Optimum lateral extent of soil domain for dynamic SSI analysis of RC framed buildings on pile foundations

Abstract

This article describes a novel approach for deciding optimal horizontal extent of soil domain to be used for finite element based numerical dynamic soil structure interaction (SSI) studies. SSI model for a 12 storied building frame, supported on pile foundation-soil system, is developed in the finite element based software framework, OpenSEES. Three different structure-foundation configurations are analyzed under different ground motion characteristics. Lateral extent of soil domain, along with the soil properties, were varied exhaustively for a particular structural configuration. Based on the reduction in the variation of acceleration response at different locations in the SSI system (quantified by normalized root mean square error, NRMSE), the optimum lateral extent of the soil domain is prescribed for various structural widths, soil types and peak ground acceleration levels of ground motion. Compared to the past studies, error estimation analysis shows that the relationships prescribed in the present study are credible and more inclusive of the various factors that influence SSI. These relationships can be readily applied for deciding upon the lateral extent of the soil domain for conducting precise SSI analysis with reduced computational time.

Keywords

soil structure interaction / optimum lateral extent of soil domain length / multi-storyed framed building / pile foundation / OpenSEES / L-K boundaries / dynamic analysis

References

[1] Veletsos A S, Meek J W. Dynamic behaviour of building foundation systems. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 1974, 3(2): 121–138

[2] Bielak J. Dynamic response of non linear building foundation systems. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 1978, 6(1): 17–30

[3] Oliveto G, Santini A. A simplified model for the dynamic soil-structure interaction of planar frame-wall systems. Engineering Structures, 1993, 15(6): 431–438

[4] Nadjai A, Johnson D. Elastic analysis of spatial shear wall systems with flexible bases. Structural Design of Tall Buildings, 1996, 5(1): 55–72

[5] Bielak J, Loukakis K, Hisada Y, Yoshimura C. Domain reduction method for three-dimensional earthquake modeling in localized regions, part I: Theory. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 2003, 93(2): 817–824

[6] Dutta S C, Bhattacharya K, Roy R. Response of low-rise buildings under seismic ground excitation incorporating soil-structure interaction. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2004, 24(12): 893–914

[7] Bárcena A, Esteva L. Influence of dynamic soil—structure interaction on the nonlinear response and seismic reliability of multistorey systems. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2007, 36(3): 327–346

[8] Song C, Wolf J P. The scaled boundary finite-element method —alias consistent infinitesimal finite-element cell method—for elastodynamics. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 1997, 147(3–4): 329–355

[9] Wolf J P, Song C. Some cornerstones of dynamic soil-structure interaction. Engineering Structures, 2002, 24(1): 13–28

[10] Genes M C, Kocak S. Dynamic soil-structure interaction analysis of layered unbounded media via a coupled finite element/boundary element/scaled boundary finite element model. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2005, 62(6): 798–823

[11] Genes M C. Dynamic analysis of large-scale SSI systems for layered unbounded media via a parallelized coupled finite-element/boundary-element/scaled boundary finite-element model. Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements, 2012, 36(5): 845–857

[12] Khudari Bek Y, Hamdia K M, Rabczuk T, Könke C. Micromechanical model for polymeric nano-composites material based on SBFEM. Composite Structures, 2018, 194: 516–526

[13] JSCE. Guidelines for Concrete No. 15: Standard Specifications for Concrete Structures. Tokyo: Japan Society of Civil Engineers, 2007

[14] Datta T K. Seismic Analysis of Structures. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2010

[15] Kramer S L. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1996

[16] Ghosh S, Wilson E. Dynamic Stress Analysis of Axisymmetric Structures under Arbitrary Loading. Report No. EERC 69-10. Berkeley: University of California, 1969

[17] Roesset J M, Ettouney M M. Transmitting boundaries: A comparison. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 1977, 1(2): 151–176

[18] Wolf J P. A comparison of time-domain transmitting boundaries. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 1986, 14(4): 655–673

[19] Lu X, Chen B, Li P, Chen Y. Numerical analysis of tall buildings considering dynamic soil-structure interaction. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 2003, 2(1): 1–8

[20] Pala M, Caglar N, Elmas M, Cevik A, Saribiyik M. Dynamic soil-structure interaction analysis of buildings by neural networks. Construction & Building Materials, 2008, 22(3): 330–342

[21] Rayhani M H, El Naggar M H. Numerical modeling of seismic response of rigid foundation on soft soil. International Journal of Geomechanics, 2008, 8(6): 336–346

[22] Matinmanesh H, Asheghabadi M S. Seismic analysis on soil-structure interaction of buildings over sandy soil. Procedia Engineering, 2011, 14: 1737–1743

[23] Tabatabaiefar H R, Massumi A. A simplified method to determine seismic responses of reinforced concrete moment resisting building frames under influence of soil-structure interaction. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2010, 30(11): 1259–1267

[24] Reza Tabatabaiefar S H, Fatahi B, Samali B. Seismic behavior of building frames considering dynamic soil-structure interaction. International Journal of Geomechanics, 2013, 13(4): 409–420

[25] Nateghi-A F, Rezaei-Tabrizi A. Nonlinear dynamic response of tall buildings considering structure-soil-structure effects. Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 2013, 22(14): 1075–1082

