Soil-foundation-structure interaction and demand spectra in the performance based design

Dimitris Pitilakis1, Anna Karatzetzou1 1Department of Civil Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki 54124, Greece email: dpitilak@civil.auth.gr, akaratze@civil.auth.gr

ABSTRACT: Performance based design is traditionally performed assuming the structure to be clamped on a rigid foundation. The free field soil response is evaluated and simply applied at the base of the structure. Nevertheless, this kind of procedure does not account for the interaction of the soil with the foundation and the structure during a strong ground motion. In this study, the soil-foundation-structure-Interaction (SFSI) is taken into account in the estimation of the demand spectrum at the foundation level. A parametric analysis is conducted in order to elucidate the influence of different parameters that affect the foundation input motion (FIM), and consequently on the estimation of the demand spectra at the foundation level. In a similar manner, the capacity curve of the compliant foundation structure system will be different from the rigid-fixed base system. Depending on the parameters, the FIM is found to differ significantly from the free field ground response. Similarly, the modification of the system's capacity curve, when it is considered compliant, is highlighted through case studies. In the case where the SFSI effects are important for the dynamic response of the system, the demand spectra at the foundation level need to be calculated taking into account this interaction. In these latter cases, the spectral values for the design in the performance based concept may be quite different from the traditionally adopted from a free field analysis. KEY WORDS: Soil-Foundation-Structure Interaction; Capacity Spectrum Method; Performance Based Design

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, building codes propose Performance Based Seismic Engineering methods for new and existing structures. In this way, engineers are capable of providing predictable performance for a specific building. The most appropriate approach for performance evaluation seems to be the combination of nonlinear static (pushover) analysis and time history analysis. Examples of these methods are the Capacity Spectrum Method (CSM), applied in ATC40 [1] and the displacement coefficient method. In this study, the CSM [2, 3] will be used for the evaluation of the structural performance. In most cases, the CSM is used with the assumption of free field conditions regarding the demand spectrum and fixed base conditions regarding the capacity curve (pushover curve). However, it is well known that due to SoilFoundation-Structure Interaction (SFSI) the response of the structure supported on a soil profile may be different from the fixed-base state. The soil foundation structure system is in general more flexible and energy absorbing than the traditionally assumed fixed base model [4, 5, 6]. The SFSI influences the demand and the capacity values as well. In this study, a procedure to consider SFSI effects on CSM is proposed. The effects of soil and foundation flexibility on the acceleration and displacement values in terms of the final performance point (PP), will be highlighted trough some typical examples. The proposed approach will be then compared with the FEMA 440 [7] proposed methodology for the consideration of SFSI effects. Issues concerning soils and structural nonlinearity will be also discussed.

CSM FOR ELASTIC STRUCTURAL RESPONSE

In this part of the study, the structure behaves in the elastic range. This means that the performance point (PP) of the system refers to the intersection of the demand spectrum with the radial line that corresponds to the effective structural period (TSFSI). The soil profile is considered as homogeneous, with 60m depth and shear wave velocity 100m/s. Two acceleration time histories are used as input motion in this section. The first one was recorded at San Rocco during the 1976 Friuli, Italy earthquake (Tp=0.25s) and the second is a Ricker wavelet with predominant period of Tp=0.5s. Both input motions were scaled to peak ground acceleration of 0.16g and 0.36g. The effective structural period including interaction is calculated numerically by harmonic analyses. The fundamental period of the structure in each soil structure combination is identified, using the Fourier transform of the corresponding response time histories at free field conditions and at the top of the structure. Indeed the top-tofree field ratio of the response histories depicted in the frequency domain (transfer function), can be utilized for the determination of the resonance period at the point of maximum motion amplification. The numerical calculation of effective period seems to produce values in good agreement with the analytical ones [8, 9].

Figure 1. Conventional evaluation of demand spectra. Free field conditions to obtain the demand spectrum, fixed base conditions for the structure.

