2 views

Uploaded by rbudiman

3rd

save

- Durability Design US 1998
- C4008 - Geotechnic 2 (Kertas soalan politeknik-politeknik malaysia kejuruteraan awam)
- Surface Ply Damage
- rr10802-strength-of-materials
- ENGG317
- 1-s2.0-S0950061811002558-main
- 148811302-03-12-General-Design-Design-of-Integral-Bridges.pdf
- MURO CONTENCION.pdf
- Resorte a Compresion Inventor
- ch1
- Tabla de Propiedades II
- 104_chapter_4_pure_bending_for_student.pdf
- p09.pdf
- Mechanical Report
- Tugas Mekanika Tanah II
- Dike
- Stress Distribution in Soils_Geotech
- Part2 Study 1 1
- 426_Theorem of Optimal Reinforcement for Reinforced Concrete
- r7310305-Design of Machine Members-i
- r7310305-Design of Machine Members-i2
- Reference #11 - Zia v49 No3 2004
- 10.1177_002199838201600603
- Shallow Foundation Settlement (Clay) - Tut 6
- Welded Joints Complete
- Design of a Union of Rod
- MAE02 L20 Structures
- Finite Element Analysis Exercise1-Static 1-1
- Columns Biaxial Bending
- Strength of Materials - Shear Stresses
- BRI_Japan_Seismic Evaluation of Existing RC Buildings_2001.pdf
- Viewcontent Fourier
- BRI_Japan_Seismic Evaluation of Existing RC Buildings_2001
- Form Tie
- 704-02
- PEER ATC 72 1 Report Copy

You are on page 1of 9

(ICEEDM-III 2016)

**Behavior of Basement Wall Subjected to Synthetic Harmonic
**

Ground Motions

Ahmad Beltian Winnera, Widjojo A. Prakosob

a

Graduate, Civil Engineering Department, Universitas Indonesia, Indonesia

b

Professor, Civil Engineering Department, Universitas Indonesia, Indonesia

Abstract

In recent years, basement walls’ increased lateral earth pressure associated with seismic ground

motions has attracted discussions due to good performance of basement walls during relatively large

earthquakes. One of the concerns is whether the current methods would provide excessively

consevative lateral earth pressures. The 2-D plane strain dynamic finite element models were used to

examine the lateral earth pressures behind wall and the wall bending moments of a typical concrete

basement. The seismic ground motions considered were synthetic ground motions with different peak

base acceleration values and frequency contents. The linear elastic constitutive soil model and Mohr-

Coulomb constitutive soil model were used in the analyses. The findings of this study include the

effect of limited soil tensile strength on change in lateral earth pressure and on change in wall bending

moments, the relationship between input frequency and peak ground acceleration and resulting change

in lateral earth pressures and change in wall bending moments, as well as the change in wall bending

moments not only due to change in lateral earth pressures.

Keywords:Basement; lateral earth pressure; wall bending moments; dynamic finite element.

1. INTRODUCTION

**The Indonesia seismic building code [1] requires that basement walls be designed against the
**

increased lateral earth pressures associated with seismic ground motions. However, the code does not

specify any methods to estimate the pressures. In recent years at the international level, this topic has

again attracted discussions due to good performance of basement walls during relatively large

earthquakes (e.g., [2, 3, 4]). Many different design estimates have been proposed (e.g., [4]) in the

literature. One of the concerns is whether the typical estimation methods would provide lateral earth

pressures that are too consevative.

The objective of this study is to identify the change in the dynamic lateral earth pressures behind

basement wall and the associated change in wall bending moments with a change in seismic input

ground motion parameters. The motions considered are synthetic ground motions with different peak

base acceleration values and frequency contents. The basement considered is a 2-level basement

typically constructed in Jakarta area, but no pile foundations and embedded basement walls are

considered in the model. This paper describes the model and cases evaluated, as well the numerical

results, particularly in terms of the lateral earth pressures and the wall bending moments.

The thickness of the base of the basement is 2 m.6 m.2. RESEARCH METHOD The depth and width of the basement considered are 8 m and 31 m. while the thickness of the basement wall is 0. There are two soil layer. and the material is assummed to be concrete. namely the 18 m thick upper soil layer (Soil 1) and the 12 m thick lower soil layer (Soil 2). respectively. .