[26] Sáez E, Lopez-Caballero F, Modaressi-Farahmand-Razavi A. Inelastic dynamic soil–structure interaction effects on moment-resisting frame buildings. Engineering Structures, 2013, 51: 166–177

[27] Hokmabadi A S, Fatahi B, Samali B. Assessment of soil-pile-structure interaction influencing seismic response of mid-rise buildings sitting on floating pile foundations. Computers and Geotechnics, 2014, 55: 172–186

[28] Nguyen Q V, Fatahi B, Hokmabadi A S. The effects of foundation size on the seismic performance of buildings considering the soil-foundation-structure interaction. Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 2016, 58(6): 1045–1075

[29] Ghandil M, Behnamfar F. Ductility demands of MRF structures on soft soils considering soil-structure interaction. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2017, 92: 203–214

[30] Elgamal A, Yan L, Yang Z, Conte J P. Three-dimensional seismic response of Humboldt Bay bridge-foundation-ground system. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2008, 134(7): 1165–1176

[31] Zhang Y, Conte J P, Yang Z, Elgamal A, Bielak J, Acero G. Two-dimensional nonlinear earthquake response analysis of a bridge-foundation-ground system. Earthquake Spectra, 2008, 24(2): 343–386

[32] Mondal G, Prashant A, Jain S K. Significance of interface nonlinearity on the seismic response of a well-pier system in cohesionless Soil. Earthquake Spectra, 2012, 28(3): 1117–1145

[33] Kolay C, Prashant A, Jain S K. Nonlinear dynamic analysis and seismic coefficient for abutments and retaining walls. Earthquake Spectra, 2013, 29(2): 427–451

[34] Özel H F, Arici Y. Comparison of 2D vs. 3D modeling approaches for the analyses of concrete faced rockfill dams. In: Proceedings the of 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Lisbon, 2012

[35] Luque R, Bray J D. Dynamic analyses of two buildings founded on liquefiable soils during the Canterbury earthquake sequence. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2017, 143(9): 04017067

[36] Dashti S, Bray J D. Numerical simulation of building response on liquefiable sand. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2013, 139(8): 1235–1249

[37] Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott M H, Fenves G L. Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation user Manual. Berkeley: University of California, 2009

[38] Kuhlemeyer R L, Lysmer J. Finite element method accuracy for wave propagation problems. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, 1973, 99(SM5): 421–427

[39] Yang Z, Lu J, Elgamal A. OpenSees Soil Models and Solid-Fluid Fully Coupled Elements, User’s Manual 2008 Version 1.0. San Diego: University of California, 2008

[40] Drucker D C, Prager W. Soil mechanics and plastic analysis or limit design. Quarterly of Applied Mathematics, 1952, 10(2): 157–165

[41] Elgamal A, Yang Z, Parra E, Ragheb A. Modeling of cyclic mobility in saturated cohesionless soils. International Journal of Plasticity, 2003, 19(6): 883–905

[42] IS 456. Indian Standard Plain and Reinforece Concrete—Code of Practice. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards, 2000

[43] IS 13920. Indian Standard Ductile Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected to Seismic Forces—Code of Practice. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards, 2016

[44] IS 2911Part 1/Sec 1. Indian Standard Design and Construction of Pile Foundations—Code of Practice: Concrete Piles. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards, 2010

[45] IS 875. Part 2. Indian Standard Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) for Building and Structures: Imposed Loads. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards, 1987

[46] IS 1893. Part 1. Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures: General Provisions and Buildings. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards, 2016

[47] Lysmer J, Kuhlemeyer R L. Finite dynamic model for infinite media. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, 1969, 95(4): 859–878

[48] Joyner W B. A method for calculating nonlinear seismic response in two dimensions. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 1975, 65(5): 1337–1357

[49] International Conference of Building Officials. Uniform Building Code. California, 1997

[50] Trifunac M D, Brady A G. A study on the duration of strong earthquake ground motion. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 1975, 65(3): 581–626

[51] Kempton J J, Stewart J P. Prediction equations for significant duration of earthquake ground motions considering site and near-source effects. Earthquake Spectra, 2006, 22(4): 985–1013

[52] Hilber H M, Hughes T J R, Taylor R L. Improved numerical dissipation for time integration algorithms in structural dynamics. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 1977, 5(3): 283–292

[53] Chopra A K. Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001

[54] Zhang Y, Yang Z, Bielak J, Conte J P, Elgamal A. Treatment of seismic input and boundary conditions in nonlinear seismic analysis of a bridge ground system. In: Proceedings the of the 16th ASCE engineering mechanics conference. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, 2003

[55] Vu-Bac N, Lahmer T, Zhuang X, Nguyen-Thoi T, Rabczuk T. A software framework for probabilistic sensitivity analysis for computationally expensive models. Advances in Engineering Software, 2016, 100: 19–31

[56] Hamdia K M, Silani M, Zhuang X, He P, Rabczuk T. Stochastic analysis of the fracture toughness of polymeric nanoparticle composites using polynomial chaos expansions. International Journal of Fracture, 2017, 206(2): 215–227

[57] Hamdia K M, Ghasemi H, Zhuang X, Alajlan N, Rabczuk T. Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis for flexoelectric nanostructures. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2018, 337: 95–109

Acknowledgement

The support and resources provided by Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati and Ministry of Human Resources and Development (MHRD, Govt. of India), is gratefully acknowledged by the authors.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2019 Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature