Displacement Based Design of RC Walls Accounting ForNLSFSI

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/262185135
Displacement Based Seismic Design of RC Wall Buildings accounting_for

Nonlinear Soil - Structure Interaction
Thesis · March 2014
CITATIONS READS
0 448
1 author:
Dimitris Sotiriadis
Democritus University of Thrace, Institute of Engineering Seismology and Earthquake Engineering
15 PUBLICATIONS 24 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Calibration of 1D soil model based on recordings of the vertical array "ARGONET" at the island of Cephalonia View project
Impact of nonlinear soil-foundation-structure-interaction on the damage response of 3D buildings. View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Dimitris Sotiriadis on 10 May 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Displacement-Based Seismic Design of RC
Wall Buildings accounting for Nonlinear Soil-
Structure Interaction
A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements
for the Master Degree in
Earthquake Engineering
By
Dimitrios Sotiriadis
Supervisor(s): Dr. Timothy Sullivan
Dr. Antonio Araujo Correia
February, 2014
Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori di Pavia
Università degli Studi di Pavia

Abstract
The dissertation entitled “Displacement-Based Seismic Design of RC Wall buildings

accounting for Nonlinear Soil-Structure Interaction effects”, by Dimitrios Sotiriadis, has been
approved in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Master Degree in Earthquake
Engineering.
Timothy Sullivan …… … ………
Antonio Araujo Correia………… …
i
Abstract
ABSTRACT
The role of Soil-Structure Interaction (SSI) in the seismic response of structures has been
investigated during the last decade by many researchers proving the inadequacy of the current
seismic building codes in accounting for such effects. In general, SSI effects are believed to
act in favour of the seismic response of the structures and, in most cases, are neglected.
However, a number of real earthquake incidents along with experimental evidence, has shown
that SSI may lead to detrimental effects that may cause unexpected damage or collapse. Thus,
in order to be sure that a proper structural design has been made for a structure, proper
evaluation of SSI effects is necessary especially when the foundation soil and the structure
itself has properties that promote such effects.
As Performance Based Seismic design of structures becomes more and more common and it
is adopted in design, it is more than apparent that a proper evaluation of the deformations
coming from the foundation itself is necessary. Towards this direction, much experimental
and analytical work has been conducted in order to evaluate the performance of foundation
systems under seismic excitation including the energy dissipation characteristics, the stiffness
and strength degradation etc. At the same time, efficient numerical tools, called macro-
elements, which require low computational cost, have been developed and demonstrated
remarkable accuracy in representing the foundation response under static cyclic or shake table
excitation.
In this study, a shallow foundation macro-element is implemented in order to derive empirical

curves of stiffness degradation and equivalent damping in order to include SSI effects directly
into a Displacement –Based Design process and obtain the optimal design of both
ii
Abstract
superstructure and foundation at the same time. The design curves are implemented in the
Seismic design of RC core wall buildings with different heights and the design outcome is
compared with the fixed based design approach.
Keywords: Soil Structure Interaction, shallow foundations, reinforced concrete, walls, seismic design.
iii
Index
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT ...........................................................................................................................................ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS....................................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................ 1
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................. 6
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Research Objectives ................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Organization of the report .......................................................................................................... 2
2 LITERATURE OVERVIEW ON SFSI ............................................................................................. 4

2.1 General Description ................................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Kinematic Interaction................................................................................................................. 4
2.3 Inertial Interaction...................................................................................................................... 5
2.4 Beneficial and Detrimental effects of SFSI ............................................................................... 7
2.5 Linear SFSI .............................................................................................................................. 11
2.6 Nonlinear SFSI......................................................................................................................... 12
2.7 Modeling of Nonlinear SFSI .................................................................................................... 13
2.7.1 Modeling of the Near-Field sub-domain ........................................................................ 15
2.8 Direct Displacement – Based Design and SFSI ....................................................................... 18
2.9 Soil – Structure Interaction Eurocode 8 ................................................................................... 23
iv
Index
3 DERIVATION OF STIFFNESS DEGRADATION AND DAMPING CURVES FOR SHALLOW

FOUNDATIONS .................................................................................................................................. 26
3.1 Rocking Systems lying on Elastic Soil .................................................................................... 26
3.1.1 Inelastic Displacement Reduction Factor (DRF) estimation ......................................... 27
3.1.2 Stiffness Degradation of Rocking Foundations ............................................................. 35
3.2 Foundation systems lying on inelastic soil .............................................................................. 38
3.2.1 Derivation of stiffness degradation curves..................................................................... 38
3.2.2 Equivalent viscous damping curves ............................................................................... 47
4 DESCRIPTION AND DESIGN OF CASE STUDY BUILDINGS ................................................ 56

4.1 Description of Case Study Buildings ....................................................................................... 56
4.1.1 Building and Structural elements geometry ................................................................... 56
4.1.2 Gravity loads and mass .................................................................................................. 58
4.2 Design of Case Study Buildings with fixed base ..................................................................... 59
4.2.1 Seismic Hazard .............................................................................................................. 59
4.2.2 Material Properties ......................................................................................................... 60
4.2.3 Direct Displacement Based Design................................................................................ 61
4.2.4 Force Based Design ....................................................................................................... 66
4.2.5 Flexural and Shear Design of buildings based on DDBD.............................................. 70
4.2.6 Foundation Design ......................................................................................................... 74
4.3 Design method of wall buildings accounting for SFSI ............................................................ 78
4.4 Design method for rocking systems incorporating the DRF curves ........................................ 84
5 VERIFICATION OF CASE STUDY BUILDINGS DESIGN........................................................ 92

5.1 Buildings with fixed base......................................................................................................... 92
5.2 Elastic Rocking Walls .............................................................................................................. 98
v
Index
6 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................... 104

6.1 Stiffness degradation and damping curves of shallow foundations ....................................... 104
6.2 Direct Displacement Based Design accounting for nonlinear SFSI ...................................... 105
6.3 Future research ....................................................................................................................... 106
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 107

APPENDIX A ...................................................................................................................................... Α1
APPENDIX B ...................................................................................................................................... Β1
vi
Index
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Schematic description of SFSI. ................................................................................7
Figure 2.2: Comparison between code and real earthquake response spectra with high spectral
acceleration ordinates in long periods (5% damped spectra). .............................................9
Figure 2.3: Conceptual sub-domains for nonlinear SFSI modelling. .......................................14
Figure 2.4: Generic SFSI modelling in the case of macro-elements. .......................................18
Figure 2.5: Schematic image of ultimate loads surface used in most of the SFSI macromodels
(QN=normalized vertical force, QV=normalized horizontal force, QM=normalized
moment). ...........................................................................................................................18
Figure 2.6: Variation of shallow foundation rotational secant stiffness and damping ratio for
dense and medium-dense sands, as a function of foundation rotation (Paolucci et al.,
2012). ................................................................................................................................20
Figure 2.7: Empirical curves for secant stiffness degradation and corresponding increase of
damping ratio [Paolucci et al., 2012]. ...............................................................................21
Figure 2.8:Flow chart summarizing the DDBD+NLSFSI design procedure by Paolucci et al.
[2012]. ...............................................................................................................................22
Figure 3.1: Determination of η for a SDOF rocking system under earthquake record CC1. ...28
Figure 3.2: Determination of η for SDOF rocking systems under earthquake record CC3. ....28
1
Index
Figure 3.3: Determination of η for SDOF rocking system under earthquake record CC5. ......29
Figure 3.4: Determination of η for SDOF rocking system under earthquake record CC10. ....29
Figure 3.5: Response of SDOF rocking system under earthquake CC5. ..................................30
Figure 3.6: Response of SDOF rocking system under earthquake CC10. ................................30
Figure 3.7: Displacement reduction factor for 5% tangent-stiffness based elastic damping and
r=0.05. ...............................................................................................................................31
Figure 3.8: Displacement reduction factor as a function of system's effective period (5%
tangent-stiffness based elastic damping, r=0.05). .............................................................31
Figure 3.9: Average values of η as a function of effective period and ductility (5% tangent-
stiffness based damping, r=0.05). .....................................................................................32
Figure 3.10: Displacement reduction factor vs ductility for the CC earthquake record set (5%
initial-stiffness based elastic damping, r=0.05). ...............................................................33
Figure 3.11: Displacement reduction factor vs. Ductility (5% secant-stiffness based elastic
damping, r=0.05). ..............................................................................................................33
Figure 3.12: Displacement reduction factor as a function of system's effective period (5%
secant-stiffness based elastic damping, r=0.05). ...............................................................34
Figure 3.13: Comparison between the DRF variation for different elastic damping models. ..34
Figure 3.14: Comparison between the proposed uplift model regarding (a) moment-rotation
and (b) moment-heave diagram. .......................................................................................36
Figure 3.15: Effect of Safety Factor (SF) on the rotation of uplift initiation (B=4m). .............37
Figure 3.16: Effetc of Safety Factor (SF) on the stiffness degradation of a 4x4m footing. .....37
Figure 3.17: Effect of foundation width on the stiffness degradation of footings with SF=2. .37
Figure 3.18: Stiffness degradation curves for He/B=1. .............................................................42

2
Index
Figure 3.22: Stiffness degradation curves with respect to foundation rotation for a 7.5x7.5m
footing. ..............................................................................................................................45
Figure 3.23: Comparison between the current curves and Paolucci's curves. ..........................46
Figure 3.24: Calculation of hysteretic damping. .......................................................................47
Figure 3.25: EVD results for He/B≥3.0 ....................................................................................48
Figure 3.26: EVD results for He/B=2.0 ....................................................................................48
Figure 3.27: EVD results for He/B=1.0. ...................................................................................49
Figure 3.28: Comparison between EVD for different "Dmg" values. ......................................50
Figure 3.29: Comparison between Paolucci EVD curves and current methodology results
(He/B=4). ..........................................................................................................................51
(He/B=4). ..........................................................................................................................51
(He/B=4). ..........................................................................................................................52
Figure 3.32: EVD curves fitted to the analysis results for He/B=1.0. ......................................53
Figure 3.33: EVD curves fitted to the analysis results for He/B=2.0. ......................................54
Figure 3.34: EVD curves fitted to the analysis results for He/B≥3.0. ......................................54
Figure 4.1: Typical plan view of case study buildings. ............................................................57
3
Index
Figure 4.2: Elastic acceleration and displacement response spectra of design earthquake (5%
damping). ..........................................................................................................................60
Figure 4.3: Base Shear comparison between FBD and DDBD. ...............................................70
Figure 4.4: Base moment comparison between FBD and DDBD. ...........................................70
Figure 4.5: Simplified Capacity Design Envelopes for Cantilever Walls. ...............................71
Figure 4.6: Ductility component of Concrete Shear - Resisting Mechanism. ..........................74
Figure 4.7: Design chart for KAE for Φ=40˚ coming from log spiral analysis. ........................76
Figure 4.8: Design chart for KPE coming from log spiral analysis for non-cohesive soil.........76
Figure 4.9: Variation of foundation safety factors with wall aspect ratio. ...............................77
Figure 4.10: Schematic flow chart of iterative design procedure (from Sullivan et al. [2010]).
...........................................................................................................................................79
Figure 4.11: Inelastic DRF curves for different elastic damping modeling. ............................87
Figure 5.1: Force - displacement response of study case buildings. .........................................94
Figure 5.2: Displacement spectra of the earthquake records chosen and the design earthquake.
...........................................................................................................................................96
Figure 5.3: Comparison between NLTHA and Design for the 6 storey building. ....................97
Figure 5.4: Comparison between NLTHA and Design for 8 storey building. ..........................97
Figure 5.5: Comparison between NLTHA and Design for the 12 storey building. ..................98
Figure 5.6: Moment - rotation curves of footings. ....................................................................99
Figure 5.7: Comparison between NLTHA and design displacement envelopes. ...................100
Figure 5.8: Comparison between NTHA and DDBD analysis moment envelopes. ...............101
4
Index
Figure 5.9: Comparison between NLTHA and DDBD analysis shear force envelopes. ........101
5
Index
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Values of parameters for the derivation of the empirical curves. ............................21
Table 3.1: Foundation Macroelement parameters. ...................................................................39
Table 3.2: Internal damping ratio and soil stiffness degradation due to ground shaking as per
Eurocode 8-5. ....................................................................................................................55
Table 4.1: Characteristics of case study buildings. ...................................................................59
Table 4.2: Parameters of design earthquake response spectra. .................................................60
Table 4.3: DDBD results for fixed base individual walls. ........................................................67
Table 4.4: FBD results for individual walls of case study buildings. .......................................69
Table 4.5: Design outcome of case study buildings. ................................................................73
Table 4.6: Soil properties used for the foundation design. .......................................................77
Table 4.7: Foundation design results for the case study buildings. ..........................................78
Table 4.8: Superstructure and foundation design of case study buildings accounting for
nonlinear SFSI. .................................................................................................................81
Table 4.9: Comparison between the fixed base and the NLSFI design approaches. ................82
Table 4.10: Reinforcement detailing of the wall buildings.......................................................83
6
Index
Table 4.11: Design outcome of the 12-storey wall for the two approaches(DDBD_NLE_:
Iinitial stiffness DRF curve, DDBD_NLE_SS: secant stiffness DRF curve). ..................90
Table 4.12: Rocking walls reiforcement design. ......................................................................91
Table 5.1: Comparison between NLTHA and Design. ...........................................................102
7
Chapter1. Introduction
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Research Objectives

The principal objective of this research is to derive a new displacement-based seismic design
method of reinforced concrete wall buildings accounting for nonlinear effects of Soil –
Foundation – Structure interaction. Those nonlinear effects mainly refer to yielding of
foundation subsoil (material nonlinearity) and foundation uplift (geometric nonlinearity), that
is detachment between one portion of the foundation and the supporting soil.
The research is focused on buildings whose lateral load resisting system comprises of
reinforced concrete structural walls and are supported on shallow foundation lying on sand.
The choice of studying such systems comes from the argument that they are more possible to
promote soil – structure interaction effects during strong ground motion. Thus, the effort of
taking into account soil – structure interaction effects in such systems is necessary both for
safety and economical design reasons.
During the last decades, many researchers have highlighted the importance of soil – structure
interaction for the safety of various structural systems (mainly bridge piers) and some of them
have even claimed that allowing the foundation subsoil to “fail” could function as a safety
valve of the superstructure. This behaviour scheme has been claimed to be efficient especially
for retrofit of existing structures where the foundation has been damaged during past
earthquakes and any rehabilitation effort would be too expensive and difficult. However, quite
recently, the idea of foundation “failure” has been introduced in the design of new structures
and a large number of investigations on that field have been reported.
1
A lot of important findings have been published as a result of the research undergone during
the past years. These findings have contributed on the development of efficient macro –
element models whose accuracy compares with the one obtained with complex finite element
models but keeping the computational cost relatively low. The development of efficient and
accurately macro – element models allows researchers to conduct parametric analyses such as
the one reported herein.
1.2 Organization of the report

Following the research objectives stated in Chapter 1, the organization of the report is
presented. The report was organized in such a way so that the reader can understand the basic
principles and effects of soil – structure interaction on the response of structures during an
earthquake and clearly realize the effort that is made herein.
In Chapter 2, an overview on the Soil – Foundation – Structure Interaction (SFSI) is presented

so that its basic principles and effects are introduced along with significant research
developments that have been made on that field. Moreover, a reference is made on how
modern Seismic design building codes (Eurocode 8) address this issue and some criticism is
made.
In Chapter 3, the actual contribution of this research project is described that is the derivation
of stiffness degradation and damping curves of shallow foundations as a function of the
foundation rotation. Two cases are considered; one where foundation uplift is allowed but the
subsoil remains essentially elastic and one where both uplift and soil yielding are allowed.
The curves were constructed in such a way that they can be easily implemented in a
displacement – based design framework.
In Chapter 4, the case study buildings are described and designed using the tools derived in
Chapter 3. Furthermore, for comparison reasons, the case study buildings are designed
assuming a fixed based. Except for the superstructure, the foundation is designed in both
cases so that a further comparison is made.
In Chapter 5, the design verification of the case study buildings both for the fixed-base case
and the SFSI case is presented. Two software programs have been used; Ruaumoko and
2
SeismoStruct, and important modelling aspects of the RC walls behaviour are addressed such
as inelastic shear deformations.
At last, in Chapter 6, the conclusions along with the uncertainties that exist in this research are
presented and any possible future research that can be done on that field is proposed.
3
Chapter 2. Literature Overview on SFSI
2 LITERATURE OVERVIEW ON SFSI
2.1 General Description

The term Soil - Foundation – Structure Interaction (called SFSI from now on) comes from the
fact that during earthquake shaking the foundation, the surrounding soil and the superstructure
interact and one affects the motion and the response of the others. More specifically, the soil
deforms under the influence of incident seismic waves (shear waves, dilatational P-waves,
surface waves etc.) and carries with it the foundation and the superstructure. In turn, due to
the induced motion of the superstructure, inertial forces are developed on it. This results into
dynamic stresses at the foundation which are transmitted to the supporting soil. Thus,
additional deformations, coming from the inertial forces on the superstructure, are induced in
the soil while additional waves emanate from the soil-foundation interface. In response,
foundation and superstructure exhibit further dynamic displacements which produce further
inertial forces and so on.
In order to simplify the description of the aforementioned simultaneously occurring

phenomena, SFSI is separated into two successive phenomena referred to as kinematic
interaction and inertial interaction. The complete concept of SFSI is described by the
superposition of these two interaction effects.
2.2 Kinematic Interaction

The kinematic interaction refers to the effects of the incident seismic waves on the system
which consists of the foundation and the surrounding soil, setting any mass of the
superstructure equal to zero. The main effect of the kinematic interaction is the development
of the foundation motion which is generally different than the free – field motion that is the
ground surface motion if there was no foundation or structure. Usually, the foundation motion
4
is smaller than the free – field motion due to the difference in stiffness between the soil and
foundation. In addition, the foundation motion generally contains a rotational component.
This component is more significant for deep foundations while for surface foundations, it is
negligible. Also, the importance of the rotational component depends on the rigidity of the
foundation itself and as a matter of fact the more flexible the foundation the more significant
the rotational component is [Mylonakis et al, 2006].
From the above, one can conclude that the kinematic interaction effects become more
important as the embedment depth of the foundation increases. In the case of a surface
foundation, where the embedment depth is zero, which is subjected to vertically propagating
S-waves, there is no kinematic interaction effect at all. In Mylonakis et al. [2006], a state-of-
the art description and treatment of SFSI is presented. As far as kinematic interaction is
concerned, a number of cases of different foundation configurations and incident waves are
presented along with the relative importance of the kinematic interaction effects. Moreover,
the transfer functions (i.e. the functions that multiply the ground surface free – field motion in
order to obtain the foundation input motion) coming from analytical studies are referred for
every case. In practice, especially for shallow foundations with small embedment depth and
for noncritical structures, the kinematic interaction effects are ignored leading to slightly
conservative designs, as explained in Mylonakis et al. [2006].
2.3 Inertial Interaction

The inertial interaction refers to the response of the complete soil – foundation – structure
system against the inertial forces which are developed due to the foundation input motion
which was defined in the previous paragraph and is a product of the kinematic interaction.
Usually, for surface or embedded foundations, inertial interaction is conveniently performed
in two steps.
The first step consists of computing the foundation dynamic impedances (springs and dashpot
coefficients) associated with each mode of vibration. The values of the dynamic impedance
coefficients depend on the soil and foundation characteristics. In the usual case where the
foundation is considered as perfectly rigid, there are six modes of vibration (3 translational
and 3 rotational) and the soil profile’s properties mostly define the dynamic impedance
5
coefficients while the foundation’s contribution is limited to its geometrical properties. The
general form of an impedance function in a random mode of vibration is:
+ (2.1)
=
is termed as dynamic stiffness and reflects the stiffness and inertia of the
The first term
supporting soil. The term is defined as a dashpot coefficient and reflects the radiation and
the material damping generated in the system during the earthquake shaking. Both terms
defined are frequency dependent, however, in order to be easy to implement in computer
codes, they are typically treated as frequency independent. The most usual values of these
terms are the ones that correspond to zero frequency (static components of impedance
functions). Nevertheless, as mentioned in Pecker and Pender [2000], simple rheological
models can easily be used to represent the frequency dependence of the impedance functions.
In the case of embedded foundations, the horizontal forces along the principal axes induce
rotational oscillations and thus, cross-coupling impedance terms exist between the
translational and the rotational degrees of freedom. However, in the case of shallow
foundations, with small embedment depth, these cross-coupling terms are quite insignificant
and, usually, are neglected [Mylonakis et al., 2006]. The factors which mostly affect the
dynamic impedance functions are:
• The foundation shape and dimensions (strip, rectangular, circular etc).

• The soil profile properties (uniform or multi-layer deposit, depth of rock layer etc).
• The embedment (surface foundations, embedded foundations, pile foundation).
In Mylonakis et al. [2006], a number of analytical, approximate expressions and charts for the
calculation of foundation impedances for the most common cases (with respect to the factors
stated above) met in practice are presented and discussed.
The second step of the inertial interaction analysis includes the determination of the response
of the structure and the foundation supported on the springs and dashpots, which represent the
foundation impedance functions, and subjected to the accelerations coming from the
kinematic interaction. A schematic description of the SFSI is shown in figure 2.1.
6
Figure 2.1: Schematic description of SFSI (after Mylonakis et al [2006]).
2.4 Beneficial and Detrimental effects of SFSI

Soil – Foundation – Structure interaction has traditionally been considered to be beneficial for
the seismic response of the structures [Mylonakis et al. 2000]. This is due to the period
lengthening coming from the flexibility of the foundation in comparison with a fixed-based
structure. Also, additional seismic energy is dissipated through wave radiation and hysteretic
behaviour of the soil – foundation system and, therefore, the damping ratio of a flexibly –
supported structure is increased with respect to a fixed – based structure. The combination of
the period lengthening and increased damping leads into lower values of spectral acceleration
in a code – based acceleration response spectrum which, in turn, results into lower inertial
forces on the structure and more economical design. Moreover, it was observed that when
SFSI effects are included in the analysis the ductility demands on the structure decrease and
this fact comes to strengthen the belief of the beneficial role of SFSI [Mylonakis et al. 2000].
7
However, this belief is significantly influenced by oversimplifications made in the

representation of the seismic demand in building codes. In particular, these
oversimplifications are related to a) the smooth response spectra used for design (especially
for the portion of monotonically decreasing spectral acceleration with increasing period after
the plateau of constant acceleration), b) the behaviour factors used to derive design forces and
c) the calculation of the foundation impedances assuming homogeneous half - space
conditions for the soil, an assumption which overestimates the damping of structures on real
soil profiles [Mylonakis et al. 2000].
On the other hand, it has been shown that at sites with soft soil conditions and deep, relatively
uniform layers, the highest spectral acceleration ordinates occur in long periods, as shown in
figure 2.2. Also, SFSI is highly affected by dynamic phenomena such as resonance and
forward directivity effects. This is more evident in earthquake records on soft soil deposits
(high spectral ordinates in long periods) and records including high velocity pulses, especially
in the fault normal direction. Furthermore, as mentioned in Mylonakis and Gazetas [2000],
analytical studies performed in the early 90’s showed that, in soft soil sites, an increase in
structural period may increase the imposed ductility demand. In addition to this, it should be
always in mind that the displacement spectral ordinates are always increasing with increasing
period and thus, P – ∆ effects become more significant. Also, in a displacement - based design
framework, period lengthening leads to larger demands on the system and consequently, SFSI
effects may not be considered beneficial, in contrast to the traditional design methods (i.e.
Force Based design). All the aforementioned lead to the conclusion that period lengthening is
not always beneficial and a careful assessment of both the seismic input and soil conditions is
essential. In Mylonakis and Gazetas [2000], a number of real earthquakes where SFSI had a
detrimental effect on structures are referred. Such examples include 10 – to 12 – storey
buildings founded on soft clay in Mexico earthquake (1985) and a section of the Hanshin
Expressway’s Route 3 highway in Kobe earthquake (1995).
Numerical analyses as well as experimental studies have been conducted on structures where
SFSI may be important in order to highlight the main effects of soil – structure interaction.
Most of the structures studied were bridge piers, subjected to real earthquake records in the
transverse direction of the bridge. Also, some shear wall or cantilever wall buildings were
8
studied. These two categories of structures may be prone to SFSI effects due to their
flexibility.
Figure 2.2: Comparison between code and real earthquake response spectra with high spectral
acceleration ordinates in long periods (5% damped spectra).
Mylonakis and Gazetas [2000] performed a numerical investigation of an elastoplastic bridge

pier which had the same properties of a pier of the Hanshin Expressway’s Route 3 highway
and was subjected to the nearby Kobe Fukiai earthquake record. The analysis they conducted
was based on traditional design methods, assigning appropriate behaviour factors, and on the
response spectra of the actual record. They concluded that when SFSI is included in the
analysis of a bridge pier supported on deformable soil, there may be an increase in the
ductility demand with respect to the fixed-base pier. In Cremer et al. [2002] a SFSI macro-
element model was developed and as a numerical application, a bridge pier, belonging to the
real railway bridge “Viaduct de l’Arc” in North of Marseille, was analyzed under the Aigion
earthquake (Greece 1996, Ms=6.1). The analysis included both linear and nonlinear SFSI as
well as a case with no SFSI effects at all. Linear SFSI was shown to mainly affect the
structural period of the structure by dragging it to higher values depending on the flexibility
of the soil. The higher the flexibility the longer the period is and, for that earthquake, the
9
lower the value of the overturning moment at the base of the pier. For nonlinear SFSI, it was
observed that the more important the nonlinearities, the more reduced the base shear and the
overturning moment and the larger the displacements. Also, it was observed that accounting
for SFSI effects reduces the floor accelerations which is an important aspect of the design of
equipment fixed on the deck of the bridge.
Mylonakis et al. [2006], in a state-of-the- art paper on dealing with SFSI, performed a
parametric analysis of a bridge pier where different soil moduli were applied. Both harmonic
steady-state and time history analyses were performed; the former to investigate the salient
features of the dynamic behaviour of the system and the latter to obtain prediction of the
response to actual motions. Two earthquake records were considered: an artificial
accelerogram fitted to the NEHRP-94 with PGA=0.4g and the Pacoima downstream motion
recorded on soft rock outcrop during the Northridge 1994 earthquake. The main conclusions
regarding the response of the bridge pier can be summarized in the following:
• An increase in radiation damping (which depends on supporting soil profile) would

lead to a significant reduction of the pier’s response if the period of the pier is below
the cut-off frequency of the soil profile. As the flexibility of the supporting soil profile
increases, the radiation damping increases because waves emitted by the foundation
penetrate in the soil half-space.
• If shifting of the pier’s period due to SFSI leads to resonance between soil and
structure, it may also lead to increase in pier’s response depending on the frequency
content of the earthquake.
• Nonlinear effects such as soil plastic deformations, uplift and pore water pressure lead
to an increase of the structural period that may cause de-resonance or resonance and
thus, progressive collapse of the structure.
Pecker et al. [2010] performed Incremental Dynamic Analysis of an elastoplastic bridge pier,
using a set of 30 earthquake records. Linear and nonlinear SFSI effects were included in the
analysis by implementing a SFSI macro-element model. It was found that the overall
behaviour of the pier when linear SFSI effects are considered is not so different than the
fixed-base pier. However, for large Cumulative Average Velocity (CAV) values, linear SFSI
was shown to be unfavorable for the response of the pier due to higher ductility demands. On
10
the other hand, nonlinear SFSI leads to essentially lower ductility demands than the other two
cases even for large CAV values due to soil yielding which protects the superstructure.
However, permanent settlements and rotations with high variability are an issue when
nonlinear SFSI effects are accounted for. Many other examples for bridge piers and RC wall
buildings exist in the literature which can confirm more or less the aforementioned remarks.
2.5 Linear SFSI

With the significant development of computer technology, there does not seem to be any
rational reason for neglecting soil – structure interaction. A multi – step approach in
evaluating SFSI effects consists of first, estimating the foundation input motion according to
the kinematic interaction analysis and then, performing the inertial interaction analysis
according to the steps described earlier. This approach can be limited to the last step if a) the
system (soil, foundation, structure) remains linear, b) kinematic interaction is neglected and c)
dynamic foundation impedance functions are available.
As mentioned earlier, kinematic interaction can be conservatively neglected for shallow

foundations with small embedment depth. Also, dynamic foundation impedance functions are
available from analytical studies conducted earlier [Gazetas, 1991]. On the other hand, it is
extremely rare that the whole system can respond elastically linearly during an earthquake.
Although the superposition theorem is exact for completely linear systems, it can be applied
to moderately non linear systems too. This can be achieved by selecting reduced values of soil
properties (such as shear modulus and shear strength) which are compatible with the expected
free field strains induced by the propagating seismic waves. This approximation is the basis of
the Equivalent Linear Method proposed by Idriss and Seed in 1968, and implies that all the
soil nonlinearities come from the passage of the seismic waves and that any additional
nonlinearity developed around the edges of the footing are negligible. Thus, this kind of
equivalent linear analysis is valid only in cases when the footing or the mat foundation does
not exhibit significant rotation, uplift or sliding during the earthquake shaking which cause
the soil to reach its bearing capacity and develop significant plastic deformations. These types
of nonlinearities are a consequence of the soil – foundation – structure interaction.
11
2.6 Nonlinear SFSI

As mentioned in the previous paragraph, the only nonlinearities which are accounted for in
the equivalent linear method are the ones associated with the passage of the seismic waves
and the strain levels that they impose in the soil. Nonlinearities associated with the soil –
structure interaction are ignored. This kind of nonlinearities is divided into geometrical and
material nonlinearities.
Geometrical nonlinearities are mainly related to the foundation uplift (for shallow foundation)
and the formation of gap between the soil and the piles (for deep foundations). Those
nonlinearities follow a reversible procedure and result into negligible permanent
deformations. Their main effect is the isolation of the system which results into reduced
forces transmitted by the foundation to the soil and therefore decreased seismic demand.
Material nonlinearities arise from soil yielding around the edges of shallow foundations and
along the shaft of piles. Their nature is irreversible as they induce permanent deformations
into the system. Their main effect, except for the additional increase of the structural period,
is also related to soil yielding which acts as a safety valve for the foundation and the
superstructure as well as to the significant energy dissipation which tend to limit the seismic
demands on the structure.
Geometrical and material nonlinearities are strongly coupled and a lot of theoretical,
analytical and experimental research effort has been made during the last decades to throw
some light on the nonlinear behaviour of soil – foundation systems under slow cyclic loading
or real earthquake records. The most significant findings of recent experimental and analytical
research on shallow foundations are briefly presented below:
• The dynamic response of a soil – foundation system is driven by the rocking mode of
vibration as it is much more flexible than swaying and uplifting.
• Load – displacement behaviour of shallow foundations depends on the applied
moment – to – shear ratio at the base of the footing.
• The horizontal translation of footings results into insignificant permanent
deformations.
• Reduction in effective contact areas between the footing’s base and side walls and the
surrounding soil, during earthquake shaking and after significant yielding, leads to
12
additional period elongation of the system as the rotational stiffness (mainly) of the
foundation decreases substantially.
• Significant yielding of the soil – foundation system initiates when the ultimate loads
are attained (when the bearing capacity is reached) and the foundation keeps in
contact with the underlying soil only in the proximity of the foundation edges,
revealing significant uplift. However, during unloading and subsequent reloading
phases, the contact areas do not increase remarkably implying permanent reduction of
the contact area. Following successive strong load pulses in both directions of loading,
the soil profile under the foundation is rounded and exhibits substantial accumulated
seismic settlement.
• Significant bearing capacity degradation does not occur during loading (even in slow
cyclic tests) even when the soil below the footing reaches its ultimate capacity and
yields.
• As the ratio between the area of the footing (A) and the contact area (Ac) increases,
less energy dissipation due to soil yielding as well as permanent settlement is observed
while uplift becomes more significant.
• Substantial energy is dissipated due to rocking of footing and energy dissipation
increases with increasing foundation rotation.
• Higher earthquake intensity leads to more energy dissipation, cyclic rotation and uplift
and also, tilting towards one side of footing is likely to be observed.
• Foundation stiffness degradation and energy dissipation increase depend on the initial
safety factor against vertical concentric loads (Nmax/N, where Nmax is the bearing
capacity of the footing under vertical concentric load). This ratio also affects the
amplitude of permanent settlements.
2.7 Modeling of Nonlinear SFSI

An engineering approximation of the aspects that nonlinear SFSI includes can be reached by
subdividing the supporting soil into two sub-domains:
- A far-field domain which extends a sufficient distance from the foundation such that
the soil – structure interaction nonlinearities to be negligible. Nonlinearities in that
domain are only governed by the propagation of seismic waves.
13
- A near-field domain, in the proximity of the foundation where all geometrical and
material nonlinearities due to soil – structure interaction are concentrated.
The boundary between these domains is not known with precision, however in practice, its
location is not necessary. The concept described above can be easily implemented if the
degrees of freedom of the foundation are considered uncoupled (which is a valid assumption
of shallow foundations Mylonakis et al [2006]). The far-field domain is modeled with the
equivalent linear impedance functions whereas the near-field domain is lumped into a
nonlinear element which reproduces adequately the geometrical and material nonlinearities.
Damping in the far-field domain arises only from radiation damping, which is viscous-type,
while in the near-field domain, damping comes from the hysteretic behaviour of the soil –
foundation system. An image of the aforementioned concept is presented in figure 2.3.
Some interesting remarks on the definition of dynamic impedance functions as well as on

radiation damping can be found in Mylonakis et al. [2006] and in Wolf, J.,P. and Song, C.,
[2002]. In these papers, dynamic impedance functions for different shallow foundation
configurations can be found as well as the effects of different soil profiles with or without
shallow rock layer on the impedance functions and on the radiation damping criterion. These
remarks may prove extremely helpful for the representation of the far-field sub-domain.
Figure 2.3: Conceptual sub-domains for nonlinear SFSI modelling.
As for the modeling of the near-field sub-domain, all the nonlinearities associated with soil –
structure interaction should be captured and more specifically:
14
• Foundation uplifting.
• Soil yielding.
• Coupling between uplifting and soil yielding with all the inherent consequences
(permanent settlements, stiffness degradation, maximum and residual rotations and
displacements).
• Sliding (although not very important).
• Corresponding energy dissipation in each vibration mode.
Since modeling of the nonlinearities in the near-field domain are extremely important in order
to take into account SFSI effects and even take advantage of them in design, the next
paragraph is devoted in presenting a summary of numerical models that have been developed
during the last two decades.
2.7.1 Modeling of the Near-Field sub-domain