Figure 2. Evaluation of Demand Spectra in this study. SFSI conditions to obtain the demand spectrum and the structural period.

2.1

Conventional evaluation of PP

Conventionally, after an 1D seismic ground elastic response analysis to obtain the foundation input motion (FIM), the demand spectrum is the plot of the maximum response spectral ordinates (displacement acceleration). The critical point here is that the demand curve is the same for all structures (Figure 1), because the FIM is the same, irrespectively of the structural materials, sections and dynamic proprieties. Naturally, no SFSI effects are taken into consideration.

2.2

Evaluation of PP considering SFSI effects

When the SFSI effects are taken into account, the procedure of calculating the demand curve is different from that represented above. Each parametric analysis includes the whole SFSI system. Using the direct method for analyzing the SFSI phenomenon, the ground motion (acceleration time history) at the center of the foundation differs from that assuming free field conditions, and therefore the demand spectrum for the structure will be affected. The difference between the two curves depends on the extent of soil structure interaction effects. The demand spectrum curve that results from the SFSI system response concerns only the specific dynamic system characteristics, and therefore only one point of this curve is conceptually correct, that is the point which corresponds to the structural effective period (Figure 2). Another system with different characteristics will have a different pair of spectral ordinates.

Figure 3. Demand spectra for San Rocco, 1976 Friuli, Italy earthquake as input motion (arock=0.16g), Vs=75m/s, hstr=5m, mstr=180t, Tfix=0.25s (fixed base system) and TSFSI=0.8s (SFSI system). Point 1: free field-fixed base system, point 2: SFSI. These two values resulted from a 1D seismic ground response analysis. The structure is 5m high and its period for fixed base conditions is Tfix=0.25s. The superstructure mass is 180t. The SFSI effects are controlled through the relative soil to structure stiffness ratio index !=VSoTfix./hstr.. In Figure 3, points 1 and 2 refer to the elastic structural response according to the conventional and the actual approach, respectively. Due to SFSI interaction, the structural effective period increases by 220%, the spectral response values reduce by 64% in terms of accelerations and increase by 72% in terms of displacements.

2.3

Effect of Vs on structural response

The full SFSI system is subjected to the San Rocco, 1976 Friuli earthquake record (arock=0.16g). The small strain shear wave velocity of soil is VSo=100m/s, but as the soil behaves in the inelastic range, the actual value decreases to 75m/s for the upper 30m and to 71m/s for the lower 30m of the soil profile, after a simple 1D analysis.

2.4

Effect of mstr on structural response

The SFSI system is then subjected to the Ricker wavelet with 0.36g maximum acceleration on the rock. The small strain shear wave velocity of soil is 100m/sec, but because of the inelastic behavior of soil the values are now become 81m/s for the upper 30m and 74m/s for the lower 30m of the soil profile. Figure 4 shows the above-mentioned soil and strong motions characteristics and three different structures.

Figure 4. Demand spectra using the Ricker (arock=0.36g), Vs=81m/s, hstr=5m, Tfix=0.25s, TSFSI1=0.41s (mstr=22.5t) and TSFSI2=0.74s (mstr=180t). Point 1: free field - fixed base system. Point 2: SFSI (mstr=22.5t). Point 3: SFSI (mstr=180t) The first one is assumed to be fixed on its base and the response of the structure is described by point 1. The second one, with a lumped structural mass of 22.5t, has Tfix.=0.25s but because of the SFSI effects, its fundamental period increases to 0.41s (point 2). The third structure has a lumped structural mass of 180t (point 3). The reduction of the spectral accelerations, in comparison with the fixed-base response, is 40% for the small structural mass (point 1 against point 2) and 85% for large one (point 1 against point 3). The effect of structural mass on seismic structural response seems to be important for medium to long period systems.

