Sem Moore Goodson PDF

Practical Modeling Considerations
Impact of Foundation Modeling

on the
Earthquake Response
of a
RC Shear Wall and MRF Building
Mark A. Moore S.E. and Emma Goodson P.E.
EERI Technical Impact of Soil-Structure Interaction on Response of Structures

Seminar Series Seminar 1: Practical Applications to Shallow Foundations
Overview
Case Study – Shallow Foundation

Foundation Flexibility
¾ Soil Stiffness, G and G0
¾ “K” by Method 1 through Method 3 and more
¾ SE / GE collaboration
Impact on Global and Local Responses
Suggested Modeling Improvements

Overview con’t
Inertial effects
Foundation stiffness and strength FEMA 356/ASCE 41
Radiation damping FEMA 440/ASCE 41
Kinematic effects
Base slab averaging (x,y) FEMA 440/ASCE 41
Embedment (z) FEMA 440/ASCE 41

Related documents
FEMA 356 (2000): Prestandard and

Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation
of Buildings
[References herein are to this document]
FEMA 440
ASCE 41 + Supplement 1

FEMA 440 – Chapter 8:
Procedures for Including Soil-Structure Interaction Effects
Acceleration Reponse Spectra
0.8
Spectral Acceleration, Sa (g)
0.7
BSE-2
0.6 BSE-1
3/4 BSE-1 Used for DBE
0.5 SSI
0.4
BSE 1 reduced for
0.3
kinematics effects
0.2 and radiation
0.1 damping
0.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Period (sec)

Effects of Foundations on Performance
Foundation stiffness and strength affect Large

various structural components differently. displacements
Foundation cause frame
High forces damage
cause shear yielding and
wall damage Δ, small rocking protects Δ, large
shear wall
Small
displacements
protect frame
from damage
Stiff and Strong Foundation Flexible and Weak Foundation
Stiff and strong is not always favorable;

nor is flexible and weak always conservative.

Case Study
1965 Construction
Reinforced Concrete 6 Stories Above Grade
24’ by 24’ Bays (31,000 SF)
Two-way Slab with Drop Panels
Full Basement with Shallow Foundations
Site Class D
Seismic Design Category C
At ¾ BSE 1: S-3; N-D

Typical Floor Plan
Transverse Shear Walls

Longitudinal Shear Walls
(Two coupled walls)
Perimeter Moment-Resisting Frame with Precast Infill

Longitudinal Wall Elevation
General wall element modeling
Ground Floor
Basement
One rigid foundation response
Two rigid foundations coupled by structural components

Displacement Compatibility
LBW General wall
s
roof upports s Inelastic section
(not l
show ab and
n)
Inelastic frame element

Groun
d Flo
Basem or
ent S
OG
Nonlinear elastic bar – NSP

Inelastic bar + gap - NDP

Typical Atypical Condition
Beam
Two-way
Slab
Torsional deformation?
Precast between
and connected to
columns and beams
Column
Plan Elevation
Exterior Beam-Column Joint

Displacement Compatibility
Summary of Component Actions to Track
Shear of foundation coupling walls
Shear of LBW lintel
Torsion of perimeter beam-column joint
Slab strips parallel and orthogonal to wall

ASCE 41 Supplement 1
Proposed Figure 2-3
Component Force versus Deformation Curves
Lateral deformation following loss of
lateral strength capacity
Type 1 Curve Type 2 Curve Type 3 Curve

Notes:
1. Only secondary component actions permitted between points 2 and 4.
2. The force, Q, after point 3 diminishes to approximately zero.

Foundation Plan
Type B
(2 vert. springs Individual Footings Coupled to
to capture Krot) Form Krot for Wall Line
One story Type A

shear wall Plenum (Vertical spring
Beneath col.)
Type D (3 springs)
Postulate shear overstress
Type C due to foundation flexibility
Foundation Plan – Vertical Spring ID

Chapter 4:
Effective Stiffness of “Foundation”
Initial Soil Stiffness
Initial Shear Modulus, G, Derived By
1> Soil Shear Wave Velocity (Eq 4-4)
2> Standard Penetration Test (Blow Count – N1/60) ) (Eq 4-5)
Effective Soil Stiffness
Effective Stiffness, Go
Modulus Reduction Factors (Table 4-7)
Foundation Stiffness
Relative Stiffness Between Soil and Structure (C4-1 & C4-2)
Method 1 to Method 3 Î Proportional to Go

Quantitatively Define Soil Properties
Nominal “N” value used by GE
Influence depth – B or 4B? Original
Ground
Site Class “D” 22
v= 600 ft/sec Æ 1,200 ft/sec Footing location
(over great depth)
G0 proportional to v2 65
280’
21
Strain level dependent –
10%/50yr or 2%/50yr 47
(Go/G 0.80 & 0.66) 64
260’
? How deep?