The beneficial role of SFSI, under certain circumstances, in design has been recognized for
many years. In the past, during large earthquakes, it has been observed that instantaneous
mobilization of the bearing capacity of the soil beneath the foundation, as well as nonlinear
behaviour of the soil – foundation system, occurred. Thus, since cases where the soil –
foundation system behaves nonlinearly, especially when the occurring earthquake exceeds the
design seismic demands, are common, one could argue that SFSI effects should be taken into
account and even be exploited to obtain a more economical design of the foundation and the
superstructure.
However, in order to be able to account for the SFSI effects, proper and reliable tools,
to model them, are necessary. The most rigorous methods used to study soil – structure
interaction are based on the finite element technique. Nevertheless, their use in this context is
very complex, competence demanding and time consuming. Therefore, the derivation of more
efficient tools, combining precision in modeling, simplicity in use and minor computational
effort is essential. Two types of alternative models have been developed to represent the
nonlinear response of soil – foundation systems: models based on Beam – on – Nonlinear –
Winkler – Foundation (BNWF) and the so-called Macro-element models. Both of them are
described in the following with more emphasis being placed on the concept of macro-
elements since they have been proven superior to the BNWFs.
15
The concept of BNWF is based on obtaining global models for shallow foundations by
considering uncoupled Winkler springs attached at the soil-foundation interface that are
characterized by an elastoplastic contact – breaking law. As mentioned in Harden et al.
[2009], Q – z components are used as vertical springs to model the vertical load – settlement
response and to provide moment capacity calculations whereas p – y components are used to
simulate the passive resistance of soil against the footing movement. At last, T – z
components are necessary to model sliding at the soil – foundation interface. The elastic part
of the aforementioned components represents the elastic far-field response while the plastic
part is used to simulate the near-field response that includes the nonlinearities associated with
the soil-structure interaction. The main advantage of such formulations is that they permit
derivation of global system response by integration of the local spring response, which can be
achieved analytically. On the other hand, they are subject to a certain limitations associated
with the Winkler decoupling hypothesis as they are unable to describe the coupling between
the vertical and rotational degrees of freedom which has been shown to exist. Moreover, the
difficulty of parameters calibration is another significant drawback of those formulations.
In the case of macro-elements, footing and soil are considered as a single element and
a six degrees of freedom (3D case) or a three degrees of freedom (2D case) model is
formulated describing the resultant force – displacement behaviour of a point (usually the
center) of the footing in the vertical, horizontal and rotational directions. The evolution of
macro-element models for shallow foundations seems to follow somehow parallel
developments with the theory of plasticity. Roscoe and Schofield [1956, 1957] are the first to
have suggested a treatment of the non-linear behaviour of shallow foundations based on the
theory of plasticity. The stress and deformation tensors are replaced by the resultant force and
corresponding displacement vectors with respect to which, a suitably chosen elastoplastic law
is formulated. Nova and Montrasio [1991] have exploited this idea in formulating a model for
strip footings on sand under monotonic loading with an isotropic-hardening elastoplastic law.
The basic idea of this model is first to represent the bearing capacity of the foundation under
combined loading as a surface in the space of the resultant vertical and horizontal force and
moment acting on the foundation following the reasoning initiated by Salençon [1972] and
also by Butterfield [1980]. Then this ultimate surface is identified as the yield surface in the
plasticity model regardless the mechanisms governing its origin and is allowed to evolve
16
according to a suitably chosen hardening law. In parallel, the displacements of the footing are
predicted by introducing an experimentally calibrated flow rule, which turns out to be non-
associated. This two-step modeling procedure has been followed in a number of subsequent
works for different soil conditions (clays, loose and dense sands) and different foundation
geometries (strip, rectangular and circular) leading to very accurate approximations of the
ultimate surface (yield surface), the hardening rule and the flow rule. Other works aimed at
extending the applicability of such models to cyclic loading. Pedretti [1998] and subsequently
Di Prisco et al. [2003] retained the isotropic hardening rule of the Nova and Montrasio model
for the case of virgin loading and introduced a hypoplastic bounding surface formulation for
the cases of unloading/reloading. This allowed obtaining a continuous plastic response for the
footing all through the loading history. In parallel, Paolucci [1997] initiated the use of macro-
element models for earthquake engineering applications. An original modeling approach was
proposed in the works of Crémer et al. [2002] in which, two distinct non-linear mechanisms
(soil plasticization and footing uplift) are formulated independently, whereas the global
footing response is obtained through their coupling. The model was developed for strip
footings on cohesive soils under seismic loading. Uplift was described by a geometric model
and soil plasticization by a kinematic and isotropic hardening plasticity model following
Prévost [1978]. Recently, Grange et al. [2008] modified the plasticity model of Crémer et al.
[2002] for application to circular footings and three-dimensional loading. A model with
coupled uplift and soil plasticity has also been presented by Paolucci et al. [2008]. Even more
recently, Chatzigogos et al. [2011] proposed a macro-element model where, except for
rocking and uplifting, nonlinear sliding mechanism at the soil-foundation interface was
included. This model was further improved to be implemented in seismic analysis in Figini et
al. [2012] where a new mapping rule was introduced to better fit the loading path under
seismic loading and also, uplift – plasticity coupling, described through the concept of
effective footing width, was implemented. A significant asset of this last work is that a unique
set of parameters for dense sand soil conditions was introduced that fits reasonably well
results from independent large scale laboratory tests, both cyclic and dynamic.
17
Figure 2.4: Generic SFSI modelling in the case of macro-elements.
Figure 2.5: Schematic image of ultimate loads surface used in most of the SFSI macromodels
(QN=normalized vertical force, QV=normalized horizontal force, QM=normalized moment).
2.8 Direct Displacement – Based Design and SFSI

As it has been realized over the last decades, displacements and deformations are closely
related to the damage of structures during earthquakes. For that, it seems reasonable to
develop design methods that depend on global deformation parameters or element
deformations. Towards that direction, Direct Displacement Based Design (DDBD) was
proposed by Priestley et al. [2007] in order to reinforce the development of Performance
Based Design of structures. The increasing interest of earthquake engineering toward
performance – based design approaches has led to a greater consideration of the role played
by Soil – Foundation – Structure Interaction on the overall behaviour of the system.
18
Current seismic design codes approaches forbid damage occurring on the foundation and rely
on the superstructure to deform inelastically so that the seismic energy is dissipated. However,
as shown earlier, nonlinear foundation response is almost unavoidable in many practical
cases, since overturning moments may get temporarily greater than the foundation static
bearing capacity. In this case the nonlinear foundation response may lead to lower seismic
demands on the superstructure. The idea to exploit non-linear energy dissipation at the soil-
foundation interface is becoming more and more attractive and has already led to some
outstanding examples of seismic design of foundations allowed to uplift during earthquakes,
such as in the case of the Rion-Antirion suspension bridge in Greece [Pecker, 2006], as well
as to increase experimental evidence of its benefits on the superstructure behaviour [Ugalde et
al., 2007; Deng et al., 2011]. Therefore, controlled foundation uplift and/or controlled plastic
response of the soil-foundation system are expected to become soon a “rational and
economically efficient earthquake protection solution” [Anastasopoulos et al., 2010], and to
lead in the next future to new performance-based design approaches including non-linear soil-
foundation-structure interaction as a key element.
In Priestley et al.[2007] the direct design procedure accounting for the soil-structure
interaction was first proposed and consisted the base for other approaches. Within this
perspective, Paolucci et al. [2012], proposed a new procedure that aimed to explicitly
introduce nonlinear Soil – Foundation – Structure Interaction in DDBD. The procedure is
based on the use of empirical curves, quantifying the foundation stiffness degradation and the
corresponding increase of damping ratio, as a function of foundation rotation. To simplify the
procedure, only the rotational degree of freedom is considered which is quite reasonable, as
the seismic response of shallow foundations is dominated by the rocking behaviour. The study
was based on large scale experimental tests of a shallow foundation under cyclic loading
supported on medium-dense and dense sand, which were carried out at the Joint Research
Center in Ispra, Italy and at the Public Works Research Institute in Tsukuba, Japan. In figure
2.6, a set of such experimental results along with numerical simulations performed using the
macro-element model developed by di Prisco et al. [2003], are presented.
19
Figure 2.6: Variation of shallow foundation rotational secant stiffness and damping ratio for dense and
medium-dense sands, as a function of foundation rotation (Paolucci et al., 2012).
By using the aforementioned macro-element model and after calibration with the
experimental results, empirical equations for both KF/KF0(θ) and ξ(θ) as a function of the
static safety factor (Nmax/N) and the relative density of the sand were derived to be used in the
DDBD. The curves obtained by this work are given in figure 2.7. The equations that give
these curves are:
௄ಷ ଵ
= ଵା௔ఏ೘ (2.2)
௄ಷబ
ி = ி,௠௜௡ + ி,௠௔௫ − ி,௠௜௡

1 − exp− 2.3
For dense sands a saturation value ξF,max=0.25 and for medium-dense sands ξF,max=0.37 is
assigned. Regardless of the relative density of sand the lower threshold of damping ratio was
ξF,min=0.036 which represents the radiation damping. The values of all the other parameters
are given in table 2.1.
20
Figure 2.7: Empirical curves for secant stiffness degradation and corresponding increase of damping ratio
[Paolucci et al., 2012].
Table 2.1: Values of parameters for the derivation of the empirical curves.
Due to the limitations of the numerical model for large values of foundation rotation (e.g. no
uplift is considered), those empirical curves may not be reliable if the reduction of the secant
stiffness falls below a threshold value of 0.15.
21
Using the aforementioned empirical curves, an iterative design procedure is applied where
both the performance of the superstructure and the foundation are design input data. The
foundation should be designed preliminarily so that an initial geometry and safety factor is
known. The procedure is iterated until convergence on the performance of the superstructure
and the foundation occurs and then, the obtained performance is checked with the limits
defined by the designer. By this method an optimal integrated design of both the foundation
and the superstructure can be achieved.
Figure 2.8:Flow chart summarizing the DDBD+NLSFSI design procedure by Paolucci et al. [2012].
The procedure denoted as DDBD+NLSSI was applied in the design of a bridge pier and the
design was verified against nonlinear time history analyses including spectrum compatible
real accelerograms. It was observed that there was a reasonable agreement between the design
22
and the average values from the nonlinear time history analysis. However, a discrepancy
exists in terms of maximum rotation θmax, since the computed values (from NLTH) were
larger than those expected according to the design procedure. This leads to an overestimation
of the ductility demand on the superstructure as the contribution of the foundation rotation to
the overall system ductility demand is underestimated. This discrepancy is due to the fact that
no uplift was considered in the macro-element model which was used to obtain the empirical
curves which were implemented in the design procedure.
Furthermore Sullivan et al. [2010] applied a similar DDBD+NLSSI procedure for reinforced
concrete wall structures supported on shallow foundations using the empirical curves derived
by Paolucci et al. [2007]. Implementation of this design procedure in buildings with different
building heights concluded that: i) the required design strengths tend to be higher when
accounting for SFSI and ii) DDBD method results in significantly lower required design
strengths compared to Force Based design methods for 6 and 8 storey buildings, suggesting
that shallow foundation solutions may be more feasible for medium rise buildings when
DDBD is used. In addition to this, it was pointed out that another means of accounting axial-
shear-moment interaction at the base of the foundations should be explored and calibrated (to
NLTH) equivalent viscous damping curves for shallow foundations should be developed.
2.9 Soil – Structure Interaction Eurocode 8

In most of building codes, the structure response and foundation loads are determined
neglecting SFSI and assuming a fixed base. This is due to the traditional belied that SFSI is
favorable and neglecting it results in slightly conservative design outcome. However, the
significance of the SFSI was highlighted in the previous sections and it was clear that SFSI
should be taken into account especially in a performance – based design framework.
Eurocode 8 is one of the codes where the significance of SFSI was recognized and some
regulations were included. More specifically, in chapter 6 of part 5 of Eurocode 8, it is stated:
“The effects of dynamic soil-structure interaction shall be taken into account in the case of:
− structures where P-δ effects play a significant role;
− structures with massive or deep seated foundations;
23
− slender tall structures;
− structures supported on very soft soils, with average shear wave velocity less than 100 m/s.
For pile foundations, paragraph 5.4.2 of EC8-5 treats soil-structure interaction which is
always taken into account and gives attention to the kinematic interaction which is important
for that kind of foundations.
Annex D of EC8-5 includes a brief description of SFSI and its effects on structures and states
that for most of structures (except for the cases stated above) SFSI is beneficial.
As for the seismic bearing capacity of shallow foundations, which is important in identifying
soil yielding, EC8-5 states: "The stability against seismic bearing capacity failure taking into
account load inclination and eccentricity arising from the inertia forces of the structure as well
as the possible effects of the inertia forces in the supporting soil itself can be checked with the
general expression and criteria provided in annex F. The rise of pore water pressure under
cyclic loading should be considered either in the form of undrained strength or as pore
pressure in effective stress analysis. For important structures, non linear soil behavior should
be considered in determining possible permanent deformation during earthquakes."
More specifically, the code requires that the actions on the foundation should be less than the
resistance, that is
ௗ ≤ ௗ (2.4)
Sd includes the normal force Nsd, the shear force Vsd, the overturning moment Msd and the
inertial forces F developed in the soil which arise from site response analysis and kinematic
interaction. According to EC8-5, the stability of the footing against seismic bearing capacity
failure can be checked with the following expression relating the soil strength, the design
actions (Nsd, Vsd, Msd) at the foundation level and the inertial forces in the soil:
24
(2.5)
This expression comes from upper bound solutions derived from limit equilibrium methods.
This expression is combined with safety factors which are used to deal with the twofold
uncertainty arising from the fact that upper bound solution are used and that limited number
of kinematic mechanism were considered. The formula presented is applicable for both
cohesive and frictional soils. The normalized inertial forces in the soil are computed as
= ௖ , ℎ
ఘ௔஻
(2.6)
ೠ
= ௚௧௔௡ఝ ,

௔
(2.7)
where α is the ground acceleration, cu is the undrained shear strength and φ is the friction
angle.
25
Chapter 3. Derivation of Stiffness Degradation and Damping curves for Shallow Foundations
3 DERIVATION OF STIFFNESS DEGRADATION AND

DAMPING CURVES FOR SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
In this chapter, the procedures followed to derive the stiffness degradation and damping
curves for shallow foundation systems are described. At first, only rocking systems which are
supported on elastic soil are considered. Then, foundation systems which lie on nonlinear
sand soil are considered accounting also for geometric nonlinearities (uplift).
Since a large number of analyses is required, especially for the derivation of the damping
curves, a set of 40 earthquake records are used in order to provide equivalent damping values
calibrated through Nonlinear Time History Analysis (NLTHA). This set of accelerograms is
subdivided into four subsets named as CA, CC, LA and LC. Each one of the subsets
comprises of 10 earthquake records. Sets CA and CC have relatively linearly increasing
spectral displacements up to a period of 4 seconds whereas sets LA and LC have relatively
linearly increasing displacement spectra up to a period of 8 seconds. The second letter in the
subset name stands for the type of soil on which the accelerograms was recorded. Thus letter
A stands for soil type A according to Eurocode 8, that is rock whereas letter C stands for soil
type C.
3.1 Rocking Systems lying on Elastic Soil

In this section, the behaviour of generic rocking elastic systems is investigated. The aim of
this attempt is to derive tools, such as graphs presenting the equivalent damping ratio with
ductility, which can be used in a displacement-based design procedure of such systems. In
relation with the subject of this thesis, structural systems supported on rocking foundations
are considered where the soil underneath remains essentially elastic. Thus, no dissipation of
26
energy through hysteretic behaviour of the soil is accounted for and the response of the
systems follows the same backbone curve during loading and unloading.
3.1.1 Inelastic Displacement Reduction Factor (DRF) estimation

As it has been shown in Pennucci et al. [2011], the inelastic displacement reduction factor
(DRF), which is defined as the ratio of the inelastic displacement of a system, coming from
Non-linear Time History Analysis (NLTHA), to the elastic displacement of a system with
effective period Te, presents less scattering than the values of equivalent viscous damping ξeq
when plotted against ductility demand µ. Two relationships between those two parameters (η
and ξ) are given by the older and current Eurocode 8 expressions which are given below.
= ! "8 (3.1)

2+
7
,
= # "8 (3.2)

5+
10
,
$௜௡௘௟
= (3.3)
$௘௟,்௘
As it has been stated in Pennucci et al. [2011], the former expression fits better the results
obtained through NLTH analyses used with the equivalent viscous damping expressions
proposed by Priestley et al. [2007].
In this study, SDOF rocking systems where analyzed under 40 natural earthquake records,
covering a wide range of effective periods and ductility demands in order to define the
relationship between η, Te and µ for such systems. Therefore, multiple NLTH analyses were
performed of systems though Ruaumoko. In the analyses, 5% tangent-stiffness based elastic
damping was used including large displacement effects. The SDOF system was modeled
through a zero-length spring which followed a bilinear elastic hysteresis rule in the X
direction which was also the loading direction. In order to cover a wide range of periods and
ductility, the yield force and initial stiffness of the system varied.
27
The maximum displacements obtained through the analysis were then compared to the elastic
displacements coming from the displacement response spectrum of the corresponding
earthquake record for the effective period that was observed in the analysis (Ke=Fmax/∆max,
Te=2π (m/Ke)0.5). In figures 3.1-3.4 the procedure described is demonstrated along with
specific force –displacement curves of rocking systems.
CC1 earthquake record displacement spectrum
SDOF Force-displacement curve for η=2.4 100
1000
Spectral displacement (cm)

80
500
60
Force (kN)
0
40
Nonlinear elastic system
Equivalent linear system

-500
20
Te=7.87
-1000 0
-2 -1 0 1 2 0 2 4 6 sec 8
displacement (m)
Period (sec)
Figure 3.1: Determination of η for a SDOF rocking system under earthquake record CC1.
SDOF Force-displacement curve for η=0.45
1500 120

100
Spectral displacement (cm)
1000
500 80
Force (kN)
0 60
-500 40
-1000 20
Te=3.18 sec
-1500 0
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 0 2 4 6 8
displacement (m) Period (sec)
Figure 3.2: Determination of η for SDOF rocking systems under earthquake record CC3.
28

1000 100
80
500
Displacement (cm)
Force (kN)
60
0
40
-500 Equivalent linear system

20
Te=5.62
-1000 0 sec
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 0 2 4 6 8
Figure 3.3: Determination of η for SDOF rocking system under earthquake record CC5.

