Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1


Ratings: (0)|Views: 46|Likes:
Published by api-3869476

More info:

Published by: api-3869476 on Nov 25, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





B.R. Jayalekshmi
Faculty, Department of Civil Engineering , NITK , Surathkal, email:br.jaya@gmail.com
Deepthi Poojary V.G., R.Shivashankar, Katta Venkataramana

Structures are generally assumed to be fixed at their bases in the process of analysis and design under dynamic loading. But the consideration of actual support flexibility reduces the overall stiffness of the structure and increases the period of the system. Considerable change in spectral acceleration with natural period is observed from the response spectrum curve. Thus the change in natural period may alter the seismic response of the structure considerably. In this study the dynamic characteristics of the three dimensional structure- foundation-soil system of a building model is studied by time history analysis using Elcentro ground motion record. The soft soil and soil reinforced with \u2018Tensar\u2019 geogrids placed in three layers below the foundation is considered. Finite element analysis of the integrated system is carried out using FEM software. The soil is characterized by its stiffness, mass density, and poisson\u2019s ratio and the geogrids by stiffness, mass density and thickness. The change in the dynamic characteristics of the structure due to the incorporation of the effect of flexibility of soil and the effect of reinforced soil is noted. The time histories of displacement and base shear are presented and the variation in structural seismic response for various parameters is compared to that of a fixed base structure.

Key Words: Dynamic soil structure interaction, time history analysis, geogrid

The dynamic characteristics of a structural system gets modified when the supporting medium of soil is also considered as an integral part of the structure rather compared to those with the conventional completely restrained supports. This is reflected as the significant modification of stress components and deflections in the structural system from the expected behavior of the system on a rigid supporting foundation. This is termed as the interaction of soil with the structure that it supports and generally called as dynamic soil structure interaction [7]. Soil is capable of providing very high strength in compression, but virtually no strength in tension [3]. In civil engineering applications, soil usually fails in shear. Like other construction materials with limited strength, soil can be reinforced with foreign material to form a composite material that has increased shear strength and some apparent tensile strength [3]. Reinforced soil is a construction technique that consists of soil that has been strengthened by tensile elements such as metal strips, geotextiles, or geogrids [3]. These geosynthetics placed under foundations can absorb seismic energy, and hence transmit smaller ground motions to an overlying structure. Documented case histories of seismic field performance of reinforced soil structures showed that reinforced soil slopes and walls tend to perform well under earthquake loading[8,9]. However, field reports point out a lack of

monitoring in practice, making it difficult to validate seismic design assumptions. The main objective of this study is to evaluate the dynamic soil structure interaction effects of reinforced soil for soft soil condition and to determine the deformations and seismic response quantities under seismic loading as compared with the fixed base condition.

Structural idealization

The building frame elements have been idealized as three dimensional space frames consisting of two nodded 3D beam elements with 6 DOF at each node called BEAM4.The Slabs are modeled with four nodded plate element with 6 DOF at each node, called SHELL 63. The foundation, which supports the superstructure, is also discretized as 4 nodded plate \u2013 bending element, SHELL 63. The element has bending and membrane capabilities, both in- plane and normal loads are permitted. The behavior of superstructure and foundation is assumed as elastic and is modeled using two parameters, the modulus of elasticity E and poisson\u2019s ratio\u03bd. Structural members are considered to be reinforced concrete of grade M20.Value of E is taken as 22.36 GPa,\u03bd is taken as 0.15 and density of concrete as 25 kN/m3. The bay length of the building is taken as 4.0 m and height as 3 m for all the cases. Sizes of beams and columns as 230mm x 400 mm. Thickness of slab is taken as 150mm and wall as 230mm with density of 20 kN/m3.The geometric sizes and loadings on the frames have been arrived on the basis of general requirement confirming to design code [4,5, 6].The live load is taken as 3 kN/m2. Square footing of size 2m x 2m with 500mm thickness is considered for all structures. The frames considered here are one bay and two bay structures with one storey designated as 1x1x1 and 2x2x1 with fixed base and resting on soil with and without reinforcement.

Idealization of soil

The structures are assumed to be resting on soft soil designated as soil20 with E value of 20000 kN/m2, and a poisson\u2019s ratio of 0.3 is considered. The bearing capacity and density of the soil are taken as 200 kN/m2 and 18 kN/m3. The soil is assumed to be linear, elastic and isotropic material. Width of soil mass beyond the outermost footing is considered as 4 B and depth as 8B, where B is the width of isolated footing [2]. Soil is discretized using 8 nodded brick element solid 45 with 3 DOF at each node. 5% of the critical damping is considered for the whole system.

Geometric parameters and Idealization of geogrid

In this study, the soil is reinforced with 3 layers of geogrid designated as reinforced soil20 with the vertical spacing between the consecutive geogrid layers are h equal to 0.5 m. The top layer of geogrid is located at a depth u equal to 0.5 m measured from the bottom of the foundation. The width of the geogrid reinforcements under the foundation is calculated as b equal to the total footing area and extending a distance of B i.e. width of footing, beyond the outermost footing . The depth of reinforcement, d, below the bottom of the foundation can be given as d = u + (N-1) B where N is the number of layers of geogrid [3]. As shown in the fig1.The specification of the geogrid considered is \u2018Tensar\u2019 SR2. Its tensile strength taken as 150 kN/m with 2% strain and thickness of 1.2 mm with weight of 0.85 kg/m2 . The geogrid elements have been idealized as 4 nodded plate element, SHELL 63, with bending and

membrane capabilities and modeled using two parameters, the modulus of elasticity E
=2065000 and poisson\u2019s ratio\u03bd= 0.2.
Fig.1 Foundation on geogrid reinforced soil
Ground Motions considered

The effect of dynamic soil structure interaction of reinforced and non reinforced soft soil on the building frames is studied under the modified acceleration time history that correspond to a peak ground acceleration of 0.5 g of the earthquake ground motion of Imperial Valley Earthquake, Station Elcentro (1940).

Three-dimensional finite element modeling of the whole structure \u2013foundation \u2013soil system is
generated using the software ANSYS and shown in fig 2.
Fig2. Finite element Model of a 2x2x1 RC frame \u2013foundation soil system with geogrids.

The seismic analysis of the building frames is carried out with transient dynamic analysis using mode superposition method. For the mode superposition type of transient analysis, Alpha and Beta damping are calculated from modal damping ratios,\u03bei , for a particular

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->