Figure 5. Demand spectra for Ricker wavelet (arock=0.16g) as input motion, Vs=76m/s, hstr=5m, Tfix1=0.25s, Tfix2=0.5s, and mstr=180t. TSFSI=0.80s for both structures. Point 1and Point2: free field - fixed base. Point 1 and Point 2: SFSI system with a structure of !=5 and !=10, respectively. 3 CSM FOR INELASTIC STRUCTURAL RESPONSE

2.5

Effect of kstr on structural response

The SFSI system is subjected to the Ricker (arock=0.16g) pulse. The soil has now an equivalent shear wave velocity of 76m/s for the first 30m and 72m/sec for the next 30m of the investigated soil profile. The two examined structures have in case of fixed base conditions Tfix.1=0.25s and Tfix.2=0.5s, respectively (Figure 5). The performance points are 1 and 2 for the stiff and flexible structure respectively. Taking into account the SFSI effects, the performance points are denoted as 1 and 2. TSFSI is the same for the two structures. The structure of fixed base period equal to 0.25s approaches an effective SFSI period value of 0.8s, whereas the structure with fixed base period equal to 0.5s approaches the effective period value of 0.8s also. Fundamental period modification due to SFSI is more pronounced in the case of the stiffer structure (220%), while on the other hand, the maximum effective period modification is reduced for the more flexible structure (60%). At first sight, the interaction effects seem to be more significant for the rigid structure. However, as far as the impact of interaction on the structural response for the specific input motion is concerned, the reduction of the spectral acceleration values compared with the traditional approach is more significant for the flexible structure (70% point 2 against point 2). This can be explained through the frequency domain of input motion (Tp=0.5s).

Since the 1970's, many researchers tried to estimate the elastic response of structures ([10], [11]) taking into account the SFSI effects. On the other hand, the inelastic response did not receive considerable attention. In this section of the study, the structure will be assumed to behave in the inelastic range. This means that the performance point (PP), or the structural response, refers to the intersection of the demand spectrum with the capacity curve. The latter results from an inelastic static - pushover analysis. The influence of the SFSI on the seismic response (PP) will be examined through a specific case study.

3.1

Input data

The soil profile characteristics before the 1D analysis, therefore for elastic soil profile behavior are depicted in Figure 6. The shear wave velocity has a value of 180m/s at the foundation level and reaches the value of 400m/s at the depth of 60m. The above mentioned values are then reduced according to the level of shear strain that results from the 1D analysis, according to the soil profiles and input motions characteristics. Required input for this kind of analyses includes stiffness and material damping information for soil. The shear modulus reduction and the damping curves G " d were taken according to [12]. Small strain shear wave velocity is directly related to small strain shear modulus Gmax by:

Gmax = Vs2 " #

(1)

Where: # = 1800 kg/m3 is the mass density of the soil and VSo is the initial value of shear wave velocity.

Figure 6. Characteristics of the soil profile used in the study. Shear modulus with depth (left) and shear wave velocity with depth (right). The average initial and reduced values of Vs for the first 30m and the later 30m are depicted in Figure 7 and Figure 8, for the free-field / fixed-base case and for the SFS system respectively. The average value for the damping ratio of the soil profile is equal to 7.6% for the first mode of the soil. The structure is an idealized bridge model. It comprises of a single column of 5m height and diameter equal to 2m, founded on a rectangular footing of 10-by-10m area. The structural mass is assumed lumped at the top of the pier and is calculated for a two-lane highway bridge with a span of about 30m. It is important to mention here that the value of 1185t concerns not only the pier mass, but the decks mass as well. The cases that will be examined are the following: 1. Free field conditions for the demand curve, with the San Rocco earthquake record as input motion (arock=0.3g) and fixed base structure for the capacity spectrum (Figure 7). 2. Free field conditions for the demand curve, with the FEMA356 [13] design spectrum as input motion and fixed base structure for the capacity spectrum. 3. SFSI for both demand and capacity spectra. The SFSI effects are examined trough parametric analyses (Figure 8). 4. SFSI for both demand and capacity spectra. The SFSI effects are taken into consideration with the use of the methodology proposed by FEMA440 [7] to account for kinematic interaction. The influence of the SFSI effects will be then discussed in terms of the resulted PP. As it was already mentioned for the SFSI model, only one point of the demand spectrum is meaningful.