. The 2 -D plane str ain finite element meth od was used to examine the lateral e arth pressure s behind wall an d the wall bending mom ents. M aterial Properties Linear Elastic Model M ohr-Coulom b Model Material Properties Soil 1 Soil 2 Walls Soil1 Soil 2 Walls Unit Weight (γ. To avoid spurious re flection duri ng dynamic analyses. The ty pical finite element model is show n as Fig. °) . Six-node triangul ar finite ele ments were used to model the soils.0022. The b asement walls were mo deled as linear elastic m aterial. 5 Hz. The d amping used was the Rayleig h damping m odel with f actors of α = 0 and β = 0 . 1. kPa) .35 0. while the range of frequency (f) varied between 3 H z. No int erface elements were use d to betwee n the soil elements and the w all element s. The typical harmon ic accelerati on time hist ory is show n in Fig.5g. 1. It can be seen that the Mohr- Coulomb model has a high compres sive strength and a lo w tensile strength. 10 . 0. with later al stiffness p rovided by the floor slabs of 791 MN/m and 527 MN /m. while the wall lower and upper lateral supports were mode led as linear elastic mat erial as well.000 Poisson's Ratio (v) 0. namely the linear elastic constitutive soil m odel and Mohr-Coulomb constitutive soil model. GP a) 20 50 24. variable amplitude ha rmonic acc eleration. adopted from [7]. The i nput seismic motion was a consta nt frequency . kN/m3 ) 17 19 24 17 19 24 Elastic Mo dulus (E. and 10 Hz. The properties are given in Table 1. . The numer ical study w as conduct ed using geo technical fi nite element software Plaxis 2-D [6]. 250 250 - Tension Cut Off (kPa) .35 0. . 0 0 - . . 2. Fig. respectively. and 10g. and concret e walls.1 Cohesion ( c.35 0. The harmonic accelerati on was 6 second long. repre senting a da mping ratio of about 5% [5].35 0. a bsorbent boundaries were sp ecified for t he sides and the bottom of the base soil.2g. The accelera tion was applied using the pr escribed dis placement o ption at the middle betw een the two soil layer.1 0. . . esse ntially to examine the effect of the soil lim ited tensile strength to dynamic beh avior of basement walls.000 20 50 24. The range of the pea k ground acceleration varied 0. Two (2) constit utive soil models were used fo r all the tria ngular elements. Finite Eleme nt Model Table 1. T he lateral earth pr essures behi nd wall and t he wall ben ding moments were monitored at five wall heights. - Friction A ngle (ϕ.

024 seconds.2 m 80 2. 3. 5. 4.5 m is slightly below top floor slab. of elastic model remains the same as the static pressures.2 m 40 40 Eart h 0 0 e a a L r t l from wall base 7.) are affected by soil tensile strength as well.2 m u P e e s s r r 5. The pressures at 6 sec. Furthermore. 120 120 (kPa) Lateral Earth Presure (kPa) 80 2. Three monitoring locations are considered. Figure 2 Acceleration Time History (0. while the Mohr. (2) Mohr-Coulomb Model (PGA = 0.5 m ‐40 ‐80 ‐80 2 Time (s) 4 2 Time (s) 4 0 6 0 6 (a) (b) Fig. Figs. and that a positive pressure is a compressive pressure. 3a and 3b show that the limited soil tensile strength affects the total dynamic lateral earth pressures. Lateral Earth Pressure Behind Wall: (1) Elastic Model. 2.5 m from wall base ‐40 7.5 m point is slightly above middle floor slab. the change in the lateral earth pressures follows the input acceleration time history.1 Lateral Earth Pressures The typical time history of the total dynamic lateral earth pressures behind basement wall is shown as Fig. As shown in Figs. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3. while those of MC model is mostly not symmetric due to limited soil tensile strength. the envelope of change in lateral earth pressures of the elastic model is relatively symmetric. and 7.5g.Coulomb (MC) model had maximum tensile stresses equal to soil tensile strength.2 m point is slightly above basement base. the lateral earth pressures at the end of dynamic load (6 sec. 4a and 4b. while those of MC model may decrease or increase depending on the monitoring locations.2g 5Hz) 3. 3. The elastic model experienced high tensile stresses. while the typical time history of change in lateral earth earth pressures (= total dynamic lateral earth pressure – static lateral earth pressure) is shown as Fig. In general. It is noted that the time interval was 0. Frequency = 5Hz) .2 m 5.

