design

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

4 views

design

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- 16174 - Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure for Seismic Design of Buildings.pdf
- seismic damage analisis building and damage limiting design
- Pushover Procedure for Seismic Analysis of Buildings
- 14WCEE Keynote Presentation
- Optimize
- 744-R002
- 15WCEE 1940 pushover analysis.pdf
- Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Setback Buildings using Pushover Analysis
- Influence of Soil Conditions on Building
- macedo_ej
- Seismic Evaluation of Prestressed Concrete Bridges
- Section C2-Assessment Procedures and Analysis Techniques (1)
- Overview of Nonlinear Problems,Modeling and Analysis.pdf
- NCh2369-2003 (English April 25 2005)LDS
- TH3048-ICIMPACT-2014.pptx
- Review IndianSeismicCodeIS1893(Part1)2002
- Comparison of Seismic Codes of 1981 Japan (Bslj), 2000 Usa (IBC) AND 1999 IRAN (ICS)
- Finite Element Seismic Analysis of a Guyed Mast
- Mukherjee Et Al. - OTC-24683-MS New Guideline for Seismic Assessment of Fixed Facilities in Malays
- EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN.pdf

You are on page 1of 28

Amir M. Halabian*

,

and Masoomeh Erfani

Faculty of Civil Engineering, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran

SUMMARY

Current force-based design procedure adopted by most seismic design codes allows the seismic design of

building structures to be based on static or dynamic analyses of elastic models of the structure using elastic

design spectra. The codes anticipate that structures will undergo inelastic deformations under strong seismic

events; therefore, such inelastic behaviour is usually incorporated into the design by dividing the elastic

spectra by a factor, R, which reduces the spectrum from its original elastic demand level to a design level.

The most important factors determining response reduction factors are the structural ductility and over-

strength capacity. For a structure supporting on exible foundation, as Soil Structure Interaction (SSI)

extends the elastic period and increases damping of the structure-foundation elastic system, the structural

ductility could also be affected by frequency-dependent foundation-soil compliances. For inelastic systems

supporting on exible foundations, the inelastic spectra ordinates are greater than for elastic systems when

presented in terms of exible-base structures period. This implies that the reduction factors, which are

currently not affected by the SSI effect, could be altered; therefore, the objective of this research is to

evaluate the signicance of foundation exibility on force reduction factors of RC frame structures. In this

research, by developing some generic RC frame models supporting on exible foundations, effects of stiff-

ness and strength of the structure on force reduction factors are evaluated for different relative stiffnesses

between the structure and the supporting soil. Using a set of articial earthquake records, repeated linear

and nonlinear analyses were performed by gradually increasing the intensity of acceleration time histories

to a level, where rst yielding of steel in linear analysis and a level in which collapse of the structure in

nonlinear analysis are observed. The difference between inelastic and elastic resistance in terms of displace-

ment ductility factors has been quantied. The results indicated that the foundation exibility could signi-

cantly change the response reduction factors of the system and neglecting this phenomenon may lead to

erroneous conclusions in the prediction of seismic performance of exibly supported RC frame structures.

Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1. INTRODUCTION

In the current force-based design procedures adopted by most seismic design codes, the designer is

allowed to utilize the ductile capacity of the structure; and therefore, the seismic design of building

structures is based on static or dynamic analyses of elastic models of the structure using elastic design

spectra. Force-based design procedures are likely to remain as the primary seismic design method for

some time since performance-base design methods are still in the development phase. In these pro-

cedures, the elastic design strengths are substantially reduced on the provision of adequate ductility

capacity of the structure, to sustain a targeted amount of plastic deformation under a maximum cred-

ible earthquake condition. The factor, R, which reduces the spectrum from its original elastic demand

level to a design level, is related to the overall performance of different types of buildings during

actual earthquakes. Despite the fact that the reduction factor, R, which serves the same function in all

seismic codes, is called behaviour factor (q) in EC8 and response modication factor (R) in National

* Correspondence to: Amir M. Halabian, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan

84156-83111, Iran

E-mail: mahdi@cc.iut.ac.ir

Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL AND SPECIAL BUILDINGS

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. , 128 (2013)

Published online 9 December 2010 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/tal.654

22

A. M. HALABIAN AND M. ERFANI

Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DOI: 10.1002/tal

Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), it is termed the structural quality factor or the

system performance factor following recommendations of the SEAOC Committee. In the current

study, the term response reduction factor is adopted since it offers a clearer indication of the nature

of this factor, which plays a paramount role in seismic design.

Differences in the numerical values of the response reduction factors specied in different seismic

codes for the same type of structure can be quite noticeable, reecting to this fact that the values

could be based on judgment, experience and observed ductile performance of buildings during past

earthquakes. The key role of apparent inconsistencies in the way these response reduction factors are

dened in different seismic codes has highlighted that the investigation of different parameters affect-

ing inelastic spectra and the ensuing response reduction factors are needed. As it was mentioned, it

is almost generally accepted in various seismic codes that the response reduction factor of structures

may be dened as the ratio of their elastic strength demand to their inelastic strength demand within

the selected ductility capacity limits. Accordingly, the value of the response reduction factor is known

to mainly depend on the inherent ductility of the structure, on the overstrength of individual members

and on the (effective) damping of the structure, assuming the structure is supported by xed-base

foundation. In fact, seismic analyses of buildings are often based on the assumption that the founda-

tion exibility has no effect on foundationstructure interacting forces. The rst studies of SSI for

elastic systems showed that soil structure interaction phenomenon could inuence the dynamic char-

acteristics of structures, resulting in an increase to the fundamental natural period as well as the

inherent structural damping. Veletsos and Verbic (1974) investigated the transient elastoplastic

response of a exible-supported structure supporting on an elastic half-space, suggesting that yielding

decreases the effect of SSI on structures. Whereas in studies conducted by Avils and Prez-Rocha

(2003) it was shown that SSI effects for inelastic systems with different order could be as important

as for elastic systems.

The current SSI provisions based on linear structural models may not be directly applicable to

seismic design of typical buildings, expected to deform considerably beyond the yield limit

during severe earthquakes. So that, Crouse (2002) and Stewart et al. (2003) recognized that the

SSI provisions in the Applied Technology Council (ATC, 1995) and NEHRP codes have a signicant

shortcoming expressing no link between the response reduction factors and the effects of foundation

exibility. Investigations of the SSI on the response reduction factors of structures are scarce. Avils

and Prez-Rocha (2005) evaluated the effect of SSI on strength-reduction, R

, and displacement

reduction, C

, factors for an Single Degree of Freedom System (SDOF) elastoplastic structure sub-

jected to Michoacon earthquake (1985). The result of the research noted that these factors could be

altered by the SSI phenomenon depending on the supporting soil-structure stiffness ratio. Halabian

and Kabiri (2006) evaluated the effect of foundation exibility on the ductility of RC stake-like

structures. The results showed that for this type of structures, the SSI could decrease the ductility

demand and consequently response reduction factor. The present study is aimed to evaluate the R

factors of RC frame structures considering the foundation exibility effect using rened denition

of response reduction factors employed by the most modern seismic codes.

2. EVALUATION OF RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR

Having this fact that contributing factors affecting response reduction factors such as ductility, struc-

tural overstrength and structures redundancy have long been recognized and assuming no supple-

mental damping devices, an appropriate denition of the response reduction factor can be expressed

in the form of

R R R

d R

(1)

where R

d

is the overstrength factor and R

R

is the redundancy

factor which quanties the improved reliability of seismic framing systems that use multiple lines

2

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. , 128 (2013) 22

EFFECT OF SSI ON RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR

Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DOI: 10.1002/tal

of vertical seismic framing in each principle direction of a building. Since the overstrength factor

implicitly accounts for redundancy through redistribution of actions, the overstrength and redundancy

parameters can be considered as one factor and therefore, the response reduction factor is simply

given as:

R R

d

(2)

It is understood that seismic nonlinear responses and then the ductility demand of building structures

resting on exible foundations could be changed, due to the foundation exibility (Halabian

and Emami, 2009). Since the concept of response reduction factor expressed in Equation (1) does

not explicitly take into account the foundation exibility, the Equation (2) can be furthermore

modied as:

R R R

d S

(3)

in which R

S

in this study is so-called as the foundation factor that depends on the foundationstructure

stiffness ratio and the structural strength as well. If a proper calibration of response reduction factors

is to be made, each of the major components contributing to it should be precisely investigated. In

the following, the ductility-dependent product of R

and

R

S

is evaluated on the basis of some repeated

nonlinear analyses of exible-base structures for selected articial earthquake records.