Other Means of Arriving at Soil Properties:
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction and Units
In lieu of FEMA 356, the GE may provide other
soil property recommendations. The following may
help the SE, but collaboration with GE is the best
answer:
Soil with cohesive properties reacts
independent of depth and may be recommended
in terms of F/L3, which when multiplied by contact
area (BxL) gives F/L.
Soil reliant on internal friction for strength
reacts dependent on depth and may be
recommended in terms of F/L4, which when
multiplied by depth (h) and contact area (BxL)
gives F/L.

Foundation Overturning Stiffness:
Model vertical foundation stiffness and couple those
with explicit structure modeling. Determine Kvert by:
Method 1: Rigid isolated foundation 18’ by 18’

coupled by explicit structure modeling
Method 2: Decoupled end and middle zones by
considering footing as 64’ by 18’
Method 3: Unit subgrade modulus
Method 1 Revised: Determine Rotational stiffness
and convert to vertical
stiffness

Foundation Plan
Type B
(2 vert. springs Individual Footings Coupled to
to capture Krot) Form Krot for Wall Line
One story Type A

Beneath col.)
Type D (3 springs)
Postulate shear overstress
Type C due to foundation flexibility
Foundation Plan – Vertical Spring ID

Foundation Partial Plan
24’ 24’ Considered as:
3 No. 18’ by 18’ Pads
or
64’ long by 18’ wide pad
Partial Plan
Ground Floor
Basement
K vert
K vert K vert
Type D Foundation Elevation

Chapter 4, Method 1:
Rigid Foundation Structure?
Use of elastic properties to determine relative rigidities… perhaps strength
would be a better test? See C4-2 for equation, discussion and limitations.
2 2
⎛ m_m ⋅ π ⎞ ⎛ nn ⋅ π ⎞
5 5 sin ⎜ ⎟ ⋅ sin ⎜ ⎟
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
rigid test := 4 ⋅ k sν ⋅
∑ ∑ ⎡ m_m2 nn
2 ⎤
π ⋅D f ⋅⎢ ⎥ + k sν
m_m = 1 nn = 1 4
+
⎢ (L ) 2 (B ) 2 ⎥
⎣ 1 1 ⎦
where
3
For a 3’-3” thick by 18’ square footing
Ef×t with a point load, the structural
D f := component is considered rigid. Strength
(
12in × 1 − ν f )2 (shear and flexure) would likely deem
otherwise.

Chapter 4, Method 1 Con’t:
Gazetas’ Equation: 18’ by 18’ pad
Use isolated footing vertical stiffness (Figure 4-4)
G ⋅ Bi ⎡⎢ ⎤
0.75
⎛ Li ⎞ ⎥
K z_sur := ⋅ ⎢1.55 ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ + 0.8⎥
i 1−ν ⎣ ⎝ Bi ⎠ ⎦
Modify for embedment
⎡ 2⎤
⎢ ⎥
⎡ di ⋅ ( Bi + Li) ⎤ ⎥
3
⎡ 1 Di ⎛ Bi ⎞ ⎤ ⎢
β z := ⎢ 1 + ⋅ ⋅ ⎜ 2 + 2.6 ⋅ ⎟ ⎥ ⋅ ⎢ 1 + 0.32 ⋅ ⎢ ⎥ ⎥
i
⎣ 21 Bi ⎝ L i ⎠⎦ ⎣ ⎣ B ⋅
i iL ⎦ ⎦

Chapter 4, Method 1 Con’t:
Gazetas’ Equation: 18’ by 18’ Pad
L = 18 ft q ult = 12 ksf Ultimate bearing pressure provided by
B = 18 ft GE and not discussed herein
kip Kz ksf
K z = 6378 For a unit ft2 = 9.8
in 2⋅L⋅B in
.
For lower bound use 80% (discussed
Sq Ftg Axial F-Defl
later) of the ultimate bearing
pressure. A nominal tension force
and stiffness, and strain hardening is
FD1 ( Δ )
Force
assumed.
Δ
Defl