2 MC. The change is the largest for the input frequency of 3 Hz.5g. wall base 2. 4. 6 (for monitoring location 3. 5. Frequency = 5Hz) 7 6 from Wall Base 5 Lin. Max. (kPa) 7.5 m Change in Lat.2 m. the total pressure change (= maximum increase – maximum decrease) of both models is relatively the same.5g. The change in pressures at 6 sec.2 m n a L t . However. 80 80 P a k ( ) 2. 5.) are affected by soil tensile strength as well. 1 0 ‐80 ‐40 0 40 80 Max.. Maximum Lateral Earth Pressure Increase / Decrease Behind Wall (PGA = 0. (2) Mohr-Coulomb Model (PGA = 0. 3 an ce Di st MC. the lateral earth pressures at the end of dynamic load (6 sec. i 0 0 5. Press. Change in Lateral Earth Pressure Behind Wall: (1) Elastic Model. and it decreases as the input frequency increases. Furthermore. The maximum pressure increase or decrease of the MC model is always greater than that of the elastic model. the change in lateral earth pressure distribution with depth does not appear to have a certain pattern. while those of MC model is mostly not symmetric due to limited soil tensile strength. Max. The effect of the input frequency on the change in lateral earth pressures is examined in Fig.2 m. while those of MC model may change. of MC model appears to be dependent on the frequency content of the input acceleration as well. of elastic model remains the same as the static pressures. Decr.2 m h n C e a g ‐40 ‐40 from wall base ‐80 ‐80 0 2 4 6 Time (s) 0 2 Time (s) 4 6 (a) (b) Fig. for the MC model. the change is maximum in the upper part of basement wall and then decreases with depth. Max.4 m above basement base) . 4 Lin. The envelope of change in lateral earth pressures of the elastic model is relatively symmetric.. Lateral Pressure Increase/Decrease (kPa) Fig. . while those of MC model are not symmetric. Frequency = 5Hz) The change in lateral earth pressures is summarized in Fig. Max. The maximum pressure increase and decrease of the elastic model are again symmetric. Furthermore. For the elastic model. Incr. Incr. 5. The pressures at 6 sec. 7. Decr.5 m from P e 40 40 s s r .

The increase in pressures becomes smaller as the input frequency increases. Overall. . The increase in pressures appears to be linearly correlated to the peak ground acceleration.4 m from Basement Base The effect of the input frequency and peak acceleration on the maximum lateral earth pressure increase is examined in Fig.4 m from Basement Base: (1) Elastic Model. .5 60 Lin 1 MC 0. . 7. Earth Press. Effect of Input Frequency and Peak Ground Acceleration on Maximum Lateral Earth Pressure Increase Behind Wall at Height = 3. Furthermore. i i 40 40 10 Hz 0 0 5 Hz ‐40 ‐40 3 Hz ‐80 ‐80 0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6 Time (s) Time (s) (a) (b) Fig.2 40 MC 0. (2) Mohr-Coulomb Model (PGA = 0. Increase (kPa) 120 100 Lin 0. the elastic model and the MC model appear to have similar lateral earth pressure behavior. It is of interest that the increase in pressures drops significantly for an input frequency increase from 3 Hz to 5 Hz. Change in Lateral Earth Pressure Behind Wall at Height = 3. 7.2 80 Lin 0. However. the increase in pressures decreases rather insignificantly for a higher frequency increase. 6. 80 80 h n n h n n C P P C P P e e e e a a a a a a k k g g L L s s s s r r t t ( ) ( ) .5 g) 140 Lat. the increase in pressures increases with an increase in the input peak acceleration. .5 20 MC 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 Input Frequency (Hz) Fig.