There are some different methods based on forcedisplacement relationship resulting from inelastic

analyses of structures to evaluate the response reduction factors according to Equation (3). However,

the current study is not intended to review and discuss all these approaches. In the following, taking

into account the ground motion dependence of the response reduction factor, a more rigorous approach

for proper calibration of these factors on the basis of repeated nonlinear analyses is described. The

factor in various modern seismic codes reduces the elastic base shear (V

e

), obtained from the elastic

acceleration spectrum (S

a

)

in

in the rst natural period of the structure, to the design base shear level

(V

d

), evaluated from spectrum used in design (S

a

)

in

, again corresponding to the rst natural period of

the structure. Thus,

R

code

el in

( ) ( ) S S

a a

(4)

Collapse is normally anticipated under the effect of an earthquake with a spectrum higher than the

elastic spectrum; therefore, for a particular structure under a specic accelerogram, the following

formula evaluates an ultimate value of the response reduction factor:

R

c dy

c

el in

,

( ) ( ) S S

a a

(5)

where the subscripts c refer to collapse and dy refers to the yield level assumed in design. Having

this fact that structure is mainly designed for forces consistent with its yield limit state, Elnashai and

Broderick (1996) and Wa and Elnashai (2002) used a denition that utilizes the spectral acceleration

causing actual yield in the denominator, as given in the following equation:

R

c ay

c

el

y

el

,

( ) ( ) S S

a a

(6)

In the above equation, the subscript ay refers to the actual yield. Assuming the response spectra

of the yield and collapse earthquakes have constant dynamic amplication (the ratio of the peak

ground acceleration to the peak response acceleration), Equation (6) can be rewritten as:

R

c ay ,

( ) ( )

a a

g collapse g actual yield

(7)

3

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. , 128 (2013) 22

A. M. HALABIAN AND M. ERFANI

Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DOI: 10.1002/tal

In the above equation, a

g(collapse)

is the peak ground accelerations of the collapse and a

g(actual yield)

is the Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) corresponding to the rst yielding in the system. In

fact, structures designed using modern seismic codes usually exhibit some considerable level of

overstrength that leads to signicant differences between the PGA causing the rst global yield

(a

g(actual yield)

) and the yield intensity implied by the design (a

g(design yield)

design PGA/R

code

) (Figure 1).

Therefore, Equation (7) should be modied adding an overstrength factor,

d

, as,

( )

( ) ( )

R R

c ay c ay d , ,

d g collapse g actual yield

a a (8)

Overstrength factor accounts for the reverse strength between the actual yield and design

levels and can be employed to reduce the seismic forces used in the design, hence leading to more

economical structures. The main sources of overstrength include (Humar and Rahgozar, 1996): the

difference between the actual and the design material strength; conservation of the design procedure;

load factors and multiple load cases; serviceability limit state provisions, participation of nonstructural

elements and structures redundancy.

Based on the approach described in this study to evaluate the R factors, incremental nonlinear

dynamic analysis, a number of response criteria could dene the yield and collapse limit states. The

rst yielding can be dened as the local yield when the strain in the main tensile reinforcement

exceeds the yield strain of steel or the global yield limit state which is characterized as the yield

displacement of the elasto-plastic idealization of the real system. Like yielding criteria, local and

global failure criteria can be employed to evaluate the PGA corresponding the structural collapse.

The ultimate curvature controlled by the maximum compression strain at the extreme bre of the

conned concrete or the tension strains of reinforcement and the maximum inter-storey drift or forma-

tion of a sidesway mechanism could be referred as the member level (local) and the structure level

(global) collapse criteria. The assumptions made in developing RC generic frames used in this study

can shed light on the suitability of the local yield criterion, while it was decided to use the global

mechanism along with the ultimate curvature criterion for column members representing the struc-

tural collapse state.

To evaluate the peak ground accelerations causing collapse and rst yielding, the incremental

nonlinear dynamic analysis is performed by progressively scaling and applying each of the employed

(S )

el

c

el

y a

(S )

a

el

y a

el

c, y a a c

R S ( ) / S ( )

c, y a c, y a d

R ` R

T

Yield earthquake

Collapse earthquake

Design

S

a

Figure 1. Evaluation of the force reduction factor by denition of R

c,ay

and

d

.

4

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. , 128 (2013) 22

EFFECT OF SSI ON RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR

Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DOI: 10.1002/tal

7.0

5.0

5

T

T

story

5.1

0.1

10

T

T

story

0.3

0.2

20

T

T

story

Figure 2. Generic structures.

set of earthquake records, starting from a relative low intensity, and terminating with the intensity at

which all yield and collapse denitions are achieved. This method allows evaluating the performance

of the structure at different levels of excitations. Hence, the peak ground accelerations causing yield

and collapse can be identied according to the performance criteria adopted for structural elements.

It is mentionable, since a generally applicable and precise estimation of overstrength is difcult due

to many factors contributing to it; therefore, in this study, the overstrength factor is not taken into

account in the evaluation process of response reduction factor and therefore, the effect of foundation

exibility is then only considered on R

c,ay

.

3. NUMERICAL MODELS

Since a large number of parameters generally inuence the seismic demands of structures, it was

shown that generic models could be an appropriate approach for assessing the inuence of these

parameters in seismic demands of RC frame buildings. In a general view, generic models adopted in

the current study consist of 2D single-bay RC moment-resisting frames reecting different stiffnesses

and storey strengths. To take into account the structures height effect, three types of generic structures

representing short, medium and high-rise RC frames were developed (Figure 2). In all three types of

generic structures, using the same moments of inertia for beams and columns in every storey, it was

assumed that the storey height for all storeys is the same and half of the bay width. The stiffness of

generic structures are tuned so that the structures deected shape under a given design load pattern

become a straight line (Figure 3). The lateral load pattern is selected based on the SRSS modal super-

position method. Employing UBC97, the SRSS lateral load distribution is obtained using storey shear

5

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. , 128 (2013) 22

A. M. HALABIAN AND M. ERFANI

Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DOI: 10.1002/tal

Figure 3. Plastic hinge mechanism for the generic structures.

forces calculated from the SRSS combination of modal responses throughout the linear response

spectrum analysis. For RC frame generic frame structures developed for this study, the SRSS storey

shear forces distributions and corresponding lateral load patterns are shown in Figure 4(ac). In the

generic structure, inelastic deformations are permitted only at the ends of the beam in each storey and

at the base of the columns (Figure 3). Thus, the basic plastic hinge mechanism under lateral loads

represents structures complying with the weak beamstrong column requirement. Assuming that the

overall mass matrix of the generic model is constant, a generic structure with specic fundamental

period is produced by changing all element stiffnesses in every storey, simultaneously. In this research,

the fundamental elastic period of the generic frame structures are assumed to be T 0.5 and 0.70 s,

representing short RC frames; T 1 and 1.5 s for medium-rise structures; and T 2 and 3 s present-

ing high-rise RC frames (Figure 2). The cross-section dimensions for generic frames at different oors

are given in Table 1.

The seismic design of frame structures is performed according to back-calculated base shear

strength and a design lateral load distribution. The base shear strength is varied in relation to specic

purposes of the analysis. Given this quantity, the individual storey shear strengths are arranged to the

storey shear forces obtained from the design load pattern. Generally, the base shear strength V

base

is

estimated according to:

V C W

base

. (9)

In this equation, W is the effective weight of structure and C represents the base shear strength

factor. Assuming different values for C, every generic frame includes a set of idealized models with

the same stiffness but different strengths against lateral load. In this study, to examine the strength

effect on response reduction factors, the generic frames with the same stiffness were designed for two

strength levels against lateral loading, based on ACI 318-05 code. Thus, 2D generic frames used in

this study include three groups as shown in Figure 2:

(1) Five-storey generic frames representing short RC frames having fundamental natural periods

of 0.5 and 0.7 s designed under practical base shear strengths in this range of stiffness, C 0.1

and 0.2.