End Stiffening/Decoupling P and M
For a 64’ by 18’ footing
End footing (zone)
Note: B or L/6 used in lieu of B/6. For
6.83 ⋅ G ⋅ B High L/B ratios, this is judged as more
K z :=
(1 − ν) appropriate. For this case “B/6”
Middle footing (zone) is made equal to “B”.
0.73 Kz ksf K z_mid ksf

K z_mid := ⋅K z = 23 = 2.5
6.83 2⋅L⋅B in 2⋅L⋅B in
B/6 or B or L/6
Again, 1/2 is introduced to determine
B
a lower bound stiffness.
L
Plan

Unit Coef. Of Subgrade Reaction: 18’ by 18’ Pad
1.3 ⋅ G The multiplication of B and L converts
K z := ⋅B⋅L
B ⋅ (1 − ν) to force per footing versus deformation.
Kz ksf
QED! = 4.4
2⋅L⋅B in

Chapter 4, Method 1 Revised:
Use isolated footing rotational stiffness (Figure 4-4)
G ⋅ ( Bi)
⎡ ⎤
3 2.4
⎢ ⎛ Li ⎞ ⎥
K yy_sur := ⋅ ⎢0.47 ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ + 0.034⎥
i 1−ν ⎣ ⎝ Bi ⎠ ⎦
Modify for embedment
⎛ di ⎞
0.6 ⎡ ⎛ d ⎞
1.9
⎛ d ⎞
− 0.6 ⎤
⎢ i i ⎥
β yy := 1 + 1.4 ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ ⋅ ⎢ 1.5 + 3.7 ⎜ ⎟ ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ ⎥
i
⎝ Li ⎠ ⎣ L
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
i D i ⎦

Chapter 4, Method 1 Revised:
Performing a rivet-type analysis with a unit area for each pad:
( 2)
I := 2 ⋅ 24 ⋅ ft
2
The equivalent vertical spring for each pad is

K yy
I ksf Again, 1/2 is introduced to determine
= 10.9
2⋅L⋅B inch a lower bound stiffness.

Foundation Plan
One story Type A

Beneath col.)
Type D (3 springs)
Type C
End Zone, Typical Middle Zone

(Say “B/6” = 2 ftg’s) (Strip Footing)
Foundation Plan – Type A, Method 2

Chapter 4, Method 2 Revised For Type A ftg
End Stiffening/Decoupling P and M
kip kip KMethod2_mid
KMethod2 = 9982 KMethod2_mid = 1067 r :=
in in KMethod2
( 2 2 2
IM2 := 2⋅ 1⋅ 108 + 1⋅ 84 + r⋅ 60 + r⋅ 36 + r⋅ 12 ⋅ ft
2 2 ) 2
10 kip⋅ in
IM2⋅ KMethod2 = 5.536 × 10
rad
IM2
IM2 kip KMethod2⋅
KMethod2⋅ = 8091 I ksf
I in = 28.1
2⋅ L1⋅ B1 in

Foundation Mechanism:
< qult
qult qult
qult
Soil Foundation Flexure Flexural-shear/Shear
P~
P
Soil + 2 Vn
governs and equals
==>
about 80% of soil-
Vn Vn
governed capacity:
0.8 * qult = 9.6 ksf

Limit State Strength
Shear Capacity - to one side and at d/2 from face of wall
⎛ B1 − 12inch⋅ wall d1 ⎞
Vsoil := L1 ⋅ ⎜ − ⎟ ⋅ qult Vsoil = 612 kip
⎝ 2 2⎠
lb
φVn := 2 ⋅ 4500 ⋅ ⋅ 0.8 ⋅ d1 ⋅ L1 φVn = 464 kip
2
in
At 3 root f'c, soil governs.
For lower bound strength capacity, use a factor of

⎡ ⎡ ⎛ B1 − 12 ⋅ inch⋅ wall d1 ⎞ ⎤ ⎤
⎢qult ⋅ ⎢ B1 − 2 ⋅ ⎜ − ⎟ ⎥ ⋅ L1⎥ + 2 ⋅ φVn
⎣ ⎣ ⎝ 2 2 ⎠⎦ ⎦
= 0.83
B1 ⋅ L1 ⋅ qult