Three monitoring locations are considered. Furthermore. The pressures at 6 sec. 8 show that the limited soil tensile strength does not affect significantly the change in wall bending moment. Furthermore. Fig. of the elastic model and the MC model remain the same as the static bending moment. and 7. 2. the elastic model and the MC model appear to have similar wall bending moment behavior. 8.2 m 5. and it decreases as the input frequency increases. The envelope of change in wall bending moment of the elastic model is relatively symmetric. 10. It is noted that a positive wall bending moment is when the wall bends toward inside of the basement . Change in Wall Bending Moment: (1) Elastic Model.2 m 200 200 5. Frequency = 5Hz) . The envelope of change in lateral earth pressures of the elastic model is relatively symmetric. the change in the wall bending moment follows the input acceleration time history. while those of MC model may change.5 m Cha nge from wall from wall ‐200 base ‐200 base ‐400 ‐400 0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6 Time (s) Time (s) (a) (b) Fig. of elastic model remains the same as the static pressures.5 m point is slightly above middle floor slab. In general. (2) Mohr-Coulomb Model (PGA= 0. while that of MC model is also practically symmetric. Overall. 400 400 n M (kN‐m) 2. the wall bending moments at the end of dynamic load (6 sec. while that of the MC model is also practically symmetric as well. 5. The change in wall bending moment at 6 sec. while those of MC model may change slightly depending on the monitoring locations.4 m above basement base).5 m is slightly below top floor slab. 9 (for monitoring location 3. Furthermore. The effect of the input frequency and peak acceleration on the maximum increase in wall bending moment is examined in Fig. The effect of the input frequency on the change in wall bending moment is examined in Fig.2 m i B 0 0 7.2 m point is slightly above basement base.2 Wall Bending Moment The typical time history of change in wall bending moment (= total dynamic wall bending moment – static wall bending moment) is shown as Fig. The increase in wall bending moment appears to be linearly correlated to the peak ground acceleration. of MC model appears to be independent of the frequency content of the input acceleration as well.5 m 7.2 m Change in BM (kN‐m) 2.5g. The change is the largest for the input frequency of 3 Hz. the wall bending moment at 6 sec. The increase in wall bending moment decreases linearly as the input frequency increases. the increase in wall bending moment becomes larger with an increase in the input peak acceleration. 8.3.) are not practically affected by soil tensile strength.

but decreases rather insinificantly for a higher input frequency. For the MC model. Furthermore. the envelope of change in lateral earth pressure is not symmetric. The change in lateral earth pressure drops significantly for a increase in an input frequency from 3 Hz to 5 Hz.5 MC 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 Input Frequency (Hz) Fig. (2) Elastic Model (PGA= 0. but the wall bending moment is much less sensitive to the tensile strength. For both models.5g) 800 Max.4 m from Wall Base: (1) Mohr- Coulomb Model. the change in lateral earth pressure and in wall bending moment is the largest for the input frequency of 3 Hz. For the elastic model. Effect of Input Frequency and Peak Ground Acceleration on Maximum Wall Bending Moment Increase at Height = 3. Change in Wall Bending Moment at Height = 3. The change in wall bending moment appears to be linearly correlated to the input frequency.2 Lin 0. both envelopes of changes are relatively symmetric. BM Increase (kN‐m) 600 Lin 0.3 Discussions The typical time history of change in lateral earth pressure and change in wall bending moment follows the input acceleration time history. while the envelope of change in wall bending moment is practically symmetric. 9. .4 m from Basement Base 3.2 200 MC 0.5 400 Lin 1 MC 0. this tensile strength affects the distribution of maximum increase or decrease in lateral earth pressure with depth. 10. This indicates that the lateral earth pressure is affected by the limited soil tensile strength. 400 400 i B (kN‐ n M m) Change in BM (kN‐m) 200 3 Hz 200 5 Hz 0 0 10 Hz h n C e a g ‐200 ‐200 ‐400 ‐400 0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6 Time (s) Time (s) (a) (b) Fig.