1500 100

1000 80
Displacement (cm)
500
60
Force (kN)
0
40
-500
20
-1000
Te=4.43 sec
-1500 0
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 0 2 4 6 8
Figure 3.4: Determination of η for SDOF rocking system under earthquake record CC10.
In figures 3.5 and 3.6, the response of one SDOF rocking system under earthquakes CC5 and
CC10 respectively are shown. Under the former earthquake, the system exhibits a
displacement “reduction” factor greater than one, thus its maximum displacement exceeds the
one obtained from equivalent linear analysis. The effect of this phenomenon is shown in the
displacement time history of the system where it is shown that the high amplitude oscillations
occur for a long time period after the earthquake excitation is over (the record duration is 40
seconds) as a consequence of very small value of equivalent damping. Under the latter
29
earthquake, the picture is reversed as the system response is quickly damped after the
achievement of the maximum displacement indication a high value of the equivalent damping
ratio.
Displacement time history of SDOF rocking system with η=1.81

1.5
1
Displacement (m)
0.5
-0.5
-1
-1.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time (sec)
Figure 3.5: Response of SDOF rocking system under earthquake CC5.
Displacement time history of SDOF rocking system with η=0.87

0.8
0.6
0.4
Displacement (m)
0.2
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
time (sec)
Figure 3.6: Response of SDOF rocking system under earthquake CC10.
The results obtained after all the analyses were performed are shown in figures 3.7-3.9. In
figure 3.7, all the analyses results are shown along with average and average± standard
deviation curves. In almost every ductility level, the coefficient of variance is about 30%
30
indicating significant scattering. The average curve shows that the DRF increases with
ductility demand up to a ductility level of 4 beyond which it remains approximately constant
at a value of 1.55. Figure 3.8 is presented to demonstrate the wide range of effective periods
whereas figure 3.9 shows that for effective periods larger than 2.5 seconds DRF is relatively
independent of Te.
4.500 LC, LA, CA, CC average

4.000 average+σ average-σ
3.500
3.000
2.500
ηin
2.000
1.500
1.000
0.500
0.000
0 2 4 6 8 10
ductility, μ
Figure 3.7: Displacement reduction factor for 5% tangent-stiffness based elastic damping and r=0.05.
4.500
4.000
3.500
3.000
2.500
ηin
2.000
1.500
1.000
0.500
0.000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Period, Te (sec)
Figure 3.8: Displacement reduction factor as a function of system's effective period (5% tangent-stiffness
based elastic damping, r=0.05).
31
3.000
μ=1.20
2.500 μ=2.00
μ=3.00
2.000 μ=4.00
μ=5.00
ηin
1.500
μ=6.00
1.000 μ=7.00
μ=8.00
0.500
μ=9.00
0.000 μ=10.00
0 2 4 6 8
Period, Te (sec)
Figure 3.9: Average values of η as a function of effective period and ductility (5% tangent-stiffness based
damping, r=0.05).
At this point it should be noted that the values of η obtained were surprisingly high as they
weren’t expected to be that larger than unity. In fact, the use of tangent stiffness-based elastic
damping is in part responsible for this picture. If a system experiences too many post-yield
loading cycles, it oscillates with decreased damping ratio giving a similar response to the one
shown in figure 3.5. On the other hand, if the earthquake record exhibits a few significant
acceleration peaks which cause the system to exceed the yielding point and after that, the
system behaves mostly in the pre-yield branch, then the system response is damped giving
similar response to the one shown in figure 3.6.
To illustrate the significance of the elastic damping model, another set of analyses was
performed using just the earthquake records of the CC set (10 earthquake records) and
applying an initial stiffness-based elastic damping model with the same damping ratio as
before (5%). The corresponding results, with respect to the η factor as a function of ductility
demand, are shown in figure 3.10.
Referring to figure 3.10, it is apparent that using an initial stiffness elastic damping model
results in obtaining decreasing values of DRF with increasing ductility demand. This fact
clearly proves the importance of the elastic damping model.
32
A third set of analyses was performed by using the secant stiffness to update the tangent
stiffness damping matrix in every step of NLTHA. All the earthquake record sets were chosen
to perform those analyses. The results are given in figures 3.11-3.13.
2.000
1.800
CC
1.600
average_CC
1.400
1.200
ηin
1.000
0.800
0.600
0.400
0.200
0.000
0 2 4 6 8 10
ductility, μ
Figure 3.10: Displacement reduction factor vs ductility for the CC earthquake record set (5% initial-
stiffness based elastic damping, r=0.05).
3.000
CC, CA, LA, LC
2.500
Average
2.000
ηin
1.500
1.000
0.500
0.000
0 2 4 6 8 10
ductility, μ
Figure 3.11: Displacement reduction factor vs. Ductility (5% secant-stiffness based elastic damping,
r=0.05).
33
3.000
2.500
2.000
ηin
1.500
1.000
0.500
0.000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Period, Te
Figure 3.12: Displacement reduction factor as a function of system's effective period (5% secant-stiffness
based elastic damping, r=0.05).
2.500
Tangent Stiffness
Initial Stiffness
2.000
Secant Stiffness
1.500
ηin
1.000
0.500
0.000
0 2 4 6 8 10
ductility, μ
Figure 3.13: Comparison between the DRF variation for different elastic damping models.
As it was expected, the secant stiffness damping model, results into DRF values between the
tangent and initial stiffness based modelling of the elastic damping. It can be observed that the
DRF remains essentially constant and equal to unity for all the ductility demand levels. This
outcome implies that, in average, the work done by a bi-linear rocking system up to the
maximum displacement is the same with the work done by an effective linear system.
34
3.1.2 Stiffness Degradation of Rocking Foundations

In order to derive the stiffness degradation curve against the foundation rotation due to
geometric nonlinearities, an uplift model is necessary. In this study, the foundation uplift
model described in Chatzigogos et al. [2011] is adopted. In the development of this model, the
soil is represented by a linear elastic half-space and a rough soil-foundation interface with
zero tensile strength is assumed. Thus, the footing is not allowed to slide but it is allowed to
be vertically detached from the soil surface. Foundation uplift modifies the soil-footing
contact area leading to decrease in the foundation static impedances. It should be noted that
the uplift response is fully reversible (as long as the foundation does not tilt) and no hysteretic
energy is dissipated. Before uplift initiation the static impedances (stiffness and dashpots)
remain constant and equal to the values initially determined. After uplift initiation the static
impedances decrease. Τhe comparison of this uplift model with more sophisticated finite
element formulation is given in figure
The expressions that describe the uplift model are given below along with explanation of the
variables.
%ெ,଴ = ± %ே ିଵ.ହொಿ , && #' (3.4)

1
%ெ ௙,௨௣ ఉିଵ
= ( − ( − 1 ) * , && !+& (3.5)
ଵ
%ெ,଴ ௙
%ெ,଴
௙,௨௣ = , #' (3.6)
,ெெ,଴ /-௠௔௫
In the previous expressions, α=4 for strip foundations and 6 for circular foundations whereas
β is equal to 2 and 3 respectively. Also, Nmax is the bearing capacity of the footing under
vertical load only, KMM,0 is the initial rotational stiffness of the footing and QN is the ratio of
the current vertical load to Nmax. After some mathematical manipulation, the following
expressions have been derived:
35
1 < ௨௣
,௙ /
1.00,
= ௨௣ ௨௣ ଶ 6 (3.7)
,௙,଴ 0 23 − 2 3 4 5 , > ௨௣
ଵ
/
.
1 − 78 9ఊ :
௨௣ = ିଵ.ହ/(ௌி) (3.7)
4.8 ;
In equation (3.7) Kf/Kf,0 is the ratio of the effective rotational stiffness to the initial one, SF is
the Static Safety Factor which is defined as the ratio of Nmax to the current vertical load
(alternatively SF=1/QN), ν is the Poisson ratio of the soil, G is the Shear Modulus of the soil, γ
is the unit weight of the soil, B is the width of the footing and Nγ is the bearing capacity factor
which depends on the soil friction angle. In this study, mainly square footings are considered,
so the values that correspond to equivalent circular footings were assigned to the parameters α
and β.
The above formula is very helpful to understand the main parameters that affect the rocking
behaviour of a shallow footing on elastic soil. One can observe that the width of footing
affects the uplift initiation proving that uplift is a geometry-related phenomenon. In figures
3.11 the effect of the Safety factor on the rotation of uplift initiation is presented whereas in
figures 3.12 and 3.12 the effect of the Safety Factor and foundation width on the stiffness
degradation is shown. The soil properties used are characteristic of sand soils.
Figure 3.14: Comparison between the proposed uplift model regarding (a) moment-rotation and (b)
moment-heave diagram.
36
0.002
0.0015
θup 0.001
0.0005
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
SF
Figure 3.15: Effect of Safety Factor (SF) on the rotation of uplift initiation (B=4m).
1
0.9
0.8
SF=2
0.7
0.6 SF=4
Kf/Kf,0
0.5 SF=6
0.4
SF=8
0.3
0.2 SF=10
0.1
0
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01
Foundation rotation, θf (rad)
Figure 3.16: Effetc of Safety Factor (SF) on the stiffness degradation of a 4x4m footing.
1
0.9
0.8
0.7 B=4m
0.6
Kf/Kf,0
B=6m
0.5
B=10m
0.4
0.3 B=12m
0.2 B=18m
0.1
0
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01
Figure 3.17: Effect of foundation width on the stiffness degradation of footings with SF=2.
37
3.2 Foundation systems lying on inelastic soil

In this section, the derivation of stiffness degradation and equivalent viscous damping curves
of foundation systems accounting for the nonlinear nature of the soil are presented. More
specifically, in addition to the uplift mechanism, which was considered in the previous
sections, the soil plasticity mechanism is accounted for as well.
The derivation of these curves is performed through the use of a very recently developed SFSI
macro-element model which was created by Antonio Correia. The macro-element is based on
the macro-element developed by Figini et al. [2012] and incorporates some major
improvements and inconsistencies regarding the formulation of the participating mechanisms.
A main enhancement of the macro-element is the fact that it can be used for three dimensional
analyses. Since the soil type considered herein is sand, the “rugby ball” shaped ultimate load
surface of Nova and Montrassio is implemented whereas the uplift mechanism model is quite
similar with what was presented in the previous section.
3.2.1 Derivation of stiffness degradation curves

In this section the process followed in order to derive the secant stiffness degradation curves
of a shallow footing lying on sand along with the final curves are presented.
The recently developed macroelement model by Antonio Correia, was implemented in

SeismoStruct for the purpose of this research. A shallow square footing with 7.5 m of side
dimension was studied which was supported on sand with friction angle of 33.5˚, Shear
modulus of 90 MPa and Poisson ration of 0.3. The footing bearing capacity under pure
vertical load was 40MN. The initial stiffness properties of the footing were calculated based
on well known expressions of foundation impedances [Gazetas, 1991] for square footings that
are presented below.
<-
,ேே = (3.8)
1−7 &
2.25;:
= 2225
<-
,௏௏ = (3.8)
2−7 &
4.5;:
= 1883
<-&
,ெெ (3.8)
0.45;: ଷ
1−7 !
= = 20862
38
The shallow foundation element requires values for a number of parameters in order to be
fully defined. The values of these parameters along with their definition are given in table 3.1.
Table 3.1: Foundation Macroelement parameters.
SYMBOL VALUE DEFINITION
Length X 7.5 m Dimension of footing in X

direction
Length Y 7.5 m Dimension of footing in Y

direction
K_N 2225 MN/m Footing initial vertical

stiffness
K_HX 1883 MN/m Footing initial horizontal

stiffness in X direction
K_HY 1883 MN/m Footing initial horizontal

stiffness in Y direction
K_MY 20862 MNm/rad Footing initial rotational

stiffness around Y axis
K_MX 20862 MNm/rad Footing initial rotational

stiffness around X axis
K_MT 1E+12 MNm/rad Footing initial torsional

stiffness
α 3.0 (square footing) Uplift initiation parameter
Dmg 25.0 Soil/Footing contact

degradation parameter
39
PL_H0 0.4 Reference plastic modulus

(=Hpl0 /(N K_N)
PL_nUR 1.0 Exponent for loading history

in unloading/reloading
CHI_G 1.0 Plastic potential parameter
QQ_N_MAX 40.0 MN Centered vertical bearing

strength
QQ_HX_MAX 6.63 MN Maximum base shear

capacity along X direction
QQ_HY_MAX 6.63 MN Maximum base shear

capacity along Y direction
QQ_MY_MAX 33.13 MNm Maximum base moment

capacity around Y axis
QQ_MX_MAX 33.13 MNm Maximum base moment

capacity around X axis
QQ_T_MAX 5000 MNm Maximum torsional moment

capacity
BS_TYPE 1.0 (rugby shape bounding Bounding surface type

surface)
The last input parameter refers to the load bounding surface type. For the case of frictional
soil types the rugby ball shape bounding surface is appropriate and this is what was chosen
herein.
40
The structural model that was used in order to perform the analyses consists of a footing
element which supports a rigid frame element that simulates the superstructure. At the top of
the frame element, quasi-static cyclic horizontal displacement loading in one direction was
imposed. Three full cycles of loading were performed at each displacement amplitude. The
derivation of the final stiffness degradation curves is based on the results of third cycle. A
main difference of this procedure with respect to the one use to produce the existing curves
derived by Paolucci et al. [2007] is the fact that both moment and shear force are applied on
the foundation. On the other hand Paolucci curves were developed by only applying cyclic
moment.
The main parameters that were deemed to affect the most the secant stiffness degradation of a
surface footing are the Static Safety Factor (SF), which is the ratio of the centered vertical
bearing capacity of the footing Nmax to the applied vertical load N, and the ratio of the
effective height of the superstructure He to the foundation width B. This is why six values of
SF were considered, namely 2, 4, 8, 15, 30 and 60 and four values of He/B, namely 1, 2, 3 and
4.
It should be noted that all the degrees of freedom of the footing element in the loading plane
were kept free so that the results will include effects of sliding and uplift. The uplift behaviour
is highly affected by the geometric properties of the footing. However, the cause of this
research is to derive general rotational stiffness degradation curves which will not depend
directly on the foundation dimensions. In order to normalize the effect of uplift in the results,
it was deemed appropriate to provide the stiffness degradation Kf/Kf0 with respect to the
foundation rotation normalized by the rotation of uplift initiation θf/θup. By doing this, the
resulting curves can be grouped just in terms of SF and He/B. The normalized moment of
uplift initiation is calculated according to the formulation of the macro-element as
%ெ଴ = % (3.9)
2(1 + %ே ) ே
1
and the rotation of uplift initiation is calculated as
%ெ଴
௨௣ = - :. (3.9)
,௙଴ ௠௔௫
41
After all the analyses had been run, the points

point of (θ/θup, Kf/Kf0), coming from the third full
cycle of loading, were plotted and a function was fitted to them. The form of that function was
taken from the work of Paolucci et. al [2007] and is shown below.
௙ 1

3.10
௙଴ ௕
1
௨௣
In the figures below, the design curves along with attached tables where the values of a and b
that were suitable for each case along with R squared value of the corresponding function are
a
presented. In annex A, the agreement between the analysis points and the final curves is
presented.
1.2
He/B=1 SF2
1
SF4
0.8 SF8
Kf/Kf0
SF15
0.6
SF30
0.4 SF60
0.2
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
θ/θup
Figure 3.18:: Stiffness degradation curves for He/B=1.
42
1.2
He/B=2 SF2
1
SF4
0.8 SF8
Kf/Kf0
SF15
0.6
SF30
0.4 SF60
0.2
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
θ/θup
Figure 3.19: Stiffness degradation curves for He/B=2.
1.2
He/B=3 SF2
1
SF4
0.8 SF8
Kf/Kf0
SF15
0.6
SF30
0.4 SF60
0.2
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
θ/θup
43
1.2
He/B=4 SF2
1
SF4
0.8 SF8
Kf/Kf0
SF15
0.6
SF30
0.4 SF60
0.2
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
θ/θup
It should be noted that the design curves for He/B=3 and He/B=4 are exactly the same
indicating that the role of shear force in the stiffness degradation is not important. However,
for lower values of He/B the shear force plays a significant role in
in the stiffness degradation
especially in the pre-uplift
uplift region and for low SF values.
A main difference with Paolucci curves stands in the fact that for higher SF the stiffness
degradation is more severe. However, it shouldn’t be forgotten that the horizontal
horiz axis of the
figures includes the normalized foundation rotation with respect to the rotation of uplift
initiation. If these values are multiplied with the rotation of uplift initiation,
initiation the form of the
curves (for a specific footing) is similar to what
what was obtained by Paolucci, as it is shown in
figure 3.22.
2. However, in the same figure, it is observed that for low values of He/B, the effect
of shear force in the pre-uplift
uplift region causes more rapid stiffness degradation for systems with
low SF which is a feature that is not captured by the curves of Paolucci.
In figure 3.23, a direct comparison between the curves derived by Paolucci and the curves
derived herein (for a 7.5x7.5m footing) is presented. Note that the curves corresponding to
He/B=4 are compared
pared with Paolucci’s since Paolucci didn’t consider any shear force in his
analyses. It is interesting to note that for low SF values the current curves fall below the ones
the Paolucci derived whereas the opposite stands for high SF values. This fact may indicate
44
that the approach followed herein, along with the macroelement formulation that was used,
attribute more important role to plasticity for low SF values than in the case of Paolucci
curves. On the other hand, for high SF values plasticity is not that important and rocking
prevails.
1.2
He/B=1 SF2
1
SF4
0.8 SF8
Kf/Kf0
SF15
0.6
SF30
0.4 SF60
0.2
0
1E-06 1E-05 0.0001 0.001 0.01
θ(rad)
1.2
He/B=3 SF2
1
SF4
0.8 SF8
Kf/Kf0
SF15
0.6
SF30
0.4 SF60
0.2
0
1E-06 1E-05 0.0001 0.001 0.01
θ(rad)
Figure 3.22: Stiffness degradation curves with respect to foundation rotation for a 7.5x7.5m footing.
45
1.2
SF2
1
Kf/Kf0 0.8
0.6 Paolucci_Dense_Sand
0.4 Paolucci_Medium_Dense_Sand
Current Method
0.2
0
1.00E-05 1.00E-04 1.00E-03 1.00E-02
θf (rad)
1.2
SF15
1 Paolucci_Dense_Sand
Kf/Kf0
0.6 Current Method
0.4
0.2
0
1.00E-05 1.00E-04 1.00E-03 1.00E-02
θf (rad)
1.2
SF30
1 Paolucci_Dense_Sand
Kf/Kf0
0.6 Current Method
0.4
0.2
0
1.00E-05 1.00E-04 1.00E-03 1.00E-02
θf (rad)
Figure 3.23: Comparison between the current curves and Paolucci's curves.
46
3.2.2 Equivalent viscous damping curves

