 356 and

The soil shear modulus, G, and soil Chapter 5 or the equivalent linearization

Poisson’s ratio, υ, should be consistent with procedures of ATC-40 and Chapter 6. The

those used in the evaluation of foundation ductility demand should be checked against

spring stiffness. the value assumed in Step 7 above. The

6. Determine the basement embedment, e, damping ratios determined in accordance

if applicable. with this section represent radiation

7. Estimate the effective period-lengthening damping effects only. Hysteretic soil

ratio,using the site-specific structural model damping effects are neglected, since

developed for nonlinear pushover analyses. ductility in soil springs is included as part

This period-lengthening ratio is calculated of structural pushover analysis. Limitations

for the structure in its degraded state (i.e., on the damping analysis described above

accounting for structural ductility and soil include the following:

ductility). An expression for the ratio is • The procedure above should not be used

(8-8) when shear walls or braced frames are

where the term μ is the expected ductility spaced sufficiently closely that waves

demand for the system (i.e., including emanating from distinct foundation

structure and soil effects). Thus, the elements will destructively interfere with

ductility must be estimated prior to the each other across the period range of

actual solution and subsequently verified. interest. This can effectively decrease the

8. Evaluate the initial fixed-base damping energy dissipated in thesoil material, and

ratio for the structure ( βi), which is often the above formulation could overestimate

taken as 5%. the related damping. Unfortunately, this

9. Determine foundation damping due to effect has not been investigated sufficiently

radiation damping, βf, based on , e/rx, and to justify definitive limits. In the absence of

h/rθ, using the plots in Figures 8-4 and 8-5. such limits, a reasonable approximation

An approximation to those curves is given might be to neglect the effect of softly-

by the following: coupled foundation components spaced at a

(8-9) distance less than the larger

where βf is in percent and dimension of either component in the

(8-9a) corresponding direction. Further discussion

(8-9b) is presented in Appendix E, Section E.3.1.5.

(8-9c) • The analysis can be conservative

The above equations are most applicable (underpredicting the damping) when

for < 1.5, and generally provide foundation aspect ratios exceed about 2:1.

conservative (low) damping estimates for Further discussion is presented in Appendix

higher . E, Section E.3.1.4.

10. Evaluate the flexible-base damping • The analysis is conservative when

ratio (β0) from βi, βf, and as follows: foundations are deeply embedded, e/rx >

(8-10) 0.5. Further discussion is presented in

11. Evaluate the effect on spectral ordinates Appendix E, Section E.3.1.3.

of the change in damping ratio from βi to β0 • The analysis is unconservative

(in accordance with Section 6.3); then (overpredicting the damping) if vsT/rx > 2π

modify the spectrum of the foundation (where vs = average shear wave velocity to

input motion (recall that foundation input a depth of about rx) and the foundation soils

motion is equal to the free-field motion if have significant increases of shear stiffness

kinematic effects are neglected). From this with depth. Further discussion is presented

point, the maximum expected displacement in Appendix E, Section E.3.1.2.

of the nonlinear SDOF oscillator model can • The analysis is unconservative if the

be estimated using the displacement foundation soil profile consists of a soil

layer overlying a very stiff material (i.e.,

there is a pronounced impedance contrast

within the soil profile), and if the system

period is greater than the first-mode period

of the layer. Further discussion is presented

in Appendix E, Section E.3.1.2.