as represented by the limited soil tensile strength. Demirkan M.J. USA.. as suggested by rather similar envelopes of change in wall bending moments for elastic model and MC model. 51:1004-1020. The linear elastic constitutive soil model and Mohr-Coulomb constitutive soil model were used in the analyses. Hatami K. REFERENCES [1] Badan Standarisasi Nasional (BSN)... Al-Atik L.. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. 1998.B.M. The seismic ground motions considered were synthetic ground motions with different peak base acceleration values and frequency contents. This difference in dynamic behavior suggests that the change in wall bending moments is not only due to the change in lateral earth pressures. NZ. Plaxis 2D – Version 8. ..I. Hudson M.. CONCLUSIONS The 2-D plane strain dynamic finite element models were used to examine the lateral earth pressures behind wall and the wall bending moments of a typical concrete basement. The lateral earth pressures appear to be quite sensitive to the soil non-linearity. Hamderi M. • Lateral earth pressures affected by limited soil tensile strength.Furthermore. [2] Lew M.. SEAOC 2010 Convention Proceedings. Geosynthetics International.. Balkema Publishers. [5] Guler E. Amirzehni E.D. Wagner N. 10: 793-811. Chrischurch.. Some highlighted points are as follows: • Time history of change in lateral earth pressure and change in wall bending moment in general following input acceleration time history. the wall bending moments are rather insensitive to the soil non-linearity. “Numerical analysis of reinforced soil walls with cohesive and granular backfills under cyclic loads”. Tata cara perencanaan ketahanan gempa untuk struktur bangunan gedung dan non gedung (Indonesia seismic building code). 2014. “Seismic design of basement walls: evaluation of current practice in British Columbia”. However. • Relationship between change in lateral earth pressures and input frequency non-linear.A. as suggested by difference in envelopes of change in lateral earth pressure for elastic model and MC model. 108 p. Finn W. 2012. [3] Taiebat M. “Seismic earth pressures on deep building basements”. 2002. Sitar N. “Seismic response analysis of a geosynthetic reinforced soil retaining wall”. Relationship between change in wall bending moments and input frequency practically linear. “On seismic response of stiff and flexible retaining structures”. for both models. 2012. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering. 4. Proceedings of 6th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering. 2015.. • Soil tensile strength affecting distribution of maximum increase or decrease in lateral earth pressure with depth. 5 (1–2): 127–166. • Change in wall bending moments not only due to change in lateral earth pressures. the change in lateral earth pressure and in wall bending moment appears to be linearly correlated to the input peak ground acceleration. Cicek E. [7] Bathurst R.. A. Netherlands. California. • Wall bending moments rather insensitive to limited soil tensile strength.V. 2010. [4] Sitar N. The latter was to examine the effect of the soil limited tensile strength to dynamic behavior of basement walls. • Relationship between change in lateral earth pressures and in wall bending moments and input peak ground acceleration practically linear. Pourzanjani M. [6] Plaxis B.. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors gratefully acknowledge the partial support from the 2016 PITTA research grant provided by Universitas Indonesia.

- Durability Design US 1998Uploaded bylecotier33
- C4008 - Geotechnic 2 (Kertas soalan politeknik-politeknik malaysia kejuruteraan awam)Uploaded byAzil14
- Surface Ply DamageUploaded byCk Lee
- rr10802-strength-of-materialsUploaded bySRINIVASA RAO GANTA
- ENGG317Uploaded byKartik Dhand
- 1-s2.0-S0950061811002558-mainUploaded byjoamirhenrique_10316
- 148811302-03-12-General-Design-Design-of-Integral-Bridges.pdfUploaded byshardasiddh
- MURO CONTENCION.pdfUploaded byPablo
- Resorte a Compresion InventorUploaded byMateo Salazar
- ch1Uploaded byhaulam lee
- Tabla de Propiedades IIUploaded byDiMayer
- 104_chapter_4_pure_bending_for_student.pdfUploaded byBolWol
- p09.pdfUploaded byRonal J Clavijo R
- Mechanical ReportUploaded byAndré Moreira
- Tugas Mekanika Tanah IIUploaded byAri
- DikeUploaded byMaarten Van Den Plas
- Stress Distribution in Soils_GeotechUploaded byMarney Lamoste Duaso
- Part2 Study 1 1Uploaded byLee Chaw Tan
- 426_Theorem of Optimal Reinforcement for Reinforced ConcreteUploaded byGavros Gabi
- r7310305-Design of Machine Members-iUploaded bysivabharathamurthy
- r7310305-Design of Machine Members-i2Uploaded byprasaad08
- Reference #11 - Zia v49 No3 2004Uploaded byAriel Gonzalez
- 10.1177_002199838201600603Uploaded bygaurav503050
- Shallow Foundation Settlement (Clay) - Tut 6Uploaded byRadu Trancau
- Welded Joints CompleteUploaded byabdullah1s
- Design of a Union of RodUploaded byAl Drin
- MAE02 L20 StructuresUploaded bypsppunk7182
- Finite Element Analysis Exercise1-Static 1-1Uploaded byMahfuzul Haque
- Columns Biaxial BendingUploaded byjorgetapia
- Strength of Materials - Shear StressesUploaded byJan Alexis Monsalud