In contrast to the case of rocking foundation systems on elastic soil where the Displacement
Reduction Factor (DRF) curves were derived through Nonlinear Time History analyses, the
energy dissipation mechanism for foundation systems on inelastic soil is represented herein in
terms of equivalent viscous damping. The cyclic loading analyses which were performed to
derive the stiffness degradation curves are also used for the calculation of area based
equivalent viscous damping ratios. However, in this case, only one load of cycle was
performed at each displacement increment. This methodology is similar to the one adopted by
Paolucci et al. [2009] but herein the effect of shear force is also accounted for.
The calculation of the area-based equivalent viscous damping can be illustrated with the help
of figure 3.24.
"ௗ
௙ = (3.11)
4=$>
Figure 3.24: Calculation of hysteretic damping.
47
It should be noted that the equivalent viscous damping calculated by this methodology is an
estimate of the energy dissipation attributed to the plastic deformation within the soil due to
the loads transmitted by the superstructure and no other energy dissipation mechanisms, such
as seismic wave radiation or nonlinear soil behaviour due to the passage of seismic waves, are
included.
The results of the cyclic loading analyses are shown in figures 3.25-3.27.
0.4
SF4 He/B≥3.0
0.35
SF2
0.3 SF8
0.25 SF15
0.2 SF30
ξf
SF60
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
1E-05 0.0001 0.001 0.01
θf (rad)
Figure 3.25: EVD results for He/B≥3.0
0.4
SF4 He/B=2.0
0.35
SF2
0.3 SF8
0.25 SF15
0.2 SF30
ξf
0.15 SF60
0.1
0.05
0
1E-05 0.0001 0.001 0.01
θf (rad)
Figure 3.26: EVD results for He/B=2.0
48
0.4
SF4 Ηe/B=1.0
0.35 SF2
0.3 SF8
SF15
0.25
SF30
0.2
ξf
SF60
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
1E-05 0.0001 0.001 0.01
θf (rad)
Figure 3.27: EVD results for He/B=1.0.
Figures 3.25-3.27 demonstrate that greater energy dissipation occurs for low Safety Factor
(SF) systems where plasticity seems to play a more significant role. Also, up to the point
where analysis was possible the EVD kept increasing for such systems whereas for higher SF,
after a foundation rotation was reached, the EVD followed a descending trend. The reason for
this behaviour lies on the fact that large SF systems are affected by uplift which is a non
dissipative mechanism. Thus, for small foundation rotations, plasticity dominates over uplift
and hysteretic loops grow wider with increasing rotation whereas after a rotation limit is
reached, the hysteretic loops get narrower exhibiting low energy dissipation. In addition to
this, systems with very large SF exhibit minor (for SF equal to30) or practically no hysteretic
damping (for SF equal to 60) and the uplift mechanism is predominant. Moreover, the EVD
values seem to increase as the He/B ratios decrease. The increase in EVD is more evident for
intermediate values of Safety Factor and can be attributed to the effect of the shear force.
Another important parameter that highly affects the EVD values is the soil/footing contact
parameter, named “Dmg” in the macro-element formulation. This feature of the macro-
element describes the degradation of the contact between the footing and the soil underneath.
After a plastic rotation is applied, the edge of the footing in contact with the soil will lose
contact upon unloading to the other direction even before the usual uplift starts on this side
and thus, the soil will not recover the plastic deformation and will not stay "glued" to the
footing. This affects the response when the footing comes back to the same side as
49
eccentricity of the hysteresis loop is exhibited. Both this contact degradation and the usual
uplift contribute to a smaller EVD in subsequent cycles. Within the macro-element
formulation, a small value of “Dmg” will lead to a more plastic response with wide hysteresis
loops whereas a very large value of it will produce a response that a nonlinear elastic
mechanism is the predominant mechanism and almost no energy dissipation occurs. In the
analyses described above, “Dmg” was set equal to 25, based on Figini et al. [2012]. In that
work, Figini et al calibrated their macro-element through experimental results and the
aforementioned value came up. It is possible that the macro-element used herein needs further
calibration so that a higher level of certainty will be acquired about the value of that
parameter. In figure 3.28, a comparison is presented between EVD values obtained by using a
very low value for “Dmg” and EVD values obtained by taking “Dmg” equal to 25. It is
apparent that neglecting the soil/footing contact degradation leads to significantly higher EVD
values that may be unrealistic. Moreover, the descending trend of EVD after a foundation
rotation, which is observed when contact degradation is accounted for, seems to fade,
resulting into closer EVD values for systems with different Safety Factors.
0.7
He/B≥3.00
SF4_Dmg=0.1
0.6
SF4_Dmg=25
0.5
SF2_Dmg=0.1
0.4
SF2_Dmg=25
ξf
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1.00E-05 1.00E-04 1.00E-03 1.00E-02
θf (rad)
Figure 3.28: Comparison between EVD for different "Dmg" values.
A comparison of the current analysis results with the EVD curves proposed by Paolucci et al
[2009] shows that extreme differences exist between them. In figures 3.29-3.31, a direct
50
comparison for three values of Safety factor is demonstrated. Note that the results shown
correspond to the case of He/B equal to four where the shear force has negligible effect on the
EVD values.
0.4
SF2
0.35
Current_method_analysis
0.3
0.25 Paolucci_Dense_Sand
0.2
ξf
Paolucci_medium_dense_
sand
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
1.00E-05 1.00E-04 1.00E-03 1.00E-02
θf (rad)
Figure 3.29: Comparison between Paolucci EVD curves and current methodology results (He/B=4).
0.4
SF4
0.35
0.3
0.25 Paolucci_dense_sand
0.2
ξf
Paolucci_medium_dense_
0.15 sand
0.1
0.05
0
1E-05 0.0001 0.001 0.01
θf (rad)
51
0.4
SF15
0.35
0.3
Paolucci_dense_sand
0.25
0.2 Paolucci_medium_dense_
ξf
sand
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
1E-05 0.0001 0.001 0.01
θf (rad)
As it can be observed, the differences between the two approaches are strong. For the case of
the lowest SF, Paolucci curves exhibit a shifting to the right with respect to the analysis
results obtained herein leading to lower values of EVD. This fact enhances the belief that
plasticity is considered to play a more significant role within the model used herein and thus
higher EVD values are attained.
On the other hand, the comparison is reversed for higher SF systems. For the cases of SF
equal to four, the EVD values of Paolucci’s curves for small foundation rotations are larger
than the results obtained through the analyses presented here. For larger foundation rotations,
the analysis point fall between the two curves of Paolucci. However, the strongest difference
lies on the fact that Paolucci’s curves do not represent the descending trend of EVD values
after a foundation rotation of 0.01 rad. This is a consequence of not accounting for uplift in
Paolucci’s analysis method. Nevertheless, Paolucci et al. [2009] refer to that limitation and
suggest that their curves are not used for foundation rotations larger than 0.01 rads.
Considering this, one can say that the agreement between Paolucci’s curves up to the point
that they are applicable and the analysis results is reasonable.
52
Nevertheless, for the case of the lowest Safety Factor presented herein (SF equal to eight), the
effect of uplift is more important and Paolucci’s curves strongly overestimate the EVD with
respect to the current method at every range of foundation rotation, both for dense or medium-
dense sand.
In figures 3.32-3.34, values of analytical expressions that fit the EVD analysis points are
plotted. A three branches curve was fitted; the first branch consists of constant EVD for small
rotations, the second one exhibits an ascending trend up to the maximum value and
subsequently a descending branch follows.
0.4
He/B=1
0.35
SF2
0.3
SF4
0.25 SF8
EVD, ξf
0.2 SF15
SF30
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
1.00E-05 1.00E-04 1.00E-03 1.00E-02
Figure 3.32: EVD curves fitted to the analysis results for He/B=1.0.
By observing the curves, it seems that the rotation after which the EVD starts increasing
increases with increasing SF. Also, it is remarkable to notice that the rotation at which the
maximum EVD value is attained is the same (0.01 rad) for all the SF cases considered herein
except for SF equal to 30. Regarding the descending branch, there is no evidence that for very
large rotations the EVD reaches a constant value but assigning the same constant value that
stands for very small rotations seems reasonable. However, such values (>0.01 rad) may not
be of interest for design purposes.
53
0.35
He/B=2
0.3
SF2
0.25 SF4
0.2 SF8
EVD, ξf
SF15
0.15 SF30
0.1
0.05
0
1.00E-05 1.00E-04 1.00E-03 1.00E-02
Figure 3.33: EVD curves fitted to the analysis results for He/B=2.0.
0.35
He/B≥3
0.3
SF2
0.25 SF4
0.2 SF8
EVD, ξf
SF15
0.15 SF30
0.1
0.05
0
1.00E-05 1.00E-04 1.00E-03 1.00E-02
Figure 3.34: EVD curves fitted to the analysis results for He/B≥3.0.
It is once more reminded that the EVD values obtained through the cycling loading analyses
correspond to the energy dissipation via inelastic deformations of the foundation soil due to
the loads which are transmitted by the superstructure and that no energy dissipation through
wave radiation or due to the passage of the seismic waves are accounted for. However, those
54
two contributions are important when Soil-Foundation-Structure Interaction is considered.

Regarding the damping component due to the passage of seismic waves, site specific response
analysis would be most appropriate in order to determine the site specific response spectrum
of the seismic hazard. However, since this is not common practice, reference values of soil
internal damping can be found in building codes that address SFSI. In Eurocode 8, part 5,
proposed values of internal damping ratio and soil stiffness degradation due to the ground
shaking with respect to the earthquake intensity are referred. Those values correspond to soil
types C or D according to Eurocode 8 classification.
Table 3.2: Internal damping ratio and soil stiffness degradation due to ground shaking as per Eurocode 8-
5.
Regarding the radiation damping, there is no guidance on how to include it in the design
process. However, its effects can only be estimated through nonlinear time history analyses
where they are modeled through a dashpot with properties that can be estimated from Gazetas
[1991]. Nonlinear time history analyses should also be performed in the future in order to
assess the EVD values that were obtained through static cyclic loading analyses.
55
Chapter 4. Description and Design of Case study Buildings
4 DESCRIPTION AND DESIGN OF CASE STUDY

BUILDINGS
4.1 Description of Case Study Buildings

The case study buildings consist of two reinforced concrete core walls, which are placed at
the central part of the building and form the earthquake resisting system, and reinforced
concrete frames which are designed to carry only gravity loads. A typical plan view of the
buildings is shown in figure 4.1.
4.1.1 Building and Structural elements geometry

Three case study buildings are considered where the storey number is altered (6, 8, and 12).
The storey height hst is equal to 3.3 m for every building. The columns dimensions remain the
same for all the cases at 30x30 cm. Also, the same stands for the wall web length lw (8 m) and
the flange length lf (2 m). The thickness of the wall bw is modified for different case studies
whenever is necessary. The choice of wall thickness was based on the requirements of
Eurocode 8-1. EC8-1 proposes the construction of enlarged boundary elements at the edges of
the wall where the main longitudinal reinforcement will be concentrated. However, for
reasons stated elsewhere (Priestley et al., 2007) the uniform distribution of flexural
reinforcement will be preferred for these case studies. The EC8 requirements for the thickness
of the enlarged boundary elements will be satisfied here as they are stricter than the ones
regarding the wall web. According to these regulations, the wall thickness should satisfy the
following:
56
௪
௪ ≥ 0.2 &; ௖ ≤ max 32௪ , 4 (4.1)
ℎ௦௧௢௥௘௬
15 5
௪
௪ ≥ 0.2&; ௖ > max 32௪ , 4 (4.2)
ℎ௦௧௢௥௘௬
10 5
Design direction
Figure 4.1: Typical plan view of case study buildings.
In the previous expressions, lc is the length of the confined boundary element at the edges of
the wall. EC8 suggests that this length should satisfy the following:
௖ ≥ max0.15௪ , 1.5௪ , +ℎ ?ℎℎ @௖ > 0.004 (4.3)
It was observed that due the large wall length (8 m) the length of the confined element should
be
57
௖ ≥ 0.15௪ = 0.15 × 8 = 1.2 &.
Thus, lc is assumed to be equal to 1.2 m. However, this value is checked with length over
which the concrete strain exceeds the spalling limit (0.004). Taking into account all the
aforementioned, the thickness of the wall was estimated.
4.1.2 Gravity loads and mass

The gravity loads under seismic loading consist of the dead loads coming from the self-weight
of the structural elements and additional permanent loads (partition walls, veneers etc.) as
well as a portion of the live loads. To account for the self-weight of the slabs, the slab
thickness was assumed to be equal to 0.20m and thus a uniform surface load of 5 kN/m2 came
up (assigning the self-weight of reinforced concrete to be 25 kN/m3). An additional permanent
load of 2 kN/m2 was assumed and added to the self-weight of the slabs. The live load value
was taken from table 6.1 of EC1 depending on the category of the building. For office
buildings (category B) a value of q=3 kN/m3 is proposed. The live loads in a seismic design
situation are reduced by a factor ψ2i the value of which can be found in table A1.1 of EC0. For
office buildings ψ2i=0.3. The total gravity loads that are considered for the seismic design are:
C-
+ + Aଶ௜ B = 5 + 2 + 0.3 × 3 = 7.9
&ଶ
.
This uniform surface load is distributed among the frames and the walls according to tributary
areas as those shown in figure 1. To calculate the axial load on the walls, the self weight of
the wall is added to the axial load coming from the corresponding tributary areas. In addition,
the reactions of the gravity beams which are linked to the wall are taken into account in the
total axial load on the wall.
For the seismic mass calculation that will be considered in the analysis, it should be noted that
the whole building mass is assigned to the earthquake resisting system, namely the two core
walls. Thus, in every floor half of the floor mass is assigned to each structural wall. The
column and wall mass is distributed equally to its bottom and upper floor. This leads to
almost uniform mass distribution along the building height as the top floor has slightly
smaller mass than the rest of the floors.
58
Table 4.1: Characteristics of case study buildings.
Case Study #storeys Lweb/Lflange hst/ Htot bw mi Wall base axial

Building (m) (m) (m) (T) load (kN)
1 6 8.0/2.0 3.3/19.8 0.25 625.3/ 5584.56

609.4*
2 8 8.0/2.0 3.3/26.4 0.25 625.3/ 7620.63

609.4*
3 12 8.0/2.0 3.3/39.6 0.25 625.3/ 12022.61

609.4*
*floor mass/roof mass
4.2 Design of Case Study Buildings with fixed base

Initially, the case study buildings presented in the previous section were designed considering
a fixed based. Both displacement based and force based methods were applied to highlight the
differences between them.
4.2.1 Seismic Hazard

The seismic hazard was represented by the Eurocode response spectra which corresponds to
soil class C (medium to dense sand) with PGA=0.4g. The values of characteristic periods used
were the ones proposed in Eurocode except for the corner period TD. The proposed value of
Eurocode (2 sec) was deemed to be too small and instead a corner period of 8 seconds was
preferred. The parameters of the response spectra are given in table 4.2 and the acceleration
and displacement spectra are plotted in figure 4.2.
59
Table 4.2: Parameters of design earthquake response spectra.
Parameter Value
Soil class C
S 1.15
TB (sec) 0.2
TC (sec) 0.6
TD (sec) 8
PGA (g) 0.4
Displacement Response Spectra

Acceleration Response Spectra
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.2
1
Spectral displacement (m)
1
Spectral acceleration (g)
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
period (sec) period (sec)
Figure 4.2: Elastic acceleration and displacement response spectra of design earthquake (5% damping).
4.2.2 Material Properties

Common material properties were assumed for the design of the buildings. The characteristic
properties of the concrete and steel were assumed to be:
௖௞ = 30 <D, &' +ℎ

60
௬௞ = 455 <D, E! +ℎ
௨௞ = 545 <D, #& +ℎ
"௦ = 200 ;D, " &!##.
The expected properties were used in the displacement based approach and are given below.
௖௘ = 1.3 ௖௞ = 39 <D
௬௘ = 1.1 ௬௞ = 500 <D
௨௘ = 1.1 ௨௞ = 600 <D.
4.2.3 Direct Displacement Based Design