(2) Ten-storey generic frames representing medium-rise RC frames having fundamental natural

periods of 1 and 1.5 s designed under practical base shear strengths in this range of stiffness,

C 0.05 and 0.1.

(3) Twenty-storey generic frames representing high-rise RC frames having fundamental natural

periods of 2 and 3 s designed under practical base shear strengths in this range of stiffness, C

0.03 and 0.08.

6

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. , 128 (2013) 22

EFFECT OF SSI ON RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR

Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DOI: 10.1002/tal

SRSS Story Lateral Load Pattern

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

1

2

3

4

5

S

t

o

r

y

L

e

v

e

l

F(i)/F(top)

SRSS Story Lateral Load Pattern

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

S

t

o

r

y

L

e

v

e

l

F(i)/F(top)

SRSS Story Lateral Load Pattern

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

S

t

o

r

y

L

e

v

e

l

F(i)/F(top)

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 4. The SRSS storey shear forces distributions for generic structures: (a) 5-storey;

(b) 10-storey; (c) 20-storey.

7

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. , 128 (2013) 22

A. M. HALABIAN AND M. ERFANI

Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DOI: 10.1002/tal

4. MODELLING FOUNDATION FLEXIBILITY

In order to take into account the inertial interaction of the SSI phenomenon, the substructure method

is employed for dynamic analysis of generic structures supporting on exible foundation. The funda-

mental step in the substructure method is to evaluate the foundation impedance functions. The

dynamic stiffnesses are complex-valued functions depending on the geometry of the foundation and

the characteristic of the soil, which generally can be expressed as:

S K k a ia c a

st

( ) [ ] [ ] ( ) + ( ) [ ] .

0 0 0

(10)

in which [S()] and [K

ST

] are the dynamic and static stiffness matrix, respectively. Moreover, k and

c are dimensionless coefcients depending on Poissons ratio v and the dimensionless frequency

parameter a

0

.r/V

S

, where r is the equivalent radius of the footing and V

S

is the shear wave velocity

of soil assumed to be half-space. In this study, assuming shallow foundations of the generic structures,

the corresponding stiffness and damping constants are obtained using the theory due to Veletsos and

Wei (1971) and Veletsos and Verbic (1973). Using this method, the effect of exciting frequency,

foundation type and size, and dynamic properties of the soil layers can also be included in the estima-

tion of foundation impedance functions. The generic frames are assumed to be supported by a homo-

geneous viscoelastic soil having shear wave velocity 50 m/s V

s

500 m/s and the Poissons ratio

equal to 0.3.

5. NONLINEAR MODELLING OF RC FRAMES AND EQUATIONS OF MOTION

The generic models are idealized as 2D frames using beam and column elements. In this study, with

the purpose to investigate the effect of inelastic behaviour of the RC frame structural elements,

Table 1. Cross-section dimensions for generic RC frame structures.

Floor

Dimension of beam and column sections (mm)

High-rise structures Mid-rise structures Low-rise structures

T 2 s T 3 s T 1 s T 1.5 s T 0.5 s T 0.7 s

20th 394 394 318 318

19th 477 477 480 480

18th 510 510 403 403

17th 540 540 422 422

16th 553 553 432 432

15th 566 566 444 444

14th 569 569 450 450

13th 580 580 457 457

12th 586 586 463 463

11th 592 592 466 466

10th 594 594 470 470 392 392 326 326

9th 595 595 474 474 473 473 391 391

8th 598 598 477 477 514 514 417 417

7th 600 600 479 479 533 533 433 433

6th 602 602 481 481 553 553 447 447

5th 605 605 482 482 565 565 457 457 419 419 354 354

4th 608 608 483 483 577 577 468 468 511 511 430 430

3rd 610 610 485 485 578 578 469 469 564 561 437 437

2nd 612 612 487 487 580 580 469 469 562 562 473 473

1st 615 615 490 490 590 590 478 478 564 564 475 475

8

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. , 128 (2013) 22

EFFECT OF SSI ON RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR

Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DOI: 10.1002/tal

two types of model accounting different types of nonlinear behaviour were adapted. The nonlinear

behaviour of beam elements is modelled by means of moment-curvature theory; and in column

elements, multi-axial spring model based on material stressstrain relation, called ber model,

is used to represent the interaction among axial force and bending. In the current study, the M-

relations in monotonic loading (backbone curve) are taken tri-linear (Figure 5(a)). The tri-linear

curve is dened by the moment and curvature corresponding to the cracking limit, to the elastic

limit (steel yielding), and nally to the section failure. The element response for cyclic loading is

governed by a set of parameters which are correlated to the strength and stiffness degradation

(Figure 5(b)).

In the Fiber Element Method for modelling nonlinear behaviour of columns, the cross-section of

each column element is subdivided into some spring elements (Figure 6). Each spring is subjected to

axial load, given by the combination of axial force and bending moment acting on the section. Given

the curvature in x and y direction (

x

and

y

) as well as axial strain (

0

) and assuming end displace-

ment of every spring is constrained to respect the plane section assumption, strain and stress in each

bre element are calculated as:

(a) (b)

Figure 5. Nonlinear behaviour of RC structural elements: (a) backbone curve; (b) hysteretic loop.

Figure 6. Fibre element forces and deformations.

9

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. , 128 (2013) 22

A. M. HALABIAN AND M. ERFANI

Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DOI: 10.1002/tal

i i i i x i i y

E E y E x + +

0

(11)

i i x i y

y x + +

0

(12)

where E

i

is the modulus of elasticity in i

th

spring. Therefore, the exibility matrix at element-end

sections can be expressed as:

f

f f f

f f

Sym f

j

yy

i

xx

j

y

j

xx

j

x

j

j

[ ]

1

]

1

1

0

(13)

where f

j

yy

, f

j

xx

and f

j

0

are the exibilities of the element at the end cross-section corresponding to the

two rotational degrees of freedom and one axial deformation, respectively. By assuming the linear

distributed exibility, the element exural exibility matrix is expressed as:

f

L

f f f f f f f f f f

yy yy yy yy xy xy xy xy y y

[ ]

+ +

0

1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2

12

3 3 4 2

ff f f f f f f f

f f f f

yy yy xy xy xy xy y y

xx xx xx x

1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2

1 2 1

3 3 2 4

3

+ + +

+

xx x x

xx xx x x

f f

f f f f

sym f f

2 1 2

1 2 1 2

0

1

0

2

4 2

3 2 4

6 6

+ +

+

1

]

1

1

1

1

1

(14)

The nonlinear governing equation of motion for the generic structure can be written as:

M u t C u t K u t M I u

g

[ ] ( ) +[ ] ( ) +[ ] ( ) [ ] (15)

where [M], [C] and [K] are mass and damping and stiffness matrix of soil-structure system. The

Raylieghs damping is used to model the structural damping and having taken into account the

damping, [C

v

], coming from the foundation impedance functions, the total damping including non-

classical damping is expressed by:

C a M a K a K C

m k v

[ ] [ ] + [ ] + [ ] +[ ]

0 0

(16)

The coefcients a

m

, a

0

and a

k

are damping factors proportional to mass matrix, initial stiffness and

time-varying stiffness matrix computed from the rst two modes. To solve the differential equation

of motion (Equation (15)), the time step integration method is adapted in this study. Therefore, at the

time t + t, the equation of motion can be expressed by integration:

M du a M a K du a K du

t t

m

t t

k

t t

[ ] + [ ] + [ ] ( ) + [ ]

+ + +

0

0 0

0 0

++ [ ] + [ ] [ ]

+ + +

C du K du M du

V

t t t t

g

t t

0 0 0

(17)

A numerical integration procedure known as Newmark method is used to express the differential

relationship of the time function. To satisfy the equilibrium at each time step, the iteration is performed

using the NewtonRaphson scheme within each time step. Therefore, the displacement increment is

expressed as:

10

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. , 128 (2013) 22

EFFECT OF SSI ON RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR

Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DOI: 10.1002/tal

u t u t u t u

t t t t t t

+

_

,

+

+ +

1

2

2 2

. . (18)

And then the acceleration and velocity are calculated as:

u

t

u

t

u u

u

t

t t t t t t

t t

+ +

+

1 1 1

2

2

uu

t

u t u

t t t t

_

,

2

1

(19)

Substituting Equation (19) into Equation (17) results to,

4 2 2

2

0 0

t t

a M

t

a K C K u

M

m

t t t

+

_

,

[ ] + [ ] +[ ] ( ) +[ ]

1

]

1

[ ]

+

.

