Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 10 - Vol3 - 1731 Earthquake Force PDF

    Uploaded by

    Keristiyanto
    13 views4 pages

    Original Title

    10_vol3_1731 earthquake force.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    13 views4 pages

    10 - Vol3 - 1731 Earthquake Force PDF

    Uploaded by

    Keristiyanto

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 4
    EatrquakeEnghoeig, Tenth Weis Conterence © 1982 Bakers, Rotterdam. SENS 54100605 Seismic design of buildings with multi-level basements Cetin Soydemir Holey & Alavch, Inc, Cambridge, Mass., USA Mehmet Celebi US Geological Survey Menlo Park, Cali, USA ABSTRACT: A simplified approximate procedure is proposed for the seismic design of high-rise buildings with rmul-level basements, which takes into account the sopersructure-substructuresoil interaction. To addition, ‘dynamic earth pressures developed on the exterior walls ofthe substructure ate considered. INTRODUCTION In current (1991) practice of seismic design of high: ris buildings with multi-level basements (Figure 1a) it is generally assumed tha the building is fixed supported atthe ground level, andthe superstructure (Figure 1b) is designed accordingly. However, the basement sobstructre (Figure 1e) does not necessarily provide a fixed suppor, andthe superstructure may ‘experience both a horizontal translation, w, and 3 rotation (rocking), a the ground level. Assuming thatthe substructure is rig it experiences the same o o a FLEXIBLY - SUPPORTED 'SUPERSTRUCTURE displacements, w and g. These forced displacements, in tur, result in dynamic earth pressures on the basement exterior wall, which should also be taken ito account in seismic design. ‘A simplified, approximate procedure is proposed to take into account the superstructure-substrocture-soil interaction in an idealized manner. The procedure follows the guidelines proposed by the U.S. National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program, NEHRP (1983). In addition, a simplified, approximate Approach is presented to entimate dynamic earth pressures on the basement walls. iio ‘suaSTRUCTURE o Figure 1. High-ise building with mul-level basement: Interactive seismic design approach, 2 SEISMIC DESIGN OF SUPERSTRUCTURE ‘The base shear is calculated assuming thatthe superstructure is xed atthe ground level, The caleulated base shear, V, is then reduced by aV due to soilstructure interaction, veqw © C= 02 ASRT*) @ where C, i selmi design coefficient, W is total ‘zavity load from the superstructure, A. is effective ‘eakveloiy related acceleration conficent which is Drovided foreach county in US, $ is sol (te) Coefficient, R is response modification factor for the fixed-base supersrucre, and T is fondamental natural period ofthe fxed-base superstructure. v= G-6 cosieie ° where Gis seismic design coefficient forthe fleiby- suppongd superstructure with fundamental natural period, and itis calculated from Equation 2. B is fraction of eical damping for the structures system, and W, effective gravity load of the superstructure taken a 07 W. Fundamental natural period of the fexbly-supported structure is ealeulated from: THERA) o _here Fess ofthe ease serrate, T= Geiyigr f wefctie niga of the persue taken Oy and is aceleraton of Eager ited ofthe bcuctre Sem, andl defined athe sti ronal ore {pled athe eve ofthe foundation mat hic ‘een to produce sual defection of he Sstnoctue at that rel Sar yong Sites ofthe subrasuroal sem, an iti Gefned as the state moment applied about the ai through the ceatoi ofthe function cat whch etsy to prodh® wun tation of the ‘Bbaroctre (gue te Elsabee (1975), Elsabee et al (1977), NEHRP (1988) snd Geese (91) propo K, = (@OR)(2-]0+RAD\L+2ER) (@+SEMD) = © K (GOR). »)]+2E/RYA+R/OD) (14078) © where G is average shear modulus ofthe silat “age” strains, surrounding and underying the substructure, is average Poisson's ratio ofthe sol, E is depth of embedment of the substructure, Dis thickness ofthe total sol stratum, and R isthe radius ofthe cylindrical substructure (see Figure 1). Fora rectangular (prismatic) substructure equivaleat radi, Rand R,, to be used in Equations 5 and 6, respectively, are R= (Aja) and Ry = (alfa), where A isthe aca and I, is the moment of inert the rectangular base in the respective orientation, Equations 5 and 6 are applicable forthe range of EZ05D and Re0SD. B, + oasiimy o where B, the foundation damping factor, incorporate both radiation and material damping of the sol andi povided in NEHRP (1988) in er of system geometry and period. The scoond term in Equation T represents structural damping. ‘With Vand aV ealulated from Equations 1 and3, respectively, the reduced bate shear forthe exe {9ppored fopertracure, Vf v ® V.8V NEHRP (1988) specifies that V shall in no case be taken less than 0.7 V. 3 SEISMIC DESIGN OF SUBSTRUCTURE ‘The seiapie design ofthe substructure shall take into acount V, andthe associated moment, M, induced by the flexbly-supported superstructure. In addition, ‘dynamic earth pressures, associated with the forced displacement of the rigid substructure, u and @, sall be included in the design. For the rigd substructure Elsabee et al (1977) formulated the force-displacement relations as: PaKus ky Kut ke where K, and K, are provided by Equations $ and 6, respectively. P =" Vis the lateral force applied at the centroid; and M = M + VE is the moment about the sas through the centroid of the foundation mat (Figure 1c). The coupled spring constant was proposed as: Ky, = Ky = KRIGEAR) - 003] © (ao ay ‘Thus, forced displacements, w and ¢, may be

    You might also like