In this section, a brief description of the Direct Displacement Based Design (DDBD) process
for reinforced concrete cantilever wall systems is presented.
The first step of the design process lies in the determination of the design limit state and the
corresponding limit structural strains (or section curvatures) of the structural members or the
maximum allowable inter-storey drifts. Usually, the design limit state to be considered is the
damage control limit state. Specific limit state curvatures and maximum allowable inter-
storey drifts will be presented later when the procedure will be applied to specific structures.
After the performance criteria have been specified, the design displacement profile along the
height of the wall has to be determined. The design displacements are the summation of the
elastic displacements occurring along the whole height of the wall and the plastic
displacements which are concentrated at the base. The maximum elastic displacements, up to
the point where plastic deformation initiates at the base of the wall, are referred as yield
displacements. The yield displacement profile is calculated according to the following
expression.
F௬ G௜
$௬௜ = G௜ + H௦௣ 31 − 4 (4.4)
ଶ
2 3G௡
61
In the previous expression, Φy is the yield curvature of the wall, Hi is the height at the ith
floor, Hn is the height of the roof and Lsp is the strain penetration length. For the yield
curvature of rectangular wall sections or flanged sections with the flange in tension, Priestley
et al. [2007] propose taking the yield curvature equal to 2εy/lw whereas for flanged sections
with the flange in compression they propose taking 1.5εy/lw with εy being the steel yield strain
and lw the length of the wall. The strain penetration length requires an initial estimate of the
longitudinal bar diameter and is given by the following expression.
H௦௣ = 0.022௬௘ !௕௟ ௬௘ <D (4.5)
In the previous, fye is the expected yield strength of the longitudinal rebar and dbl the
longitudinal bar diameter.
The plastic displacements component is given by the following expressions taken from
Priestley et al [2007].
$௣௜ = ௣ G௜ (4.6)
௣ = F௟௦ − F௬ H௣ (4.6)
H௣ = CG௘ + 0.1௪ + H௦௣ (4.6)
௨
C = 0.2 )
௬
− 1* ≤ 0.08 (4.6!)
In the above expressions θp represents the plastic rotation at the base of the wall and is
calculated based on the limit state curvature Φls which is determined by the structural strain
limits imposed by the limit state considered. According to Priestley et al [2007] the limit state
curvature can be expressed in terms of the limit state steel strain, εs,ls, with a ±10% accuracy
as shown below.
F௟௦ = (4.7)
௪
1.2@௦,௟௦
However, when the inter-storey drift limits control the design displacement profile, the plastic
rotation is given by
62
F௬ G௡ + H௦௣
௣ = ௖ − (4.8)
2
where θc is the code inter-storey drift limit.
At last, the design displacement profile is given by
$௜,௟௦ = $௬௜ + $௣௜ (4.9)
After the design displacement profile is defined, the properties as well as the design
displacement of the equivalent SDOF system are determined using the expressions shown
below.
∑ &௜ $ଶ௜,௟௦
$ௗ = (4.10)
∑ &௜ $௜,௟௦
∑ &௜ $௜,௟௦
&௘ = (4.11)
$ௗ
∑ &௜ $௜,௟௦ G௜
G௘ = (4.12)
∑ &௜ $௜,௟௦
In the previous, ∆d is the design displacement of the equivalent SDOF system, me is its
effective mass and He its effective height. Then the ductility demand on the equivalent SDOF
system can be defined by dividing the design displacement with the yield displacement at the
effective height.
F௬ G௘
$௬௘ = G௘ + H௦௣ 31 − 4 (4.13)
ଶ
2 3G௡
$ௗ
J= (4.14)
$௬௘
Priestley et al [2007] presented a series of analytical expressions correlating the ductility

demand on SDOF systems with an equivalent viscous damping ratio. For structural wall
systems, the following expression was proposed.
J−1
௘௤ = 0.05 + 0.444 3 4 (4.15)
J=
63
It should be noted that within this expression 5% of tangent stiffness-based elastic damping is
assumed. The equivalent viscous damping value is used in order to derive the design
displacement response spectrum. The elastic displacement response spectrum (i.e. 5% elastic
damping) is multiplied by the η factor which is calculated according to
= (4.16)
2 + ௘௤
7
Note that in the η factor expression, the equivalent viscous damping value is expressed in per
cent (%).
Having the design displacement spectrum and the design displacement of the equivalent
SDOF system, the system effective period can be determined. Assuming a linear response
spectrum up to the corner period TD, which is defined by the building codes, where the
spectrum exhibits a plateau of constant displacement ∆D,ξ, the effective period can be
calculated as
$ௗ
K௘ = L (4.17)
$஽,క ஽
Then, the system’s effective stiffness, Ke, can be calculated as
4= ଶ &௘
,௘ = (4.18)
K௘ଶ
According to the Model Code for DDBD [T., Sullivan, N., Priestley, G., Calvi 2012], for
structures with effective period greater than TD the effective stiffness need not exceed the
value
4= ଶ &௘ $஽,క
,௘,௠௔௫ = (4.19)
K௘ଶ $ௗ
Then the design base shear force for the equivalent SDOF system can be calculated as
M௕௔௦௘ = ,௘ $ௗ + M௉ି௱ ≤ 2.5D;N&௘ + M௉ି௱ (4.20)
64
A limit on the design base shear force is imposed as a function of PGA in order to account for
the nonlinear variation of the displacement spectrum at short periods which has been taken as
linear in a previous step. The term 2.5PGA represents the plateau of constant acceleration and
should account for local site conditions. The term VP-∆ is added to account for the effect of P-
∆ effects. It is calculated as
∑ D௜ $௟௦,௜
M௉ି௱ = (4.21)
G௘
&௘ +
= 0.0 ?ℎ
,௘ G௘
< 0.05 (4.21)
= 0.5 ## ?ℎ ℎ ℎE # (4.21).
After the design base shear force has been determined, it is distributed to the locations of the
floor mass of the wall according to
&௜ $௟௦,௜
௜ = M௕௔௦௘ (4.22)
∑ &௜ $௟௦,௜
Then, simple static analysis is performed in order to derive the bending moments and shear
force diagrams.
The DDBD procedure for reinforced concrete structural wall systems is implemented on the
case study buildings described earlier. The damage control limit state was considered for the
design and design displacement profile of the wall was controlled by the following material
strain and drift limits:
@௖,ௗ௖ = 0.018, &O&#&
@௦,ௗ௖ = 0.06, & &O&#&
max ௡ = 0.025, &O&#& − E !.
For all the case study buildings, except for the 8 and 12 storey building, structural strain limits
dominated the design displacement profile.
Since the walls are flanged the yield curvature of them is given by
65
@௦௬
P௬ = 1.5 (4.23)
௪
As mentioned above, the maximum curvature was found to be closely related to the steel
strain limit [Priestley et al., 2007] and is given by
@௦,ௗ௖
P௠ = 1.2
௪
= 0.009 1/& (4.24)
The equivalent viscous damping was calculated based on the expression given by Priestley et
al. [2007], for RC wall systems assuming 5% of elastic damping ratio (based on tangent
stiffness).
Consequently, the spectral reduction factor expression of the older version of Eurocode 8 was
adopted to account for the hysteretic energy dissipation into the seismic demand.
It should be noted that the design displacement of the equivalent SDOF system for all the case
study buildings, were smaller than the displacement corresponding to the corner period of the
damped response spectrum.
Moreover, P-∆ effects were considered in the way mentioned above. In none of the case
buildings P-∆ effects were important and thus they were neglected.
In table 4.3, a summary of the DDBD results for each case study building is given for an
individual wall.
4.2.4 Force Based Design

The force base design requires the estimation of the elastic fundamental period of the
building. A height dependent expression is proposed in Eurocode 8 which has the general
form
Kଵ = ௧ G௧௢௧
ଷ
ସ
. (4.25)
For the factor Ct, the expression related to masonry or concrete structural wall buildings is
preferred and is calculated as
66
௧ = 0.075⁄QN௖ (4.26)
where,
N௖ = S TN௜ 0.2 + ௪௜ ⁄G௧௢௧ U (4.27)

ଶ
and Ai is the effective cross-sectional area of the wall in the first storey.
௧ = 0.075⁄QN௖ (4.26)
where,
N௖ = S TN௜ 0.2 + ௪௜ ⁄G௧௢௧ U (4.27)

ଶ
௧ = 0.075⁄QN௖ (4.26)
Table 4.3: DDBD results for fixed base individual walls.
Building 1 Building 2 Building 3
∆d (m) 0.284 0.423 0.589
He (m) 14.415 18.904 28.06
Me (m) 2944.70 3846.80 5570.80
Te (sec) 2.75 4.06 5.47
µ 7.58 6.54 4.14
Φls (1/m) 0.009 0.008 0.0056
ξeq (%) 17.27 16.97 15.7
θ∆ 0.025 0.044 0.058
VB (kN) 4365.4 3896.7 4333.7
MB (kNm) 62926.0 73663.0 121600.0
67
where,
N௖ = S TN௜ 0.2 + ௪௜ ⁄G௧௢௧ U (4.27)

ଶ
and Ai is the effective cross-sectional area of the wall in the first storey.
The basic behaviour factor for structural wall systems is assigned the following value in
Eurocode 8:
௨
B௢ = 4 Vଵ . (4.28)
However, the proposed value of the ratio αu/α1 is equal to 1 and thus qo drops to 4. Eventually
the behaviour factor is given by
B = B௢ C௪ (4.29)
where,
1 + ௢
C௪ = ≤ 1, (4.30)
3
௢ = S G௪௜ ⁄௪௜ . (4.31)
Subsequently, accounting for the elastic fundamental period and the behaviour factor, the
spectral acceleration ordinate Sa(T1) is taken from the acceleration response spectrum. The
base shear force is calculated as
M௕ = ௔ Kଵ &௧௢௧ W , (4.32)
where,
Kଵ ≤ 2 K஼ , W = 0.85 (4.33)
Kଵ > 2 K஼ , W = 1. (4.33)
68
Then the base shear force is distributed along the height of the wall according to the product
of floor mass and height and the base moment is calculated. The results of the FBD procedure
for the case study buildings are given in table 4.4.
Table 4.4: FBD results for individual walls of case study buildings.
Ac (m2) 1.05 0.73 0.46
Ct 0.073 0.088 0.110
T1 (sec) 0.69 1.02 1.74
mtot (kNsec2/m) 3735.65 4986.16 7487.17
αο 2.475 3.3 4.95
kw 1.00 1.00 1.00
q 4 4 4
Sa (g) 0.25 0.17 0.10
Max drift (%) 0.33 0.53 1.73
Vb (kN) 7817.50 7003.12 7294.74
Mb (kNm) 111476.06 130652.43 200259.30
69
Chapter 4. Description and Design of Case study
s Buildings
12000
FBD DDBD
10000
Base Shear Vb (kN)

8000
6000
4000
2000
0
1 2 3
Case Study building
Figure 4.3:: Base Shear comparison between FBD and DDBD.
300000
250000 FBD DDBD

Base Moment (kNm)
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
1 2 3
Case Study building
Figure 4.4:: Base moment comparison between FBD and DDBD.
4.2.5 Flexural and Shear Design of buildings based on DDBD

In this section, the procedures which were implemented to design the flexural
flex and shear
reinforcement of the walls are described. The calculation of the required reinforcement is
made so that the design of the walls will be verified through Non – linear time history
analysis.
It should be noted that regarding the flexural reinforcement,

reinforcement, only the plastic hinge region was
designed and the rest of the wall was reinforced with the same amount of vertical bars for the
sake of brevity. Especially for floors above the mid-height
mid height of the buildings, the amount of
70
vertical bars could decrease significantly. The flexural reinforcement was uniformly
distributed within the wall cross – section. A minimum area reinforcement of 0.5 % was
implemented in the design. For the flexural design of the plastic hinge region, expected
material properties were used and the flexural reinforcement was determined through moment
– curvature analysis, namely at the design limit state curvature the corresponding moment
capacity should be at least equal to the moment demand. In all the cases, the steel strain limit
(0.06) dominated the maximum curvature. Also, it should be noted that in all the case study
walls except for the last one (12 storey building) the concrete strains remained in low levels
not requiring the presence of highly confined edges. However, in the last case study wall,
confined edges were necessary so that the design limit curvature is achieved. Even in the
cases where no confined boundaries were required, some minimum confinement was
provided based on the Eurocode 8 requirements.
Capacity design procedures were implemented in order to specify the flexural reinforcement
in all levels above the base and the shear reinforcement in every level of the structure. The
capacity design moment and shear force envelopes are shown in figure 4.5.
Figure 4.5: Simplified Capacity Design Envelopes for Cantilever Walls.
The characteristic values of the above envelopes are given below:
J
<଴.ହு௡ = ଵ,் F ௢ <஻ , ଵ,் = 0.4 + 0.075K௜ X
Fఖ
௢
− 1Y ≥ 0.4 (4.34)
71
M௕௔௦௘
௢
= F ఖ ௩ M௕௔௦௘ , (4.34)
J
௩ = 1 + , (4.34)
F ௢ ଶ,்
ଶ,் = 0.067 + 0.4K௜ − 0.5 ≤ 1.15. (4.34!)
In the previous expressions, Φo is the overstrength factor. The flexural overstrength factor
should only include the component resulting from strain – hardening and not from excess
yield strength. Since, strain – hardening will be included in the DDBD process when
determining the flexural reinforcement at the wall base, Φo is taken equal to 1. For shear
design, the value of Φo should include material overstrength, strain – hardening and excess
flexural reinforcement over that required to provide the design strength. The value of the
overstrength factor for shear design is determined through moment – curvature analysis of the
wall base cross – section with overstrength material properties.
Moreover, ωv is the higher modes amplification factor and Ti is the fundamental elastic period
of the wall which is linked to wall’s the effective period according to
K௘
K௜ =
√J
. (4.35)
The design outcome at the wall base of the study cases is shown in table 4.5. The flexural
reinforcement specified at the wall base is kept constant along the height of the building.
It should be noted that for the moment – curvature analyses two software programs were used,
namely CSi SAP2000, through its Section Designer module, and Seismostruct. Also, for the
shear design of the plastic hinge regions and the rest of the wall, the modified UCSD Model
was used. According to this model, the shear resistance is attributed to three mechanisms,
namely the concrete resistance VC, the axial load component VP and the transverse
reinforcement shear resistance mechanism VS.
M஼ = [(8 Q௖௘ 0.8N௚ (4.36)
<
1.0 ≤ = 3 −
M௪
≤ 1.5 (4.36)
72
( = 0.5 + 20\௟ ≤ 1.0 (4.36)
M௉ = 0.85D tan ] , !+ ? && (4.37)
M௉ = D tan ] , & O+ ## (4.37)
N௩ ௬௛ ௪ − − ௢ cot 35
Mௌ =

. (4.38)
Table 4.5: Design outcome of case study buildings.
Vbase (kN) 4365.4 3896.7 4333.7
ρl (%) 0.653 0.696 1.343
ΦO 1.17 1.16 1.22
ωV 2.73 3.63 4.12
VBaseO (kN) 13943.5 16455.0 21810.3
Shear reinforcement ratio, ρs (%) 0.898 0.869 1.064
Confined edges length, lc (m) 1.2 1.2 1.2
Confinement reinforcement, ρv (%) 0.95 0.95 1.11
73
Figure 4.6: Ductility component of Concrete Shear - Resisting Mechanism.
4.2.6 Foundation Design

In this section, the design procedures, which are used for the design of the footing which
supports the two walls, are described. The procedures described herein refer to the fixed base
case. Eurocode 8, part 5 was the main reference that was implemented on the design
procedures.
Shallow foundations have to satisfy three ultimate limit state safety checks, namely referring
to a) sliding between the footing – soil interface, b) overturning and c) bearing resistance.
However, although sliding safety factor was calculated, it wasn’t used as a critical parameter
having in mind that the individual footings which support the vertical elements of the
buildings will be connected to each other increasing significantly the sliding resistance. It
should be noted that the footings designed herein will support the two U-shaped walls that
form the lateral force resisting system.
The derivation of the design actions which govern the design of the foundation system is
based on capacity design principles. Capacity design aims at designing regions of the
structure that are necessary to remain essentially elastic during the design earthquake and at
avoiding any brittle failure mechanisms (shear failure). Thus, any capacity design rules for
foundation design cover possible increase of actions (with respect to the design actions) due
to material overstrength.
74
The safety check against sliding requires satisfaction of the following inequality:
Mாௗ ≤ Mோௗ (4.39)
where VEd is the total horizontal force acting on the soil – footing interface and VRd is the
resistance against sliding. VEd includes the active earth pressure due to foundation movement
and the shear force transmitted from the wall whereas VRd includes the passive earth pressure
and the friction resistance as well. Thus, the above inequality is expressed as
M௪௔௟௟,௕௔௦௘ + "௔ௗ ≤ -௧௢௧ tan ^ + "௣ௗ (4.40)
"௔ௗ = , 8 _ ଶ (4.41)
1
2 ஺ா
"௣ௗ = 0.3 ,௉ா 8 _ ଶ (4.41)

1
2
In the expressions above, γ is the soil unit weight, D is the foundation embedment depth δ is
the friction angle of the soil – footing interface (taken as 0.7φ), KAE and KPE are the active and
passive earth pressure coefficients as a function of the seismic coefficient kh=0.4. It should be
noted that since very large displacements are required to develop the full passive earth
pressure, the 30% of them is taken into account according to clause 5.3.2 of EC8-5.
Overturning safety check requires that the moments working in favor of the footing stability
are larger than those causing instability. All the actions acting on the footing are included in
the analysis, namely the overturning moment transmitted from wall, the active and passive
earth pressures and the total vertical load acting on the footing. The active earth pressure is
applied on the footing side at the mid-height of the embedment depth and at an angle δ to the
horizontal while the passive earth pressure is horizontal at the mid – height of the embedment
depth.
The bearing resistance safety check is done according to Annex F of EC8-5 and equation (2.5)
with all the material safety factors used.
75
Figure 4.7: Design chart for KAE for Φ=40˚ coming from log spiral analysis.
Figure 4.8: Design chart for KPE coming from log spiral analysis for non-cohesive soil.
Following the design process described, the required foundation dimensions were determined.
In the early steps of the DDBD for the structural wall buildings the height of the footing was
chosen to be 1.6 m and coincides with the footing embedment depth as well. The soil
parameters chosen are common for dense sand deposits and are given in table 4.6. However,
slight differences exist between the soil properties of the study case buildings having in mind
that alternative design procedures will be applied later and the difference between then needs
to be highlighted.
76
Table 4.6: Soil properties used for the foundation design.
Friction angle, φ 30˚ 32˚ 33˚
Unit weight, γ 19 kN/m3 19 kN/m3 19 kN/m3
Poisson ratio, ν 0.25 0.25 0.25
Shear Modulus, G 60 MPa 64 MPa 90 MPa
Maximum allowable stress, σall 219 kPa 219 kPa 336 kPa
The results of the footing design for the fixed base buildings are given in Table 4.6. In that
table, OSF and SSF are the overturning and sliding safety factors whereas EC8_SI is the
stability index against seismic bearing capacity of Eurocode 8 which has to be equal or
smaller than zero.
5.00
4.50 OSF
4.00
SSF
3.50
Safety Factor
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Ar=Hw/lw
Figure 4.9: Variation of foundation safety factors with wall aspect ratio.
77
Table 4.7: Foundation design results for the case study buildings.
B (m) 24.4 22.2 24.1
He/B 0.59 0.85 1.16
EC8_SI -0.0031 -0.0074 -0.0043
OSF 2.65 2.10 1.82
M/(NB) 0.19 0.24 0.28
SSF 1.42 1.71 2.02
σmax (kPa) 126.3 172.6 215.8
It is observed that the required footing width is very large. However, the walls that will be
supported on them are large enough and resist to the lateral loads induced by the earthquake
excitation on a pretty massive building. The design outcome comes from the safety check
against soil bearing capacity failure. Also, it is interesting to observe the values of the
overturning and sliding safety factors. As the building height increases, the sliding safety
factor increases while the opposite stands for the overturning safety factor. This is further
argued by the fact that the ratio of superstructure effective height to the foundation width
(He/B) is significantly below 1.7, which is said to be a threshold below which the behaviour of
shallow foundations is shear dominated. If the bearing capacity of the footing was allowed to
be reached leading to increased plastic deformations of the soil and the footing was allowed to
rock, perhaps the design solutions would be more attractive.
4.3 Design method of wall buildings accounting for SFSI

In this section, a design method accounting for nonlinear SFSI is presented. The method
formulation is based on the design procedure accounting for foundation deformations that is
described in Priestley et al. [2007]. A similar design procedure was proposed by Paolucci et al
[2009] by incorporating the foundation secant stiffness degradation and damping curves that
78
were described in chapter 2. Sullivan et al [2010] slightly modified the design procedure of
Paolucci et al [2009] in the sense that the designer set the foundation performance in the
beginning of the design process and thus, determines the role of the foundation. If the
foundation dimension needs to be reduced, the foundation rotation increases whereas the
opposite stands if the foundation is not permitted to deform substantially. The flow chart of
the design procedure proposed by Sullivan et al. [2010] is given in figure 4.10.
Figure 4.10: Schematic flow chart of iterative design procedure (from Sullivan et al. [2010]).
79
In the proposed methodology, the secant stiffness degradation and the hysteretic damping
curves of the foundation system are modified and the curves that were derived in chapter 3 are
implemented. In addition to this, since the derived curves included vertical and horizontal
load as well as moment applied on the foundation system, there is no need to check the
feasibility of the foundation design through a bearing capacity formula as it was done when
Paolucci curves were implemented. It is reminded that this check was necessary when
Paolucci curves were used in order to account for the shear force effect which was excluded
when their stiffness degradation and damping curves were derived.
The flow chart given in figure 4.10 still stands as a design process which incorporates the
design curves and mentioned above. This method was applied on the three case study wall
buildings considered. The aim of the design procedure was to assign to the foundation a more
active role in the performance of the buildings and thus, its dimensions should be smaller. The
performance limits set for the foundation, even though they are preliminary, were taken from
the Model Code for DDBD [Sullivan et al, 2012] where it is stated that a limit on the soil
shear modulus degradation should apply in order to avoid significant permanent deformations
after the design earthquake occurs. This limit for the Damage Control limit state is
;
;௠௔௫
≥ 0.3. (4.42)
Regarding the limit state performance criteria of the superstructure, the same with fixed based
case were considered.
The design of both the superstructure and the foundation with the DDBD+NLSFSI method is
illustrated in table 4.8. Furthermore, in table 4.8, a comparison between the fixed base
approach and the DDBD+NLSFSI is presented in table 4.9. It should be noted that the Static
Safety Factors of the foundation systems were pretty high so that the design procedure
converges to a solution. More specifically the Safety Factors were 38.8, 37.3, and 24.7 for the
6, 8 and 12 storey building respectively. The large SF values along with the moderate
foundation rotations resulted into low hysteretic damping within the soil due to inertia loads
transmitted by the superstructure. Also, as it is observed in table 4.9, it was the superstructure
performance limits that governed the design rather than the foundation.
80
Table 4.8: Superstructure and foundation design of case study buildings accounting for nonlinear SFSI.
Superstructure Design
∆d (m) 0.312 0.409 0.558
He (m) 14.44 19.00 28.33
Me (m) 2933.2 3803 5452.4
Te (sec) 2.91 3.72 4.65
µ 5.89 4.44 2.59
Φls (1/m) 0.009 0.0083 0.0078
ξeq (%) 15.91 15.10 12.28
θ∆ 0.0282 0.037 0.0568
VB (kN) 4268.4 4423.4 5559.4
MB (kNm) 61642 84066 157500
Foundation Design
B (m) 16.8 18.0 18.5
hf (m) 1.60 1.60 1.60
θf (rad) 0.001 0.0011 0.002
Kf/Kf0 0.378 0.381 0.302
Kf0 (kNm)x108 3.53 4.26 5.47
Mf (kNm) 136940.0 182290.0 332780.0
81
Table 4.9: Comparison between the fixed base and the NLSFI design approaches.
6-storey
Δd (m) μ ξ (%) Te (sec) drift (%) Vb (kN) Β (m)
DDBD 0.284 7.58 17.27 2.75 2.2 4365.40 24.4
DDBD+NLSFSI 0.312 5.89 15.91 2.91 2.4 4268.40 16.80
8-storey
DDBD 0.423 6.54 16.97 4.06 2.5 3896.70 22.2
DDBD+NLSFSI 0.409 4.44 15.10 3.72 2.5 4423.40 18.0
12-storey
DDBD 0.589 4.14 15.7 5.47 2.5 4333.70 24.1
DDBD+NLSFSI 0.591 3.71 16.05 5.53 2.5 5559.40 18.5
More specifically, the shorter building (6-storey) attained the steel rebar limit strain
considered whereas the tallest buildings (8 and 12 – storey) reached the maximum allowable
drift on the roof.
The comparison between the fixed based approach and the NLSFSI approach shows that
when structural strain limits govern the limit state design (6-storey building), accounting for
nonlinear Soil-Foundation-Structure interaction leads to more flexible systems with lower
base shear and ductility demands. However, in such cases the structural displacements
increase and this may affect the non structural components response during an earthquake.
For tall buildings where code drift limits control the design, accounting for SFSI leads to
stiffer systems with larger base shear and lower ductility demands. This outcome will require
larger reinforcement content both in flexure and shear, but the confinement reinforcement
may be reduced. The reinforcement details of the three buildings both coming from the fixed
based and the DDBD+NLSFSI approaches are shown in table 4.10. As it is shown the
longitudinal reinforcement content of the tall buildings which were designed with the
DDBD+NLSFSI method is indeed larger than the content required following the fixed base
approach. However, it seems that the shear reinforcement ratio is maintained at the same
value or even decreases even though the base shear force is higher. The reason for that is the
lower dynamic amplification factor which takes into account possible increase of base shear
82
force due to higher mode effects. Here, ωv was calculated according to equation (4.34c). Due
to stiffer systems coming from DDBD+NLSFSI compared to the DDBD approach, ωv is
reduced. Nevertheless, it is unknown if equation (4.34c) is reliable for systems with flexible
foundation and further investigation is necessary. The stark contrast between the two design
approaches lies on the foundation design. At the beginning of the DDBD+NLSFSI process it
was intended to reduce the foundation dimensions by mobilizing its bearing capacity. As it
can be seen, the footing dimensions were reduced by 19 to 31 %. In terms of concrete volume
required for the footing construction, the reduction lies between 41 and 53%.
Table 4.10: Reinforcement detailing of the wall buildings.
DDBD DDBD+SFSI DDBD DDBD+SFSI DDBD DDBD+SFSI
Vbase (kN) 4365.4 4268.4 3896.7 4423.4 4333.7 5559.4
ρl (%) 0.653 0.653 0.696 0.835 1.343 1.762
ΦO 1.17 1.17 1.16 1.15 1.22 1.17
ωV 2.73 2.70 3.63 3.21 4.12 3.26
VBaseO (kN) 13943.5 13779.6 16455.0 16273.8 21810.3 21151.4
Shear reinforcement
0.898 0.785 0.838 0.838 1.064 1.00
ratio, ρs (%)
Confined edges length, lc

1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2
(m)
Confinement
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.11 1.11
reinforcement, ρv (%)
83
4.4 Design method for rocking systems incorporating the DRF curves
For rocking systems, where the Static Safety Factor (SF) is very large and as shown in chapter
three, practically no energy dissipation through hysteresis takes place the contributions of
energy dissipation come from radiation damping and internal soil damping due to passage of
seismic waves. For these cases, the DRF curves derived and presented in chapter three can be
implemented. It is reminded that uncertainty exists regarding the modeling of elastic damping
in such systems and further research is necessary on this subject. A design procedure was
developed for such systems. The design procedure that will be presented regards only elastic
response of walls. The steps of the design procedure for elastic wall response are described
analytically below.
1. Definition of wall and foundation properties
The first step consists of defining the geometric and material properties of the system, namely
the wall height and length and the floor mass as well as the foundation properties such as the
soil friction angle, Shear Modulus, soil unit weight, Poisson ratio and initial estimates of
foundation dimensions.
2. Performance criteria
The second step consists of defining the system’s performance criteria. Such criteria are code
drift limits and structural strain limits of the wall. For the foundation, an initial estimate of its
rotation is defined. Except from maximum response performance criteria, residual or
permanent deformation criteria can be adopted such as residual settlements or residual
foundation rotations.
3. Wall yield displacement profile
The wall yield displacement profile, although is not used directly, is useful for checking that
at the design limit state the wall remains elastic. The wall yield displacement profile is
calculated as
P௬ G + H௦௣
$௬ = G + H௦௣ )1 − * 4.42.
ଶ
2 3 G
4. Design displacement profile

84
Since it is desired that the wall remains elastic, the design displacement profile will be
governed by code drift limits θC. The maximum drift in a cantilever wall occurs at the roof
level n. So, the drift at the roof level is given by
௡ = ஼ = ௪ + ௙ (4.43)
where, θw(n) is the drift at the roof level due to the wall elastic deformation and θf is the
foundation rotation. Since the foundation rotation is defined in step 2, the wall maximum drift
is calculated as
௪ = ஼ − ௙ ≤ ௬ (4.44)
From that, the wall curvature can be defined as
2 ௪
P௪ = ≤ P௬ (4.45)
G + H௦௣
The displacement profile due to wall deformation is calculated as
P௪ G + H௦௣
$௪ = G + H௦௣ )1 − * ≤ $௬ (4.46)
ଶ
2 3 G
The total displacement profile is calculate according to
$ = $௪ + ௙ )G + * (4.47).
ℎ௙
2
5. Transformation of MDOF system to equivalent SDOF system
The properties of the equivalent SDOF system are calculated as in the traditional DDBD
design procedure, that is
∑ &௜ $ଶ௜ ∑ & ௜ $௜ ∑ &௜ $௜ G௜

$ௗ = (4.48).
∑ & ௜ $௜ $ௗ ∑ & ௜ $௜
, &௘ = , G௘ =
85
Also, the wall effective design displacement is calculated as
$௪௘ = $ௗ − $௙ = $ௗ − ௙ )G௘ + * 4.49.

ℎ௙
2
At this point, a check could be made regarding the wall elastic behaviour requirement by
calculating the ductility demand on the wall as
$௪௘
J௪ = ≤ 1.0. (4.50)
$௬௘
6. Equivalent damping and DRF of SDOF system
Since the wall responds elastically, a 5% (or less) of elastic damping ratio is assigned on the
wall, ξ,w. For the foundation, the designer could assign a damping ratio different than 5% in
order to account for soil nonlinearities under the footing. As reference values, one can
consider that damping ratios proposed by Eurocode 8, part 5 as a function of the peak ground
acceleration. Those values of damping ratio reflect the energy dissipation occurring within the
soil due to passage of seismic waves. So, the foundation “elastic” damping ratio is defined as
ξf.
In this design procedure, it is assumed that the wall elastic damping will not affect the
system’s damping after uplift initiation where the DRF curves obtained through NLTHAs
stand. However, it is significant to define a unique value of the system elastic damping ratio,
which is the elastic damping before uplift initiation. This will be calculated at the
displacement where uplift initiates ∆up and by using the same analogy which is used in DDBD
to calculate the equivalent viscous damping of the system.
௪ $௪௘ + ௙ ௨௣ 3G௘ + 2 4
ℎ௙
௘௟ = (4.51)
$௪௘ + ௨௣ 3G௘ + 2 4
ℎ௙
86
In the previous expression, θup is the rotation of foundation uplift initiation.
After the “elastic” damping ratio is defined, the elastic response spectrum is calculated by
applying the Eurocode 8 expressions for the calculation of elastic response spectrum for
damping ratio different than 5%.
= (4.52)
5 + ௘௟
10
After that, for the “rocking ductility” considered (θ/θup), the inelastic DRF for the rocking
system is defined by using one of the three inelastic DRF curves that were derived in chapter
three based on NLTHAs. The three curves differ on the elastic damping modeling (tangent
stiffness-based, initial stiffness-based and secant stiffness-based). The inelastic DRF chosen
multiplies the elastic spectrum previously defined to give the design spectrum.
2.500
Tangent Stiffness
2.000 Initial Stiffness
Secant Stiffness
1.500
ηin
1.000
0.500
0.000
0 2 4 6 8 10
ductility, μ
Figure 4.11: Inelastic DRF curves for different elastic damping modeling.
7. Effective period, Base Shear and Overturning moment, distribution of base shear
along the wall height
The rest of the steps follow more or less the traditional DDBD design process. From the
design spectrum and at the design displacement, the system effective period is determined.
Then the calculation of the system effective stiffness follows and the determination of the
87
base shear as the product of the effective stiffness and the design displacement. If P-∆ effects
are important the overturning moment is properly increased. Then, the base shear is
distributed along the height in order to give the wall bending moment and shear force
diagram.
8. Foundation design
The bending moment at the foundation level Mf is calculated. The required foundation
effective stiffness is calculated as
<௙
,௙ = 4.53.
௙
Since the foundation dimensions and soil properties have been defined in step 1, the Static
Safety Factor (SF) is known and for the ‘rocking ductility’ considered, the stiffness
degradation ratio Kf/Kf0 is determined through the foundation stiffness degradation curve that
was shown elsewhere. Then the required initial stiffness of the foundation Kf0 is determined.
If Kf0 is the same with the one considered in the beginning of the design process (by initial
estimates of foundation geometry) then the solution has converged. If not, the foundation
rotation is changed until the solution converges.
For systems with SF values until 60, the stiffness degradation curves that were obtained
through the SFSI macro-element can be used. For systems with larger SF than that, the
stiffness degradation curve in equation (3.7) can be used as for such high SF values the shear
force seems to have negligible effect even for low He/B values. However, in such a case the
feasibility of the foundation design should be checked with a bearing capacity expression.
The design process for elastic rocking walls described herein was implemented for a single
12-storey wall. Two cases were considered; the first incorporated the DRF curve based on
secant stiffness-based elastic damping and the second incorporated the DRF curve based on
initial stiffness modeling of elastic damping. In both cases, the wall length was 6 m and the
storey height was 3.3 m whereas the floor mass was set to 60 tons. The material properties
used where the same as the ones used for the core wall buildings. The soil properties were the
same for the two cases and included a soil friction angle of 36˚, a shear modulus of 90 MPa,
88
Poisson ratio equal to 0.3 and unit soil weight equal to 19 kN/m3. The soil damping ratio was
taken equal to 10%. The choice of that value was a bit arbitrary but the intention was to assign
a quite different value to the wall elastic damping ratio (5%) in order to observe its effect on
design. The stiffness degradation curves for pure rocking systems presented in section 3.1.2
were implemented. At the end of the design procedure, when the iterative procedure
converged, except for the bearing capacity check through the Eurocode 8-5 formula, toppling
check was also performed in order to verify that the footing won’t tilt. The moment toppling
limit can be calculated in equation (3.5) the foundation rotation is set to tend to infinity. After
some simple mathematical process, the toppling limit was found to be calculated by equation
(4.54).
-: ିଵ.ହ/ௌி
<௧௢௣௣௟ = (4.54)
2
In the above equation, N is the total vertical load acting on the footing, B is the foundation
width parallel to the direction of loading and SF is the static Safety Factor.
In table 4.11, the design outcome of the two approaches is presented. It should be noted that
small value of maximum drift was allowed so that the wall remains elastic. As expected, the
approach incorporating the initial stiffness damping DRF curve results in more beneficial
design outcome in terms of base shear and foundation dimensions. Thus, this method resulted
in more flexible system. It is interesting to note that for both approaches, the foundation
damping ratio didn’t affect much the elastic damping. Subsequently, the flexural and shear
reinforcement of the walls was calculated. Since the walls were designed to remain elastic the
calculation of the required reinforcement was based on their dependable strength and thus,
characteristic material properties were implemented. In addition, strength reduction factors
were applied both for flexure (Φf) and shear (Φs) values as 0.9 and 0.8 respectively. The
design shear force also included the dynamic amplification factor, ωv, as calculated by
equation (4.34c) by applying unit values for ductility and overstrength factor and estimating
the initial stiffness by eigenvalue analysis. The minimum reinforcement requirements that
Eurocode 8 proposes were adopted. Just the base of the walls was designed and the same
reinforcement was placed on every storey. The flexural and shear reinforcement for every
design approach is shown in table 4.12.
89
Table 4.11: Design outcome of the 12-storey wall for the two approaches(DDBD_NLE_: Iinitial stiffness
DRF curve, DDBD_NLE_SS: secant stiffness DRF curve).
DDBD_NLE_IS DDBD_NLE_SS
Vbase (kN) 1412.6 1710.3
Δd (m) 0.277 0.311
μ 0.83 0.95
Max drift (%) 1.50 1.70
ξel (%) 5.23 5.18
Te (sec) 1.91 1.83
Θf (rad) 0.0013 0.0012
B (m) 9.0 10.0
SF 39.5 48.6
Kf/Kf0 0.56 0.53
θf/θup 3.46 3.66
DRF 0.86 1.00
EC8_SI -0.0756 -0.0575
Mf/Mtoppl 0.99 1.00
90
Table 4.12: Rocking walls reiforcement design.
Vbase (kN) 1412.6 1710.3
ρl (%) 2.51 3.9
ωV 1.45 1.43
VBaseO (kN) 2048.5 2440.6
Shear reinforcement ratio,