44

2 2 2

0 0

t

a u u u a K a K

m

t t

g

t t

k

t

+

_

,

+

1

]

1

+ [ ] + [ ]

+

++[ ] ( ) + C u F

t

t U

t

(20)

where {F

U

}

t

is an unbalanced force vector; to satisfy the equilibrium at each time step, the iteration

is performed using the NewtonRaphson scheme within each time step.

6. NUMERICAL RESULTS

To get an insight on the effect of the SSI phenomenon on ductility reduction factor of RC frame

structures supporting exible foundations, a repeated nonlinear time history analysis approach based

on rened denition of the response reduction factor described above was employed. Five articially

generated records compatible with UBC-97 response spectrum having peak ground accelerations

approximately equal to 1.0 g (shown in Figure 7) are selected as ground excitations in nonlinear SSI

dynamic analyses.

Using assumed set of articial earthquake records, repeated nonlinear analyses were performed by

gradually increasing the intensity of acceleration time histories to a level, where rst yielding of steel

is occurred. The values of PGA for which the generic frames supporting on different exible founda-

tions reach their yielding states of response are given in Tables 24 for ve-storey, 10-storey,

20-storey generic frames, respectively. The yield limit state is dened when the strain in the main

tensile reinforcement exceeds the design yield strain of steel. The denition of collapse for RC frames

as a whole is quite subjective and depends on engineering judgment. In this study, the collapse limit

state is assumed corresponding to the formation of a lateral mechanism in structure. The values of

PGA for which the generic frames supporting on different exible foundations in a process of gradu-

ally increasing the intensity of ground acceleration reaches their collapse states are also given in

Tables 57 for ve-storey, 10-storey, 20-storey generic frames, respectively.

Using Equation (7), the ductility reduction factor can be quantied by subdividing the peak

ground accelerations of the collapse to the PGA corresponding to the rst yielding in system.

The variation of ductility reduction factors with respect to soil shear wave velocities are shown in

Figure 8(a, b) for ve-storey generic frames having two levels of stiffnesses at the strength level,

C, equal to 0.1 subjected to assumed ground excitations. Figure 9(a, b) shows the same information

but for the different strength level at C 0.2. The calculated response reduction factors for the

xed-base generic models having different levels of strengths are also shown in Figures 8 and 9.

A comparison of Figures 8 and 9 shows that the effect of SSI on response reduction factor for

11

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. , 128 (2013) 22

A. M. HALABIAN AND M. ERFANI

Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DOI: 10.1002/tal

ACC1

-10

-5

0

5

10

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28

Time,sec.

A

c

c

e

l

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

,

m

/

s

2

ACC2

-10

-5

0

5

10

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28

Time,sec.

A

c

c

e

l

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

,

m

/

s

2

ACC3

-10

-5

0

5

10

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28

Time,sec.

A

c

c

e

l

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

,

m

/

s

2

ACC3

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 5 10 15 20 25

Frequency(Hertz)

T

r

a

v

e

l

i

n

g

F

F

T

f

o

r

A

c

c

e

l

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

ACC1

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 5 10 15 20 25

Frequency(Hertz)

T

r

a

v

e

l

i

n

g

F

F

T

f

o

r

A

c

c

e

l

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

ACC2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 5 10 15 20 25

Frequency(Hertz)

T

r

a

v

e

l

i

n

g

F

F

T

f

o

r

A

c

c

e

l

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

ACC4

-10

-5

0

5

10

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28

Time,sec.

A

c

c

e

l

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

,

m

/

s

2

ACC4

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 5 10 15 20 25

Frequency(Hertz)

T

r

a

v

e

l

i

n

g

F

F

T

f

o

r

A

c

c

e

l

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

ACC5

-10

-5

0

5

10

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28

Time,sec.

A

c

c

e

l

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

,

m

/

s

2

ACC5

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 5 10 15 20 25

Frequency(Hertz)

T

r

a

v

e

l

i

n

g

F

F

T

f

o

r

A

c

c

e

l

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

Figure 7. Acceleration time history and Fourier Amplitude Spectrum for articial records.

12

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. , 128 (2013) 22

EFFECT OF SSI ON RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR

Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DOI: 10.1002/tal

Table 3. Ground acceleration at yield limit state for generic frames (10-storey frames).

a

g (actual yield)

Articial records Fixed base V

s

500 V

s

300 V

s

200 V

s

100 V

s

50

T 1 s, C 0.05

ACC1 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.37 0.38 0.38

ACC2 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.39 0.4

ACC3 0.39 0.39 0.38 0.37 0.4 0.45

ACC4 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.3 0.45

ACC5 0.4 0.4 0.38 0.4 0.36 0.43

T 1 s, C 0.1

ACC1 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.47 0.44 0.5

ACC2 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.53 0.5

ACC3 0.47 0.47 0.48 0.46 0.45 0.47

ACC4 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.46 0.44 0.55

ACC5 0.46 0.46 0.47 0.45 0.5 0.45

T 1.5 s, C 0.05

ACC1 0.34 0.35 0.35 0.34 0.35 0.3

ACC2 0.35 0.35 0.34 0.34 0.33 0.32

ACC3 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.34

ACC4 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.36 0.34

ACC5 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.3 0.34

T 1.5 s, C 0.1

ACC1 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.42 0.43 0.44

ACC2 0.38 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.38

ACC3 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36

ACC4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.41 0.46

ACC5 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.38

Table 2. Ground acceleration at yield limit state for generic frames (ve-storey frames).

a

g (actual yield)

Articial records Fixed base V

s

500 V

s

300 V

s

200 V

s

100 V

s

50

T 0.5 s, C 0.1

ACC1 0.37 0.36 0.34 0.33 0.36 0.35

ACC2 0.39 0.38 0.37 0.37 0.35 0.33

ACC3 0.35 0.37 0.4 0.39 0.37 0.3

ACC4 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.29 0.26

ACC5 0.41 0.4 0.36 0.35 0.3 0.3

T 0.5 s, C 0.2

ACC1 0.59 0.59 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.55

ACC2 0.54 0.56 0.54 0.55 0.52 0.53

ACC3 0.49 0.5 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.41

ACC4 0.52 0.52 0.53 0.52 0.52 0.5

ACC5 0.59 0.58 0.59 0.58 0.59 0.5

T 0.7 s, C 0.1

ACC1 0.38 0.39 0.38 0.36 0.32 0.2

ACC2 0.37 0.38 0.36 0.34 0.31 0.22

ACC3 0.37 0.33 0.31 0.27 0.26 0.27

ACC4 0.35 0.33 0.28 0.27 0.26 0.2

ACC5 0.34 0.34 0.33 0.32 0.27 0.24

T 0.7 s, C 0.2

ACC1 0.47 0.47 0.48 0.48 0.46 0.6

ACC2 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.48 0.5 0.6

ACC3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.55

ACC4 0.48 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.48 0.54

ACC5 0.49 0.5 0.5 0.53 0.54 0.55

13

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. , 128 (2013) 22

A. M. HALABIAN AND M. ERFANI

Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DOI: 10.1002/tal

Table 5. Ground acceleration at collapse limit state for generic frames (ve-storey frames).

a

g (actual yield)

Articial records Fixed base V

s

500 V

s

300 V

s

200 V

s

100 V

s

50

T 0.5 s, C 0.1

ACC1 1.98 1.95 1.93 1.89 1.9 0.95

ACC2 2.09 2.01 1.91 1.9 1.87 1.05

ACC3 1.87 1.96 1.95 1.87 1.9 1.1

ACC4 2.32 2.31 2.33 2.28 2.19 0.95

ACC5 1.93 1.9 1.92 1.93 2.17 1.1

T 0.5 s, C 0.2

ACC1 2.2 2.3 2.19 2.1 2.2 1.3

ACC2 2.1 2.15 2.02 2 1.75 1.7

ACC3 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.91 1.87 1.13

ACC4 2.2 2.19 2.18 2.05 1.97 1.3

ACC5 2.2 2.12 2.11 2.03 2.01 1.35

T 0.7 s, C 0.1

ACC1 1.7 1.68 1.65 1.6 1.6 0.55

ACC2 1.67 1.65 1.67 1.66 1.67 0.65

ACC3 1.51 1.51 1.5 1.49 1.52 0.7

ACC4 2.01 1.98 1.85 1.92 1.78 0.6

ACC5 1.39 1.4 1.4 1.49 1.42 0.65

T 0.7 s, C 0.2

ACC1 1.48 1.47 1.49 1.44 1.32 1.23

ACC2 1.8 1.79 1.78 1.79 1.71 1.43

ACC3 1.75 1.74 1.73 1.71 1.7 1.16

ACC4 2 1.99 2.01 2 1.9 1.23

ACC5 1.36 1.36 1.35 1.31 1.24 1.13

Table 4. Ground acceleration at yield limit state for generic frames (20-storey frames).

a

g (actual yield)

Articial records Fixed base V

s

500 V

s

300 V

s

200 V

s

100 V

s

50

T 2 s, C 0.03

ACC1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.32 0.32 0.3

ACC2 0.38 0.39 0.39 0.36 0.37 0.48

ACC3 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.38 0.36 0.32

ACC4 0.39 0.39 0.38 0.37 0.33 0.33

ACC5 0.36 0.36 0.35 0.34 0.33 0.35

T 2 s, C 0.08

ACC1 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.59 0.63 0.42

ACC2 0.56 0.57 0.56 0.56 0.57 0.47

ACC3 0.53 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.53 0.49

ACC4 0.67 0.67 0.66 0.64 0.68 0.42

ACC5 0.64 0.63 0.63 0.61 0.57 0.41

T 3 s, C 0.03

ACC1 0.38 0.39 0.39 0.38 0.8 0.43

ACC2 0.54 0.49 0.5 0.5 0.53 0.49

ACC3 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49

ACC4 0.36 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.35

ACC5 0.46 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.49

T 3 s, C 0.08

ACC1 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.62 0.59 0.69

ACC2 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.91 0.92 1.13

ACC3 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.85 1.01

ACC4 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.85 0.86 1

ACC5 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.61 0.57 0.93

14

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. , 128 (2013) 22

EFFECT OF SSI ON RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR

Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DOI: 10.1002/tal

Table 6. Ground acceleration at collapse limit state for generic frames (10-storey frames).

a

g (actual yield)

Articial records Fixed base V

s

500 V

s

300 V

s

200 V

s

100 V

s

50

T 1 s, C 0.05

ACC1 1.34 1.35 1.35 1.36 1.37 1.16

ACC2 1.48 1.47 1.48 1.44 1.36 1.2

ACC3 1.39 1.39 1.36 1.32 1.44 1.49

ACC4 1.94 1.95 1.99 1.99 2 1.69

ACC5 1.91 1.97 1.83 2.05 1.96 1.83

T 1 s, C 0.1

ACC1 1.79 1.79 1.78 1.91 1.9 1.43

ACC2 2.19 2.19 2.1 2 1.69 1.49

ACC3 1.8 1.8 1.79 1.76 1.72 1.1

ACC4 1.79 1.78 1.76 1.7 1.74 1.58

ACC5 1.64 1.65 1.66 1.67 1.6 1.3

T 1.5 s, C 0.05

ACC1 1.25 1.36 1.37 1.35 1.27 1.04

ACC2 1.3 1.29 1.28 1.3 1.22 1.06

ACC3 0.99 0.99 0.95 0.97 0.93 0.92

ACC4 1.61 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.62 1.39

ACC5 1.9 1.92 1.91 1.93 1.85 1.48

T 1.5 s, C 0.1

ACC1 1.38 1.38 1.37 1.39 1.4 1.2

ACC2 1.81 1.76 1.75 1.75 1.76 1.37

ACC3 1.55 1.51 1.51 1.51 1.4 1.35

ACC4 1.43 1.43 1.42 1.46 1.38 1.27

ACC5 1.49 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.43 1.22

Table 7. Ground acceleration at collapse limit state for generic frames (20-storey frames).

a

g(actual yield)

Articial records Fixed base V

s

500 V

s

300 V

s

200 V

s

100 V

s

50

T 2 s, C 0.03

ACC1 1.3 1.31 1.32 1.46 1.5 1.38

ACC2 2.1 2.16 2.17 2 2.05 1.73

ACC3 1.53 1.53 1.54 1.55 1.54 1.28

ACC4 1.68 1.71 1.68 1.67 1.74 1.27

ACC5 1.56 1.56 1.52 1.51 1.5 1.48

T 2 s, C 0.08

ACC1 1.99 2.04 2.05 2.05 1.89 0.93

ACC2 2.49 2.51 2.46 2.45 2.36 1.5

ACC3 1.99 1.95 1.97 1.95 1.92 1.02

ACC4 2.27 2.3 2.23 2.05 2.08 1.13

ACC5 1.76 1.73 1.72 1.66 1.55 0.79

T 3 s, C 0.03

ACC1 1.24 1.33 1.33 1.28 1.24 1.26

ACC2 1.5 1.88 1.88 1.86 1.5 1.43

ACC3 1.37 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.1

ACC4 1.5 1.53 1.53 1.52 1.46 1.38

ACC5 1.8 1.79 1.79 1.78 1.72 1.76

T 3 s, C 0.08

ACC1 2.31 2.31 2.31 2.25 2.01 1.76

ACC2 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.82 1.74 1.57

ACC3 2.17 2.16 2.15 2.18 2.02 1.69

ACC4 1.48 1.48 1.47 1.44 1.43 1.59

ACC5 2.16 2.17 2.16 2.07 2 2.55

15

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. , 128 (2013) 22

A. M. HALABIAN AND M. ERFANI

Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DOI: 10.1002/tal

T=0.5sec , C=0.1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Fixed Base Vs=500m/s Vs=300m/s Vs=200m/s Vs=100m/s Vs=50m/s

Fixed Base Vs=500m/s Vs=300m/s Vs=200m/s Vs=100m/s Vs=50m/s

(

P

G

A

)

c

o

l

l

a

p

s

e

/

(

P

G

A

)

y

i

e

l

d

ACC1 ACC2 ACC3 ACC4 ACC5

T=0.7sec , C=0.1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

(

P

G

A

)

c

o

l

l

a

p

s

e

/

(

P

G

A

)

y

i

e

l

d

ACC1 ACC2 ACC3 ACC4 ACC5

(a)

(b)

Figure 8. Variation of response reduction factor with supporting soil shear velocity for low-rise

frames having low strength.

16

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. , 128 (2013) 22

EFFECT OF SSI ON RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR

Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DOI: 10.1002/tal

T=0.7sec , C=0.2

0

1

2

3

4

5

(

P

G

A

)

c

o

l

l

a

p

s

e

/

(

P

G

A

)

y

i

e

l

d

ACC1 ACC2 ACC3 ACC4 ACC5

T=0.5sec , C=0.2

0

1

2

3

4

5

(

P

G

A

)

c

o

l

l

a

p

s

e

/

(

P

G

A

)

y

i

e

l

d

ACC1 ACC2 ACC3 ACC4 ACC5

Fixed Base Vs=500m/s Vs=300m/s Vs=200m/s Vs=100m/s Vs=50m/s

Fixed Base Vs=500m/s Vs=300m/s Vs=200m/s Vs=100m/s Vs=50m/s

(a)

(b)

Figure 9. Variation of response reduction factor with supporting soil shear velocity for low-rise

frames having high strength.

RC frames supporting on very soft soils could be detrimental. In this case, excessive exible base

could probably act as a gurative soft storey causing noticeable decrease (up to 50%) in response

reduction factor. The results also demonstrate that for typical stiff soils with 300 < V

s

500 m/s,

the effect of foundation exibility on ductility reduction factors could be benecial. However, for

short period structures, this result should be used with caution. In the case of typical soft soils with

100 V

s

300 m/s, it can be noted that depending on the strength level of the structure, the effect

of the foundation exibility on ductility reduction factor of RC frames could be benecial or det-

rimental. The results emphasize that ve-storey frames with lower strength show up to 50% increase

in ductility reduction factor; while ve-storey frames with higher strength outcomes show a decrease

of about 15% in the response reduction factor. In fact, it is indicated that the frames with the same

stiffness but various strengths could demand different ductility when considering SSI effect. The

variation of mean and the mean plus standard deviation response reduction factors of the ve-storey

frames under ve articial records, referred to as (mean) and (mean + standard deviation), with

soil shear wave velocity are shown in Figure 10(a, b) for two levels of stiffnesses and two different

strength levels.

Similarly, the variation of strength dependent ductility reduction factors for 10-storey generic

frames subjected to articial excitations used in this study are shown in Figures 11(a, b) and 12(a,

b). Each gure illustrates the variation of ductility reduction factors covering a range of exibly

17

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. , 128 (2013) 22

A. M. HALABIAN AND M. ERFANI

Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DOI: 10.1002/tal

T=0.5sec

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

(

P

G

A

)

c

o

l

l

a

p

s

e

/

(

P

G

A

)

y

i

e

l

d

T=0.5sec , C=0.1 (mean+standard deviation)

T=0.5sec , C=0.1 (mean)

T=0.5sec , C=0.2 (mean+standard deviation)

T=0.5sec , C=0.2 (mean)

T=0.7sec

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

(

P

G

A

)

c

o

l

l

a

p

s

e

/

(

P

G

A

)

y

i

e

l

d

T=0.7sec , C=0.1 (mean+standard deviation)

T=0.7sec , C=0.1 (mean)

T=0.7sec , C=0.2 (mean+standard deviation)

T=0.7sec , C=0.2 (mean)

(a)

(b)

Fixed Base Vs=500m/s Vs=300m/s Vs=200m/s Vs=100m/s Vs=50m/s

Fixed Base Vs=500m/s Vs=300m/s Vs=200m/s Vs=100m/s Vs=50m/s

Figure 10. Variation of mean and mean plus one standard deviation factor response reduction

factor with supporting soil shear velocity for low-rise structures.

18

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. , 128 (2013) 22

EFFECT OF SSI ON RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR

Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DOI: 10.1002/tal

T=1sec, C=0.05

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

(

P

G

A

)

c

o

l

l

a

p

s

e

/

(

P

G

A

)

y

i

e

l

d

ACC1 ACC2 ACC3 ACC4 ACC5

T=1.5sec, C=0.05

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

(

P

G

A

)

c

o

l

l

a

p

s

e

/

(

P

G

A

)

y

i

e

l

d

ACC1 ACC2 ACC3 ACC4 ACC5

Fixed Base Vs=500m/s Vs=300m/s Vs=200m/s Vs=100m/s Vs=50m/s

(a)

Fixed Base Vs=500m/s Vs=300m/s Vs=200m/s Vs=100m/s Vs=50m/s

(b)

Figure 11. Variation of response reduction factor with supporting soil shear velocity for mid-rise

frames having low strength.

19

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. , 128 (2013) 22

A. M. HALABIAN AND M. ERFANI

Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DOI: 10.1002/tal

supported to xed-supported structures at a particular strength level. This variation is shown for

structures with two different fundamental natural periods, i.e. (a) T 1 s and (b) T 1.5 s. The

results show that like short-rise RC frames, the foundation exibility could signicantly decrease

the force reduction factors for mid-rise structures supporting on very soft soils. However, in the

case of typical stiff soils with 300 < V

s

500 m/s, the effect of foundation exibility is approxi-

mately negligible. For 10-storey frame structure resting on soils with wave velocity 100 V

s

300 m/s, the effects of SSI on reduction factors vary with strength levels of generic frames; so that

results demonstrated 15% increase or decrease in force reduction factors depending on excitation

frequency content. In general, it can be concluded that the effect of foundation exibility on ductil-

ity reduction factor of mid-rise RC frame structure is of lesser degree compared with the short-rise

structures. The variation of mean and the mean plus standard deviation response reduction factors

of the 10-storey frames under ve articial records, referred to as (mean) and (mean + standard

deviation), with soil shear wave velocity are shown in Figure 13(a, b) for two levels of stiffnesses

and two different strength levels.

Figures 14(a, b) and 15(a, b) present ductility reduction factors for 20-storey generic frames

subjected to each particular acceleration time history versus different supporting soil shear wave

velocities for a practical range of structures strength level. In order to evaluate the effect of

the structure period, the variation of the ductility reduction factors with the strength level and the

T=1 , C=0.1

0

1

2

3

4

5

(

P

G

A

)

c

o

l

l

a

p

s

e

/

(

P

G

A

)

y

i

e

l

d

ACC1 ACC2 ACC3 ACC4 ACC5

T=1.5sec , C=0.1

0

1

2

3

4

5

(

P

G

A

)

c

o

l

l

a

p

s

e

/

(

P

G

A

)

y

i

e

l

d

ACC1 ACC2 ACC3 ACC4 ACC5

(a)

Fixed Base Vs=500m/s Vs=300m/s Vs=200m/s Vs=100m/s Vs=50m/s

(b)

Fixed Base Vs=500m/s Vs=300m/s Vs=200m/s Vs=100m/s Vs=50m/s

Figure 12. Variation of response reduction factor with supporting soil shear velocity for mid-rise

frames having high strength.

20

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. , 128 (2013) 22

EFFECT OF SSI ON RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR

Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DOI: 10.1002/tal

T=1sec

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

(

P

G

A

)

c

o

l

l

a

p

s

e

/

(

P

G

A

)

y

i

e

l

d

T=1sec , C=0.05 (mean+standard deviation)

T=1sec , C=0.05 (mean)

T=1sec , C=0.1 (mean+standard deviation)

T=1sec , C=0.1 (mean)

T=1.5sec

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

(

P

G

A

)

c

o

l

l

a

p

s

e

/

(

P

G

A

)

y

i

e

l

d

T=1.5sec , C=0.05 (mean+standard deviation)

T=1.5sec , C=0.05 (mean)

T=1.5sec , C=0.1 (mean+standard deviation)

T=1.5sec , C=0.1 (mean)

(a)

Fixed Base Vs=500m/s Vs=300m/s Vs=200m/s Vs=100m/s Vs=50m/s

(b)

Fixed Base Vs=500m/s Vs=300m/s Vs=200m/s Vs=100m/s Vs=50m/s

Figure 13. Variation of mean and mean plus one standard deviation factor response reduction

factor with supporting soil shear velocity for mid-rise structures.

21

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. , 128 (2013) 22

A. M. HALABIAN AND M. ERFANI

Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DOI: 10.1002/tal

T=2sec , C=0.03

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

(

P

G

A

)

c

o

l

l

a

p

s

e

/

(

P

G

A

)

y

i

e

l

d

ACC1 ACC2 ACC3 ACC4 ACC5

T=3sec , C=0.03

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

(

P

G

A

)

c

o

l

l

a

p

s

e

/

(

P

G

A

)

y

i

e

l

d

ACC1 ACC2 ACC3 ACC4 ACC5

(a)

Fixed Base Vs=500m/s Vs=300m/s Vs=200m/s Vs=100m/s Vs=50m/s

(b)

Fixed Base Vs=500m/s Vs=300m/s Vs=200m/s Vs=100m/s Vs=50m/s

Figure 14. Variation of response reduction factor with supporting soil shear velocity for high-rise

frames having low strength.

22

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. , 128 (2013) 22

EFFECT OF SSI ON RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR

Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DOI: 10.1002/tal

T=2sec ,C=0.08

0

1

2

3

4

5

(

P

G

A

)

c

o

l

l

a

p

s

e

/

(

P

G

A

)

y

i

e

l

d

ACC1 ACC2 ACC3 ACC4 ACC5

T=3sec , C=0.08

0

1

2

3

4

5

(

P

G

A

)

c

o

l

l

a

p

s

e

/

(

P

G

A

)

y

i

e

l

d

ACC1 ACC2 ACC3 ACC4 ACC5

(a)

Fixed Base Vs=500m/s Vs=300m/s Vs=200m/s Vs=100m/s Vs=50m/s

(b)

Fixed Base Vs=500m/s Vs=300m/s Vs=200m/s Vs=100m/s Vs=50m/s

Figure 15. Variation of response reduction factor with supporting soil shear velocity for high-rise

frames having high strength.

supporting soil shear wave velocity is presented for selected period values T 2.0 and 3.0 s. The

calculated response reduction factors for the xed-base generic models having different levels of

strengths are also shown in Figures 14 and 15. It can be noted that whenever the ductile behaviour

of structures is considered in design, the ductility reduction factor of the structure is sensitive to

the stiffness and strength of the structure as well as the foundation exibility. It can be noticed

that the results for soil shear wave velocities less than about 150 m/s showed that the additional

exibility due to the foundation compliance to the exible structures reduces the ductility of the

system with lesser degree compared with short-rise and mid-rise RC frames, an apparently detri-

mental effect of SSI. In the case of typical stiff soils with 200 < V

s

500 m/s, the effect of foun-

dation exibility is approximately negligible. In general, the results illustrated that the foundation

exibility effect on response reduction factor is of the lesser order than the stiffness and strength

of the structure. The variation of mean and the mean plus standard deviation response reduction

factors of the 20-storey frames subjected to ve articial records, referred to as (mean) and (mean

+ standard deviation), with soil shear wave velocity are shown in Figure 16(a, b) for two levels of

stiffnesses and two different strength levels.

It is interesting to study the effect of different parameters affecting response reduction factors

of RC frame structures. Accordingly, the results of more than 1200 inelastic timehistory analyses

presented in Figures 816 were employed to perform regression analyses obtaining response reduc-

tion factor envelope for examined RC generic frames supporting on different exible foundations.

23

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. , 128 (2013) 22

A. M. HALABIAN AND M. ERFANI

Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DOI: 10.1002/tal

T=2sec

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

(

P

G

A

)

c

o

l

l

a

p

s

e

/

(

P

G

A

)

y

i

e

l

d

T=2sec , C=0.03 (mean+standard deviation)

T=2sec , C=0.03 (mean)

T=2sec , C=0.08 (mean+standard deviation)

T=2sec , C=0.08 (mean)

T=3sec

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

(

P

G

A

)

c

o

l

l

a

p

s

e

/

(

P

G

A

)

y

i

e

l

d

T=3sec ,C=0.03 (mean+standard deviation)

T=3sec ,C=0.03 (mean)

T=3sec ,C=0.08 (mean+standard deviation)

T=3sec ,C=0.08 (mean)

(a)

Fixed Base Vs=500m/s Vs=300m/s Vs=200m/s Vs=100m/s Vs=50m/s

(b)

Fixed Base Vs=500m/s Vs=300m/s Vs=200m/s Vs=100m/s Vs=50m/s

Figure 16. Variation of mean and mean plus one standard deviation factor response reduction

factor with supporting soil shear velocity for high-rise structures.

Figure 17(a,b) depict the mean plus standard deviation response reduction factor points of generic

frames subjected to the ve articial seismic actions considered in this study, considering the

strength level of the structure. The generic RC frames are classied again according to their strength

level, small strength and large strength levels, taking also their stiffness into account as follows:

Small Strength

C for

C f

0 5sec T 1 sec

<

0 1

0 05

. .

. oor

C for

1sec T 2 sec

2sec T 3 sec

<

0 03 .

L Strength

C for

C f arge

0 5sec T 1 sec

> <

>

0 1

0 05

. .

. oor

C for

1sec T 2 sec

2sec T 3 sec

<

>

0 03 .

The response reduction factors are shown for the xed-base and exibly based structures. Again,

Figure 17(a,b) demonstrate that force reduction factor could be related to the period of the structure.

Furthermore, the strength of the structure could be of the important parameters affecting the force

reduction factors which also alters the trend of the variation of force reduction factors with period of

24

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. , 128 (2013) 22

EFFECT OF SSI ON RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR

Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DOI: 10.1002/tal

Small Strength

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

T(sec)

{

(

P

G

A

)

c

o

l

l

a

p

s

e

/

(

P

G

A

)

y

i

e

l

d

}

m

e

a

n

+

s

t

a

n

d

a

r

d

d

e

v

i

a

t

i

o

n

fixed base Vs=500m/s Vs=300m/s

Vs=200m/s Vs=100m/s Vs=50m/s

Large Strength

0

1

2

3

4

5

T(sec)

{

(

P

G

A

)

c

o

l

l

a

p

s

e

/

(

P

G

A

)

y

i

e

l

d

}

m

e

a

n

+

s

t

a

n

d

a

r

d

d

e

v

i

a

t

i

o

n

fixed base Vs=500m/s Vs=300m/s

Vs=200m/s Vs=100m/s Vs=50m/s

(a)

(b)

Figure 17. Variation of mean plus one standard deviation factor response reduction factor with

supporting soil shear velocity for: (a) low strength structures; b) high strength structures.

structures. Based on the resulting data shown in Figures 17 and 18 on various kinds of structures in

terms of stiffness and strength supporting on different types of soil conditions, the following expres-

sions may be suggested for the force reduction factors:

R

T T

T T

Log Vs

T

+ +

( )

2 074

1 1 7 4

3 965 0 815

0 327

2

2

.

. .

. .

.

for SSmall Strength

R T T

V V

s s

+ + 3 7 0 35

1776 34 4

2

2

. .

.

for Large Strength

(21)

The tted regression equations of response reduction factors suggested in Equation (21) along

with the mean plus standard deviation of response reduction factors of the frames examined in this

study are presented in Figures 18(a,b) and 19(a,b) for two levels of structural strength in terms of the

structural period representing structural stiffness and soil shear wave velocity representing supporting

soil exibility as well. The variation coefcient, r

2

, for the tted regression equations are 0.95 and

0.87 for higher and lower strength levels, respectively; where,

25

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. , 128 (2013) 22

A. M. HALABIAN AND M. ERFANI

Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DOI: 10.1002/tal

(a)

(b)

Figure 18. Regression lines for response reduction factor of small strength structures in terms of:

(a) structural period; (b) supporting soil shear wave velocity.

r

SSR

SSR SSD

2

+

(22)

in which SSR (

T

i

T)

2

and SSD (T

i

T

i

)

2

. T, T

i

and

T

i

are the mean of variables in the regres-

sion process, the variable from the set of data contributing in the regression process and the corre-

sponding variable measured using the tted regression equations, respectively.

7. CONCLUSIONS

In this study, to determine the SSI effect on force reduction factor of RC frame structures, 2D generic

frames were developed. The incremental time history analysis using ve articial earthquake records

was employed to assess response reduction factor. The results showed that whenever the ductile

behaviour of RC frame structures is considered in design, the ductility reduction factor of the structure

is sensitive to the stiffness of the structure, strength of the structure and the foundation exibility.

The main ndings drawn from this study can be summarized as:

(1) For RC frame structures resting on very soft soil with V

s

50 m/s, effect of foundation exibil-

ity considerably decreases force reduction factor. In this case, excessive exible base may

26

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. , 128 (2013) 22

EFFECT OF SSI ON RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR

Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DOI: 10.1002/tal

(a)

(b)

Figure 19. Regression lines for response reduction factor of large strength structures in terms of:

(a) structural period; (b) supporting soil shear wave velocity.

probably act as a gurative soft storey which causes noticeable decrease in force reduction

factor.

(2) For typical stiff soils with 300 < V

s

500 m/s, the effect of foundation exibility for RC frame

structures is approximately negligible.

(3) The foundation exibility could alter force reduction factor for typical soft soils with

100 V

s

300 m/s, depending on the structural period and the level structural strength. For

short-rise frames with low strength level, the response reduction factor increases to maximum

about 50%, while for similar frame with higher strength, force reduction factor decreases

to maximum about 15%. For medium-rise frames under the same soil condition, force reduc-

tion factor increased or decreased to maximum about 15% depending on the frequency content

of excitation. These changes for high-rise frames are lesser to the order of maximum about

10%.

(4) The effect of foundation exibility on force reduction factor decreases while the period of

frame systems increases.

(5) The results also demonstrated that as the strength of frame structures increases, the effect of

foundation exibility on the response reduction factor decreases.

27

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. , 128 (2013) 22

A. M. HALABIAN AND M. ERFANI

Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DOI: 10.1002/tal

REFERENCES

Avils J, Prez-Rocha JL. 2005. Inuence of foundation exibility on R

and C

221230.

Avils J, Prez-Rocha LE. 2003. Soil-structure interaction in yielding systems. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynam-

ics 32: 7491771.

Crouse CB. 2002. Commentary on soil-structure interaction in U.S. seismic provisions. In Proceeding of the 7th U.S. National

Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Boston, USA.

Elnashai AS, Broderick BM. 1996. Seismic response of composite frames-II. Calculation of behaviour factors. Engineering

Structures 18(9): 707723.

Halabian AM, Kabiri S. 2006. Effect of soil-structure interaction on system ductility of R/C stake-like structures. First Euro-

pean Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Geneva, Switzerland; 540.

Halabian AM, Emami AR. 2008. Effect of foundation exibility on inelastic response of 3D R/C frame structures. The Fourth

National Conference on Civil Engineering, Tehran, Iran.

Humar JL, Rahgozar MA. 1996. Concept of overstrength in seismic design. 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineer-

ing, Oxford, England; 639.

Stewart JP, Kim S, Bielak J, Dobry R, Power MS. 2003. Revisions to soil-structure interaction procedures in NEHRP design

provisions. Earthquake Spectra 19: 677696.

Veletsos AS, Verbic B. 1973. Vibration of viscoelastic foundations. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2:

87102.

Veletsos AS, Verbic B. 1974. Dynamics of elastic and yielding structurefoundation systems. Proceedings of the 5th World

Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Italy; 26102613.

Veletsos AS, Wei YT. 1971. Lateral and rocking vibration of footing. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division,

ASCE 97: 12271248.

Wa M, Elnashai AS. 2002. Calibration of force reduction factors of RC structures. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 6(2):

239273.

28

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. , 128 (2013) 22

- 16174 - Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure for Seismic Design of Buildings.pdfUploaded bySherwin Sr Macaraeg Sarmiento
- seismic damage analisis building and damage limiting designUploaded byAnonymous whmDU3Z
- Pushover Procedure for Seismic Analysis of BuildingsUploaded byOdair Tonatiu Martínez Reyes
- 14WCEE Keynote PresentationUploaded bymarianellachs
- OptimizeUploaded byAmbrish
- 744-R002Uploaded bymercab15
- 15WCEE 1940 pushover analysis.pdfUploaded bycornelo2007
- Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Setback Buildings using Pushover AnalysisUploaded byandyoreta6332
- Influence of Soil Conditions on BuildingUploaded byAnonymous lMTMFfmPl
- macedo_ejUploaded byRocky Ayala Bizarro
- Seismic Evaluation of Prestressed Concrete BridgesUploaded byTarak A Positive
- Section C2-Assessment Procedures and Analysis Techniques (1)Uploaded byNazar Bazaraa
- Overview of Nonlinear Problems,Modeling and Analysis.pdfUploaded byAsif Mostafa Anik
- NCh2369-2003 (English April 25 2005)LDSUploaded byPamela Garcia
- TH3048-ICIMPACT-2014.pptxUploaded byIsrael Cooper
- Review IndianSeismicCodeIS1893(Part1)2002Uploaded byKunwarKhaliqeAhmad
- Comparison of Seismic Codes of 1981 Japan (Bslj), 2000 Usa (IBC) AND 1999 IRAN (ICS)Uploaded byhazelfid
- Finite Element Seismic Analysis of a Guyed MastUploaded bysebaing
- Mukherjee Et Al. - OTC-24683-MS New Guideline for Seismic Assessment of Fixed Facilities in MalaysUploaded byAbu Aimon
- EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN.pdfUploaded bygavisita123
- 4icee-Stmf Goel PrenstUploaded byKYINC
- 1886Uploaded byzikzak2011
- ACI 350.3-06 Appendix B Seismic Loads for Liquid-Containing RectangularUploaded byCesar Torres
- Matlab Code for Economical Seismic Design of Irregular(1)Uploaded byPar Naw
- 10cv834_July 2014Uploaded byವಿನಯ್ ಎಮ್. ಆರ್
- Performance Evaluation of an Existing RC Building Using SAPUploaded bykbkwebs
- Seismic response of soft storey on high rise buildingUploaded bysjaybees
- 2Uploaded bysfqwege
- 3.ReportUploaded bySumitVastre
- klwnyrWCEE2012_4870.pdfUploaded by1man1book

- Pile - Point of FixityUploaded byJahid Jahidul Islam Khan
- Detailing of Plastic Hinges in Seismic Design of Concrete StruscturesUploaded bypradeepjoshi007
- 304Uploaded bypradeepjoshi007
- PT BuildingsUploaded bypradeepjoshi007
- EIJCSE3081Uploaded bypradeepjoshi007
- Axial Deformation of Column in Tall Structuresfinal1Uploaded bypradeepjoshi007
- Course 3 Flat Slab DesignUploaded bymariobrossmarion33
- Eurocode Design Example BookUploaded byGianni Iotu
- Design Basis 1Uploaded bypradeepjoshi007
- Practical Modelling of High-rise Dual Systems With Reinforced Concrete Slab-column FramesUploaded bythanzawtun1981
- Paper 38Uploaded bypradeepjoshi007
- 2006_03Uploaded bypradeepjoshi007
- 001Uploaded bypradeepjoshi007
- Dynamic Compaction 1Uploaded bypradeepjoshi007
- Cover LetterUploaded bypradeepjoshi007
- 14 CelebiUploaded bypradeepjoshi007
- d 1347042413Uploaded bypradeepjoshi007
- Iset502Uploaded bypradeepjoshi007
- 54Uploaded bypradeepjoshi007
- Borchert Beisheim Japan 20111Uploaded bypradeepjoshi007
- 1a143 8pcee VijayUploaded bypradeepjoshi007
- JoshiUploaded bypradeepjoshi007
- creep shrinkage.pdfUploaded bymanueleste
- 7B125 8PCEE SullivanUploaded bypradeepjoshi007
- eScholarship UC Item 9t09660mUploaded bypradeepjoshi007

- Design Criteria for Control and InstrumentationUploaded bytuyencntn
- Logit ModelUploaded byNISHANT
- Prout PolicyUploaded byAnanta
- Cosmology ExercisesUploaded byfuzzy_mouse
- SPE-184834-MSUploaded bySS
- Veritas 8 Compact LeafletsUploaded byRui Monteiro
- PCI for BF and Future of IronmakingUploaded bysaliljain2001
- TPS1200 User Manual EnUploaded bycristicoman
- DSS-1stUploaded bysirfmein
- Multiplicative Reasoning LessonUploaded byjakbnimbl7201
- Inverse Kinematics of Robot Manipulator with 5 Degree of Freedom based on ANFIS toolboxUploaded byInternational Journal for Scientific Research and Development - IJSRD
- 1 IntroductionUploaded byMarky Chena
- interpretasi seismikUploaded byMoh Iqbal Tawakal
- EngineersGuide Handbook ALI 9.600 092017 EnUploaded byEswin Jop Paico
- IJVES-Y14-05338Uploaded bySachin
- Heat Transfer Model for Predicting Survival Time in Cold Water Immersion f. Tarlochan, s. RameshUploaded byJohn-Robert White
- Double Dead MeatUploaded bycarlken_07
- Viscosity Index - ASTM D2270-04Uploaded byJuanP_Naranjo
- Effect of Alccofine and Foundry Slag on Compressive Strength of High Strength ConcreteUploaded byInnovative Research Publications
- CIE 324 Lessons 14 and 15 Rev 0(1)Uploaded byTrung T Truong
- 2012 EEUploaded bySambitSagarPani
- Module 4.ScilabUploaded byorg25gr
- geogrid reinforced aggregate under cyclic load.pdfUploaded bythadikkaran
- 05 BendingUploaded byrobnewcomb
- Marshall Mix Design ProcedureUploaded bybraackw
- Ee316_4Uploaded bybigirimw
- Ketac Molar (1)Uploaded byKa Nordenström
- Anti-Corrosion en 110117 LowUploaded byinfo9316
- Ctc Cleaner VlcUploaded byStasio80
- Unit 4 2005 JuneUploaded byraaaaaawr