- MasterSeries Student-Steel & Concrete FrameTransféré pareka
- Helical Stair - CalculationTransféré parSuhail Ahamed
- Perhitungan Box Culvert Single Box-1Transféré parrengganis
- HSRL NEWTransféré parGirinath
- Mathews and Skate Park Washrooms - Fort St. JohnTransféré parmpreprost
- Fixing SystemTransféré parSaud Pathirana
- Variation SFTransféré parreachhari
- Raft Footing - CopyTransféré parjohnberjohn
- Newsletter Park Theatre4 - Spring 2011Transféré parJez Bond
- RESO-1170.docxTransféré parMark Frederick Samuel
- asce gm3 agendaTransféré parapi-263907983
- FoundationTransféré parjobees7850
- Sample Suspension FormTransféré pargreen mile
- Manual Page 3Transféré parmaxbyz
- Verificare Imbinare Cu Suruburi Grinda-stalpTransféré parVirginia Elena Iordache
- Project Schedule ECC DamperTransféré parTahir Mubeen
- Code G_Group 28Transféré parAditya Koutharapu
- AISI 347347H Niobium Stabilized Austenitic StainlessTransféré parJoshua Walker
- 2 Storey Event CenterTransféré parjohn
- Project Cost & Man. Assigment 2Transféré parMohamed Zamri
- sbd0126.70.06.173D8.001001Transféré parNetflix Chill
- Concrete GradeTransféré parJabin
- ES5230-15W Esprit HD Series IP Positioning SystemTransféré parAngel Antonio Adalfio
- Dense Bar CostTransféré pardensebar
- Recommended ClearencesTransféré parsridhar
- PS SWM 50 Spec SheetTransféré parpowersoak
- Cost of QualityTransféré parMoe Gyi
- Project Scope_Group 19Transféré parVijayamahantesh Kotin
- Trash Units ResizedTransféré paredusourcecorp
- Centre LineTransféré parHarshitKotiya

- Compressive Stiffness of Elastomeric BearingsTransféré parkhamis
- Analysis of Suspended Rectangular Slab Panels Under Partial Rectangular Uniform LoadTransféré paradulador
- Fundamental Concepts of Real Gas DynamicsTransféré pargimmyhead_69
- BRIDGE-167_Bridge Deck and Parapet Design by Vehicle Impact SimulationTransféré parChristian Suryono Sanjaya
- lab12Transféré parAnush Jk
- The Influence of Negative Skin Friction on Piles and Pile GroupsTransféré parViet Anh Pham
- Problema 5.34 TaylorTransféré parcerobr15
- Ch 2- Wave Propagation in Viscous Fluid.pdfTransféré parRhonda Bush
- Week 13Transféré parviperturk
- Why the Balance Principle Should Replace the Reynolds Transport TheoremTransféré parAbhishek Shastry
- Designing Criteria Siphonic Roof Drainage SystemTransféré parCzarSAS
- Chapter 2 Satellite Communications: Satellite LaunchingTransféré parfadzlihashim87
- Journal_of_Aircraft_Vol40_No4_P609_P615_SHM_1_NLFTransféré parPrograma Bluga
- KinematicsTransféré parChristopher Lott
- As Level Physics DefinitionsTransféré parSamer Ehab
- Along WindTransféré parsandeepuae
- The Laws of Thermodynamics _ Boundless Chemistry.pdf1Transféré parbooyemahemehr
- UNIT 5 Shear Strength SutdentTransféré parThiva Rajan
- GlowScript Annotations 1Transféré parrobbie_delavega7000
- Projectile Motion Theory_ETransféré parthinkiit
- Flash CalculationTransféré parHamidreza Hasani
- Fluidkinematics 150316030122 Conversion Gate01Transféré parGuntur Rajesh
- Tutorial 1 - BMCG 2613 -Fluid Properties-.PDFTransféré parmege1105
- Deflection of Beam ApparatusTransféré parAmit Singh
- Applications of Circular MotionTransféré parNyak Perera
- sctibdjaalTransféré parKamalKishorKumar
- Precast Frame - 5 Floor DiaphragmsTransféré parWahid Omar
- Evaluation of Mechanical Anchorage of Eccentric Reinforced Concrete Exterior Beam-column JointsTransféré parEngr Usman Muhammad
- book norman wagner.pdfTransféré parNishant Maheshwari
- Base PlateTransféré parSiwi Karuni