Lower Bound Stiffness Summary
Effective Shear Modulus (1200/645)2 = 3.5
(GE rec. versus SE’s Guess)
Method 1 9.8 ksf/inch

Method 2
End Zone 23 ksf/inch
Middle Zone 2.5 ksf/inch
Method 3 4.4 ksf/inch
Method 1 Revised 11 ksf/inch
Range of variation:
All methods : 23/4.4= 5.2
Considering Method 1 and 3 only: 11/4.4 = 2.5
Worst case scenario ==> 3.5 x 5.2 x 1/2 = 9.1 x too stiff
Note: Even with this range, any springs are far better than fixed base!

Global Response
Spectral Acceleration versus Displacement
0.3
Target displacement increase by
75 %
0.25
Spectral Acceleration (g)
0.2
3/4 BSE-1
0.15
BSE-1
0.1
BSE-2
Fixed Base
0.05 Lower Bound
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Spectral Displacement (in)

Foundation Response – Longitudinal Wall
Nonlinear Elastic Springs – Lower Bound Stiffness and Strength
Foundation "Tension" Spring - Longitudinal Wall Foundation Compression Spring
Longitudinal Wall
-200
-500
-400
3/4 BSE-1
Axial Force (kips)
-1000 BSE-1
-600
Axial Force (kips)

BSE-2
3/4 BSE-1 Lower Bound
BSE-1 -1500
-800
BSE-2
Lower Bound -2000
-1000
-1200 -2500
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
System not Ground Floor

dominated by
rocking Basement
K vert
K vert K vert

Local (Component) Response
Longitudinal Walls
Coupling Beam
0.3
Shear Stress (ksi)
Fixed Base
Lower Bound
0.2
3/4 BSE-1
BSE-1
BSE-2
0.1
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Longitudinal Walls
Coupling Beam, Lower Bound
3/4 BSE-1
BSE-1
0.3
BSE-2
Shear Stress (ksi)
Lower Bound
0.2 LS
CP
0.1
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Outrigger Wall - Above Opening
LBW
0.6
Fixed Base
0.5
Lower Bound
3/4 BSE-1
Shear Stress (ksi)
0.4 BSE-1
BSE-2
0.3 LS
CP
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Beam Joint Torsion
Beam-Column
0.010
Torsion Deformation (radians)
3/4 BSE-1 LB
Two-way
BSE-1 LB
Slab
BSE-2 LB
Joint Rotation
3/4 BSE-1 FB
0.005 BSE-1 FB Torsional deformation?
Precast between BSE-2 FB
and connected to
columns and beams
Column
0.000
Plan Elevation
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Exterior Beam-Column
Spectral Joint
Displacement (in)

Slab End Moment on Line D at Wall Face Slab End Moment on Line D at Column Face
540
0
Slab End Moment (kip-ft)

Slab End Moment (kip-ft)
3/4 BSE-1 3/4 BSE-1

430
-150 BSE-1 BSE-1
BSE-2 BSE-2
Fixed Base 320 Fixed Base
-300
Lower Bound Lower Bound
-450 210
-600 100
-750 -10
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Spectral Displacement (in) Spectral Displacement (in)
Indicates significant
slab stress demand
but no inelastic
behavior for 24’ span.
Short spans showed
inelastic behavior.

Col. (N)
Beam (E)
Slab (E)
Col. (E)
Plan Elevation

Typical Floor Plan
Deleted columns as a
result of the analysis
New columns (Wall Piers)

Seismic Rehabilitation Recommendations
Do nothing to overstressed coupling beam that is between
the longitudinal walls
Provide “catcher” to LBW at 5th floor and at other locations
Do nothing to beam-column joint in longitudinal direction:
• Deformation levels
• Higher confidence in determining deformations due to inclusion of
SSI effects
Slabs proven to within acceptance limits.
Without modeling foundation flexibility and capturing the

kinematics three dimensionally, wall piers may have been
added in the longitudinal direction and the LBW deficiency
may not have been identified.