Figure 7. Free field (left) fixed base (right) system

Figure 8. Soil Foundation Structure Interaction (SFSI) system

3.2

Results

The results of the parametric analyses in terms of acceleration time histories and demand spectra are depicted in Figure 9 and Figure 10, respectively. It is obvious that in terms of accelerations the values at the foundation level are lower than those at free field conditions (Figure 9). From these two acceleration time histories, the demand spectra are calculated (Figure 10). The spectral values in terms of accelerations and displacements seem to be lower for the compliant SFSI system for low to medium periods. For elastic structural behavior, the structure exhibits higher displacement and lower acceleration when SFSI effects are taken into consideration.

Figure 9.Acceleration time histories after the analyses of the free field (ff) and SFSI (foundation) systems

Figure 11.Comparison of the capacity spectrum method between free field / fixed base conditions and SFSI, for the actual record and the FEMA356 provisions 1. The free field demand spectrum for San Rocco input motion for a viscous damping equal to 10.6%. 2. The free field demand spectrum according to FEMA356 design spectra for a Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) equal to the PGA that resulted from the 2D analysis for the soil profile subjected to the San Rocco motion. 3. The capacity spectrum for the fixed base pier 4. The demand spectrum from the acceleration time history at the foundation level for the SFS system, for a damping value equal to 8.75% (after the iterations). 5. The demand spectrum that resulted after the application of FEMA440 methodology to account of SFSI effects. In this case, the damping ratio for the evaluation of demand spectrum remains equal to 5%, due to the fact that the structure behaves elastically. 6. The capacity spectrum for the SFSI system. Point 1, is the intersection of curves 1 and 3; Point 1 is the intersection of curves 2 and 3; point 2 the intersection of curves 4 and 6, while finally point 2 is the intersection of curves 5 and 6. Firstly, it is obvious that due to SFSI the spectral displacement values are higher. On the other hand, the spectral acceleration values do not have considerable modification. This happens due to structural inelasticity. It is worthy to mention that in this case, the use of the FEMA356 design spectrum, instead of the actual free field earthquake demand spectrum, gives higher displacement values (point 1 against point 1) when the conventional evaluation of PP is followed. On the other hand, when the SFSI effects are taken into consideration, the spectral displacement is lower for the FEMA356 design spectrum. This can be explained by the fact that in the second case (SFSI), the structural period is really close to one of the soils resonant periods. In Figure 12, point 1 is calculated by the conventional methodology for the evaluation of PP. Point 2 is calculated using the methodology proposed in FEMA440, including kinematic interaction and energy dissipation effects due to SFSI. Finally, point 2 is estimated by the procedure followed in this study (with SFSI effects). In all three methods, the input motion is the San Rocco earthquake record.

Figure 10.Demand spectra after the analyses of the free field (ff) and SFSI systems

3.3

CSM

In this part of the study the CSM is used to evaluate the PP. Due to structural inelastic behavior, the damping of demand spectra is not anymore equal to 5%. The relationship between hysteric damping and ductility was obtained by Dwairi et. al. 2006 [14] and given by Equation 2 for Takedas hysteretic model. (2) where is the displacement ductility (=Dmax/Dy) and 50(1)/(!) is the hysteric damping that depends on the hysteresis appropriate rule for the structure. Dmax is the maximum inelastic displacement of the structure and Dy is the yield structural displacement (the values are estimated from the pushover curve). Once $eq is calculated, then the new demand curve is calculated for this damping ratio. The damping value results after a number of iterations. The iterations end when the displacement ductility of the last and the previous step converge. In Figure 11, the following curves are depicted:

REFERENCES
[1] ATC, Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings, Rep. ATC40, Applied Technology, 1996 [2] P. Fajfar, A nonlinear analysis method for performance based seismic design, Earthquake Spectra 2006, Volume 22, No. 3, pages 631662, August 2000. [3] Freeman and A. Sigmund, The Capacity Spectrum Method as a tool for seismic design, Proceedings of the Eleventh European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paris, 1998. [4] J. Avils and E. Prez-Rocha Luis, Design concepts for yielding structures on flexible foundation, Engineering Structures 2005, 27: 443 454, 2004. [5] J. Aviles and M. Suarez, Effective periods and dampings of buildingfoundation systems including seismic wave effects, Engineering Structures 2002;24:55362, 2001. [6] J. Aviles and E. Perez-Rocha Luis, Soilstructure interaction in yielding systems, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2003;32:174971, 2003. [7] Federal Emergency Management Agency, Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures, FEMA 440. Washington, District of Columbia, FEMA, 2005. [8] A. S. Veletsos, and J. W. Meek, Dynamic Behaviour of BuildingFoundation System, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 121-138, 1974. [9] K. Pitilakis, D. Pitilakis and A. Karatzetzou, Demand Spectra and SFSI for the Performance Based Design, 7th International Conference on Urban Earthquake Engineering (7CUEE) & 5th International Conference on Earthquake Engineering (5ICEE), March 3-5, 2010, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan, 2010 [10] AK. Chopra and JA Gutierrez, Earthquake response analysis of multistory building including foundation interaction, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics; 3:6577, 1974. [11] AS.Veletsos, Dynamic of structure-foundation systems, In: Hal WJ, editor. Structural and Geotechnical Mechanics, Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall; p. 33361. A Volume Honoring N.M. Newmark, 1997. [12] J. Zhang, R. D. Andrus and C. Hsein Juang, Normalized shear modulus and material damping ratio relationships, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 2005, ASCE, April 2005, p:453-464, 2005. [13] Federal Emergency Management Agency, Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA 356. Washington, District of Columbia,FEMA, 2000. [14] %. Dwairi and M. Kowalsky, Implementation of inelastic displacement patterns in Direct Displacement- Based Design of continuous bridge structures, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Earthquake Spectra 2006, Volume 22, No. 3, pages 631662, August 2006.

Figure 12. Comparison of the capacity spectrum method between free field / fixed base conditions and SFSI, for the actual record and the FEMA356 provisions applied on the actual earthquake record In this case, it is obvious that the FEMA440 methodology, leads to lower values concerning the spectral displacements, while the spectral acceleration is slightly affected. 4 CONCLUSIONS

In this study, the seismic performance of a structure is estimated assuming soil-foundation-structure interaction and inelastic behavior for the structure. The performance is compared with the traditionally proposed procedure, as well as with the FEMA provisions. The demand spectra at the foundation level were found to differ from the free field spectra, due to SFSI. Inertial and kinematic interaction effects, as well as the increased energy dissipation through radiation in the soil and inelastic behavior in the structure, may define a performance point for the system significantly different from the one estimated conventionally (fixed base rigid elastic structure resting on the free field). After the parametric analyses performed in the framework of this study, the effects of SFSI are found to be more important for stiff structures laying on soft soil profiles, for structures with, large lumped mass, for intense earthquake input motions. When the structure behaves inelastically, the design values in terms of accelerations are usually lower than the assuming values for elastic structural response, but it important to ensure that the system has the available ductility at the critical locations of potential plastic hinging, in order to avoid the total collapse . ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Part of this work was performed in the framework of the European projects Seismic engineering research infrastructures for European synergies (SERIES), Grant agreement 227887, and Performance-based approach to earthquake protection of cultural heritage in European and Mediterranean countries (PERPETUATE), Grant agreement 244229.