Displacement-Based Design
More liberal evaluation techniques
ASCE 41 Supplement 1 will require more comprehensive

modeling
Foundation flexibility and strength:

Adds to total lateral deflection
Changes the distribution of inelastic displacement
demand between components and may change
strength hierarchy

Ways to Improve SSI Modeling
GE and SE collaboration
Consider displacement compatibility in 3D
Use Winkler models calibrated by testing
Use capacity spectrum for systems dominated by rocking
Identify and include uncertainty in the evaluation
Determine residual displacements - NDP


Sem Moore Goodson PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sem Moore Goodson PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Practical Modeling Considerations

Impact of Foundation Modeling

EERI Technical Impact of Soil-Structure Interaction on Response of Structures

 Case Study – Shallow Foundation

EERI Technical Impact of Soil-Structure Interaction on Response of Structures

 Embedment (z) FEMA 440/ASCE 41

EERI Technical Impact of Soil-Structure Interaction on Response of Structures

FEMA 356 (2000): Prestandard and

EERI Technical Impact of Soil-Structure Interaction on Response of Structures

EERI Technical Impact of Soil-Structure Interaction on Response of Structures

Foundation stiffness and strength affect Large

Stiff and Strong Foundation Flexible and Weak Foundation

Stiff and strong is not always favorable;

EERI Technical Impact of Soil-Structure Interaction on Response of Structures

EERI Technical Impact of Soil-Structure Interaction on Response of Structures

Transverse Shear Walls

Perimeter Moment-Resisting Frame with Precast Infill

EERI Technical Impact of Soil-Structure Interaction on Response of Structures

General wall element modeling

Two rigid foundations coupled by structural components

EERI Technical Impact of Soil-Structure Interaction on Response of Structures

Inelastic frame element

Nonlinear elastic bar – NSP

EERI Technical Impact of Soil-Structure Interaction on Response of Structures

Exterior Beam-Column Joint

EERI Technical Impact of Soil-Structure Interaction on Response of Structures

 Shear of LBW lintel

 Torsion of perimeter beam-column joint

 Slab strips parallel and orthogonal to wall

EERI Technical Impact of Soil-Structure Interaction on Response of Structures

Type 1 Curve Type 2 Curve Type 3 Curve

EERI Technical Impact of Soil-Structure Interaction on Response of Structures

One story Type A

Foundation Plan – Vertical Spring ID

EERI Technical Impact of Soil-Structure Interaction on Response of Structures

EERI Technical Impact of Soil-Structure Interaction on Response of Structures

EERI Technical Impact of Soil-Structure Interaction on Response of Structures

EERI Technical Impact of Soil-Structure Interaction on Response of Structures

 Method 1: Rigid isolated foundation 18’ by 18’

EERI Technical Impact of Soil-Structure Interaction on Response of Structures

One story Type A

Foundation Plan – Vertical Spring ID

EERI Technical Impact of Soil-Structure Interaction on Response of Structures

Type D Foundation Elevation

EERI Technical Impact of Soil-Structure Interaction on Response of Structures

EERI Technical Impact of Soil-Structure Interaction on Response of Structures

Modify for embedment

EERI Technical Impact of Soil-Structure Interaction on Response of Structures

EERI Technical Impact of Soil-Structure Interaction on Response of Structures

0.73 Kz ksf K z_mid ksf

a lower bound stiffness.

EERI Technical Impact of Soil-Structure Interaction on Response of Structures

EERI Technical Impact of Soil-Structure Interaction on Response of Structures

Modify for embedment

EERI Technical Impact of Soil-Structure Interaction on Response of Structures

The equivalent vertical spring for each pad is

EERI Technical Impact of Soil-Structure Interaction on Response of Structures

One story Type A

End Zone, Typical Middle Zone

Foundation Plan – Type A, Method 2

EERI Technical Impact of Soil-Structure Interaction on Response of Structures

EERI Technical Impact of Soil-Structure Interaction on Response of Structures

EERI Technical Impact of Soil-Structure Interaction on Response of Structures

Case Study – Shallow Foundation

Embedment (z) FEMA 440/ASCE 41

FEMA 356 (2000): Prestandard and

Shear of LBW lintel

Torsion of perimeter beam-column joint

Slab strips parallel and orthogonal to wall

Method 1: Rigid isolated foundation 18’ by 18’

ASCE 41 Supplement 1 will require more comprehensive

Foundation flexibility and strength:

Consider displacement compatibility in 3D

Use Winkler models calibrated by testing

Use capacity spectrum for systems dominated by rocking

Identify and include uncertainty in the evaluation

Determine residual displacements - NDP