0.10 0.10
ρs (%)
Confined edges length, lc

0.9 0.9
(m)
Confinement
0.74 0.74
reinforcement, ρv (%)
91
Chapter 5. Design Verification of Case study Buildings
5 VERIFICATION OF CASE STUDY BUILDINGS DESIGN
5.1 Buildings with fixed base

The design of the study case buildings was verified through nonlinear time – history analysis.
Two software programs were used for that purpose, namely Ruaumoko and SeismoStruct.
In Ruaumoko, all the walls were modeled through frame elements of lumped plasticity at their
base. The nonlinear response of the walls was given by their effective elastic parameters, the
moment - axial load interaction diagram, the bilinear factors for the hinge response and the
hysteretic model. For walls, the modified Takeda hysteretic rule was adopted with parameter
values α=0.5 and β=0.0. The effective elastic parameters of the walls (such as second moment
of area I, shear area As, etc.) were based on the effective elastic branch of the elements
moment – curvature curve which links the origin with the nominal yield point (MN, Φy). The
nominal yield moment is obtained where the extreme steel rebar reaches a strain value of
0.015 or the extreme concrete fiber attains a compressive strain of 0.004. The nominal yield
curvature is linked to the point of first yield (My, Φy’) through the following expression:
<ே ᇱ
F௬ = F . (5.1)
<௬ ௬
Except for nonlinear flexural response of the walls, their inelastic shear response was also
modeled through a simplified approach which was modified from an approach developed
from Miranda et al. [2005], and assumes a bilinear flexural force – displacement
approximation. Given the dimensions of the buildings and the walls, shear deformations are
expected to be significant especially for the case of the 6 storey building.
92
The shear flexibility of the walls is divided in three phases. The “Elastic”, prior to Shear
Cracking phase covers the shear flexibility of the member before the shear force reaches the
concrete shear cracking force VC. The shear stiffness in this phase is given by:
"`௘௙௙
C௦,௘௙௙ = C௦,௚௥௢௦௦ (5.2)
"`௚௥௢௦௦
where the shear stiffness for an uncracked cantilever wall of shear area As=0.87Agross, shear
modulus G and height H is given by:
;N௦
C௦,௚௥௢௦௦ =
G
. (5.2)
The “Elastic”, after Shear Cracking phase is modeled through an approach that was originally
developed by Paulay [1976]. This approach considers the shear flexibility of an equivalent
strut –and –tie model which incorporates both the compression of the diagonal strut and the
extension of the ties which represents the transverse reinforcement. The shear stiffness of a
wall with unit length is given by:
\ఈ ସ ଶ
C௦,௖௥ " 0.8௪ . (5.3)
ସ + \ఈ ௦ ௪
=
In the precedent expression, ρα is the area ratio of the shear reinforcement, θ is the angle that
the diagonal strut makes with the members axis and n=Es/Ec is the steel/concrete modular
ratio. For θ, a value of 45˚ is recommended whereas for n a value of 10 is deemed appropriate
to account for the softening of the concrete strut at this point of load state.
The Ductile phase describes the shear flexibility of the member after it has exceeded its
nominal yield point. It is argued that the shear deformation will keep increasing after yielding
occurs but as a fraction of total deformation remains constant. For that, the shear deformations
after flexural yielding are calculated as a fraction of the flexural deformations, the same
fraction which stands at the nominal yield point.
It is expected that the shear deformations are more important for the low – rise buildings. This
is confirmed by figure 5.1 where the approximate bilinear force – displacement response of
the study case buildings is shown with and without shear deformations included.
93
5000 5000
4000 4000
Force (kN)
Force (kN)
3000 3000
6-storey building 8-storey
2000 2000 building
1000 1000
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Horizontal displacement (m)
5000 Horiontal displacement (m)
4000
Flexural response
Force (kN)
3000
12-storey building
2000
Flexural+Shear response
1000
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Horizontal displacement (m)
Figure 5.1: Force - displacement response of study case buildings.
In the non – linear time history analysis elastic damping was modeled in proportion to tangent
stiffness as it is more appropriate and consistent with the design procedure followed. A value
of 5% of tangent stiffness damping was assigned.
In SeismoStruct, the fiber element formulation offers the capability of modeling the flexural
response of structural elements by taking into account the exact stress – strain relationship
assigned to each material. Thus, the structural walls were modeled through displacement-
based fiber elements whereas concrete and steel reinforcement bars were modeled using the
Mander model and Menegotto – Pinto model respectively. Displacement-based elements were
implemented instead of the more accurate force-based fiber elements due to localization
problems that were faced when applying the latter type of elements. To compensate for the
approximate nature of the displacement field assumed when implementing displacement-
based elements, at least two elements per storey were assigned.
At the storey mid-height nonlinear springs were placed to model the inelastic shear response
of the walls in the transverse direction. An appropriate hysteretic model was necessary in
94
order to capture as closely as possible the inelastic shear behaviour. The tri-linear curve which
is available in SeismoStruct was an option, however, since the unloading was done using the
initial stiffness it was deemed inappropriate as the pinching during unloading wouldn’t be
modeled and higher energy dissipation would be attributed to inelastic shear response
resulting in smaller displacements. In absence of the SINA hysteresis rule in SeismoStruct,
which was implemented in the Ruaumoko modeling, the simplified Takeda hysteresis rule
was used. The simplified Takeda rule demonstrates only two branches, instead of three, and
thus a decision had to be made on which of the three branches of the shear response (pre-
cracking, post-cracking and ductile) were modeled. This decision was based on the expected
behaviour of the wall building. The outer loop stiffness degradation factor was taken as 0.5 in
order to obtain a similar unloading behaviour as in the SINA hysteresis rule.
In order to estimate more accurately the shear deformations after flexural yielding, the post-
yield branch of the shear envelope was based on the work of Beyer et al. [2011] and Mergos
et al. [2012], according to which the post-yield shear stiffness of cantilever walls is given by
"`௣௢௦௧ି௬௜௘௟ௗ
;Nଶ =
$
3 ௦ 4 G௘ ଶ
. (5.4)
$௙
In the previous expression, ∆s/∆f is the ratio of the shear deformations to the flexural ones and
is given by

$௦ X 2௪ − Y
$௙ G௘ (
= 1.5 . (5.5)
The term tanβ is estimated by the equation of Collins and Mitchell [1997] as
N௦௛
tan ( = 3 4 3௖௧௠ ௪ + 4. (5.6)
M௕ ௬௛
0.8 ௪
Ten accelerograms were chosen to perform the non – linear time history analyses that were
spectrum compatible and no significant scaling was made to them. The displacement response
spectra of the 10 accelerograms along with the design spectrum are shown in figure 5.2. In
95
figures 5.3 to 5.5 the comparison between the design and the average of the non –linear time
history analyses in terms of displacement profiles and moment envelopes is
i shown.
Figure 5.2:: Displacement spectra of the earthquake records chosen and the design earthquake.
In the aforementioned figures, one can observe that the displacement profile assumed in the
design process
cess is reasonably captured by both modelling approaches. This fact strengthens the
belief that the DDBD approach can provide conservative in reasonable range design of
reinforced concrete wall buildings. Moreover, the similarities of results obtained by the
t two
modelling approaches verify the adequacy of modelling of both flexural and shear
deformations of structural walls. Other modelling options could be chosen, such as the
structural wall macro-element
element implemented in Ruaumoko which incorporates the inelastic
inel
shear response automatically, however, the simpler approach of frame elements was chosen as
it represents the most common choice in practice.
96
20 25
Design
18
NLTH_average NLTH_Ruaumoko
16 20
Moment Capacity NLTH_SeismoStruct
14
12 15
Height (m)
Height (m)
10
8 10
6
4 5
2
0 0
0 40000 80000 0 100 200 300 400 500
Moment (kNm) Horizontal displacement (mm)
Figure 5.3: Comparison between NLTHA and Design for the 6 storey building.
30 30
25 25
20 20
Height (m)
Height (m)
15 15
Design
10 NLTH_average 10 NLTH_Ruaumoko
Moment Capacity NLTH_SeismoStruct

5 5
0 0
0 40000 80000 0 200 400 600 800
Figure 5.4: Comparison between NLTHA and Design for 8 storey building.
97
40 45
35 40
35
30
30
25
Height (m)
Height (m)
25
20
20
15 Design
NLTH_average 15
Moment Capacity NLTH_Ruaumoko
10
10
NLTH_SeismoStruct
5 5
0 0
0 50000 100000 150000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Figure 5.5: Comparison between NLTHA and Design for the 12 storey building.
5.2 Elastic Rocking Walls

In this section, the design verification of the walls that were designed according to the DDBD
approach for elastic rocking walls which was described in section 4.4 is presented. The design
verification was done though Nonlinear Time History analyses performed in Ruaumoko. The
foundation was modeled through springs in the three axes. Both the vertical and the horizontal
translational springs were modeled as linear and their stiffness was calculated according to
Gazetas [1991]. Equations (3.8a,b) were used. The rotational spring was modeled as bi-linear
elastic one. The yield point was assigned to be the point of uplift initiation and the initial
stiffness was calculated according to equation (3.8c). The post-yield stiffness ratio was
calculated between the yield point and the point of the design rotation that came up from the
design process. The actual and the bilinear moment-rotation relationship for the two cases are
shown in figure 5.6.
Regarding the modeling of the walls, they were modeled as elastic elements. Their stiffness
was calculated as the ratio of the nominal yield moment and the nominal yield curvature
which is calculated according to equation (5.1).
98
7E+10
DDBD_NLE_SS
6E+10
Moment (Nmm) 5E+10
4E+10
3E+10 Actual curve
2E+10 Bilinear
approximation
1E+10
0
0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.001 0.0012 0.0014
Foundation rotation (rad)
5E+10
DDBD_NLE_IS
4E+10
Moment (Nmm)
3E+10
Actual curve
2E+10
Bilinear
approximation
1E+10
0
0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.001 0.0012 0.0014
Foundation rotation (rad)
Figure 5.6: Moment - rotation curves of footings.
Regarding the elastic damping, 5% of tangent stiffness –based elastic damping was
considered and no additional damping was added.
In figures 5.7 and 5.9, the comparison between average values of the NLTH analyses results
along with the DDBD outcome is presented. There is no sense in comparing the NLTH
moment and shear force envelopes with the corresponding capacity envelopes since only the
base of the wall was designed and the rest of the walls were supposed to be reinforced with
99
the same content. Thus, in the above figures the comparison between the moment and shear
force envelopes of the NLTHA and the DDBD analysis is presented. However, in table 5.1,
the average base moment and shear force coming from the NLTHA is compared with the
moment and shear capacity provided by the designed reinforcement.
Observation of figures 5.7 - 5.9 leads to the conclusion that the design approach which
incorporates the DRF curve which is based on the secant stiffness elastic damping modelling
shows remarkable agreement with the NLTHA results even though the elastic damping in
those analyses was modelled proportional to tangent stiffness. With the same modelling, the
approach which incorporates the initial stiffness DRF curve underestimates the maximum
displacements compared to the NLTH analyses. However, it should be noted that all the wall
elements were modelled through elastic elements whose stiffness remained constant during
the analyses. Also, the nonlinear elastic foundation had a large value of post-yield stiffness
ratio. Thus, the elastic damping forces wouldn’t be reduced significantly. Regarding, these
case study walls, one should compare the maximum moments obtained through the analyses
with the expected moment capacity of the walls so that the accuracy of each approach be
further assessed.
45 45
40 40
35 35
30 30
Height (m)
Height (m)
25 25
NLTH average
20 20
NLTH average
15 15 Design
10 Design 10
5 5
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500
Horiontal displacement (mm) Horiontal displacement (mm)
Figure 5.7: Comparison between NLTHA and design displacement envelopes.
100
45 45
40 40
NLTH average
35 35 NLTH average
30 DDBD analysis 30
Height (m)
Height (m)
25 25 DDBD analysis
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
0 20000 40000 60000 0 20000 40000 60000
Moment(kNm) Moment(kNm)
Figure 5.8: Comparison between NTHA and DDBD analysis moment envelopes.
45 45
40 40
NLTH average NLTH average
35 35
DDBD analysis DDBD analysis
30 30
Height (m)
Height (m)
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
0 1000 2000 0 1000 2000
Shear Force (kN) Shear Force (kN)
Figure 5.9: Comparison between NLTHA and DDBD analysis shear force envelopes.
101
Table 5.1: Comparison between NLTHA and Design.
NLTHA Design NLTHA Design
Δd (m) 0.292 0.277 0.279 0.311
θf (rad) 0.00149 0.0013 0.00119 0.0012
Mbase (kNm) 50000.0 51920* 53100.0 67732.0*
VBase (kN) 1870.0 6672.0* 1940.0 4500.0*
*
These values refer to capacity of the wall based on expected material properties.
As shown in table 5.1, for the initial stiffness based DRF approach the expected nominal
strength at the base of the wall exceeds the average NLTHA results by 3.8 %. Also, the
expected nominal moment capacity of the wall was exceeded during five out of ten
earthquake records used for the design verification by at most 31%, This leads to conclusion
that if the walls were modelled through inelastic elements in the NLTHA, the displacements
during some of the earthquake recordings would be possibly increased compared to the results
shown herein due to lower elastic damping ratios. Of course, since the walls include some
confinement reinforcement, they would exhibit some deformation capacity and hysteretic
energy dissipation but it is not certain that this mechanism could reduce significantly the
displacements.
On the other hand, for the secant stiffness based DRF approach the expected nominal moment
capacity exceeds the average NLTHA base moment by 27.5% as a result of the material
safety factor Φs and the use of characteristic material properties used in the calculation of the
reinforcement. The expected nominal moment capacity was exceeded during three out of ten
earthquake records by at most 7%, so even if the walls were modeled through inelastic
elements the average displacements would exhibit slight increase. Even so, the displacement
envelope comparison shown in figure 5.7 allows for some increase in displacements without
exceeding the displacement profile.
102
Regarding the foundation rotations, the DDBD_NLE_SS approach matches remarkably the
average foundation rotation coming from NLTHA results where the DDBD_NLE_IS
approach underestimates it by 13%. If larger rotations were assigned to the foundation during
the design procedure, it is possible that both superstructure displacements and foundation
rotation would be increased for both design approaches due to lower elastic damping forces.
Regarding the shear force envelope, it seems that DDBD_NLE_SS captures the NLTHA
envelope much better than the DDBD_NLE_IS approach. This leads to the indication that
higher mode effects are more limited for the former case compared to the latter. Of course,
this makes sense since the system in the DDBD_NLE_SS is quite stiffer than the DDBD_IS
system. At last, the shear force capacity is not exceeded by the NLTHA results since the shear
reinforcement design was dictated by Eurocode 8 minimum requirements.
103
Chapter 6. Conclusions
6 CONCLUSIONS
Soil – Foundation – Structure interaction (SFSI) affects significantly the response of the
structures during earthquakes and is difficult to deem if it works in favour or is detrimental for
their integrity. Careful assessment of SFSI should be made especially when flexible structures
are supported on soft soil sites designed according to traditional design methods. Also,
mobilization of foundation bearing capacity could isolate the superstructure and protect it
from earthquakes significantly exceeding the design earthquake. Since seismic design moves
fast towards Performance Based approaches, simple design methods which estimate the
foundation flexibility effects on the response of the structures with adequate accuracy will
provide much help on that cause.
6.1 Stiffness degradation and damping curves of shallow foundations

One of the main contributions of this effort is the construction of foundation response curves
accounting for many mechanisms (plasticity, uplift, soil/footing contact degradation, sliding)
that take place within the response of shallow foundation during earthquake motions. For that
cause, the concept of foundation macro-element was used. The very recent macro-element
formulation, developed by Antonio Correia, improves some of the inconsistencies of the
macro-element developed by Figini et al [2012] and composes a very powerful tool for the
estimation of foundation systems response during earthquakes. Using this tool, cyclic loading
analyses were performed and stiffness degradation and Equivalent Viscous Damping (EVD)
curves were obtained for foundation systems with different Safety Factors and shear ratio
(He/B) values. The obtained curves improved the already existing curves derived by Paolucci
et al [2007] since the effect of shear force was included in the cyclic analyses. In fact, vertical,
horizontal and moment loading were included in the analyses providing design curves that
incorporate mobilization of the foundation bearing capacity without a further check being
104
necessary regarding the feasibility of the foundation design solution. Compared to Paolucci’s
curves, the current curves, as a consequence of the macro-element, attribute higher
significance to plasticity for small SF, so greater stiffness degradation is predicted for such SF
values systems. Regarding the EVD curves, current curves attribute higher hysteretic energy
dissipation to low SF systems in contrast with Paolucci’s curves which attributed higher EVD
for large SF systems. This comes as a consequence of the uplift which is a non-dissipative
mechanism (and dominates the response of large SF systems) and was not included in
Paolucci’s analyses. Also, the current EVD curves predict a decrease of EVD with increasing
foundation amplitude after a rotation has been attained, due to narrowing of the hysteresis
loops as an indication of uplift domination.
Also, pure rocking systems were considered in this research where the soil underneath
remains essentially elastic. Displacement Reduction Factor (DRF) values were obtained for
rocking systems through a large set of nonlinear time history analyses. It was found that the
way the elastic damping was modelled influenced the DRF curves and thus, three different
curves were derived for tangent-stiffness based, secant stiffness based and initially stiffness
based elastic damping. Moreover, analytical expression of the foundation stiffness
degradation due to uplift was constructed based on an uplift formulation used in Chatzigogos
et al [2011].
6.2 Direct Displacement Based Design accounting for nonlinear SFSI

The aforementioned curves were implemented in a DDBD process in order to develop and
integrated design method for wall buildings and their foundation. The design process was
based on the concept initially presented by Priestley et al [2007] and was similar to the
method proposed by Paolucci et al [2009]. Paolucci et al [2009] included a design check at the
end of the design procedure through a bearing capacity formula [Nova and Montrassio, 1991]
to account for the effect of shear force. However, in the method proposed herein, since the
new design curves include the three components of loading, each point on the curves
corresponds to a stable load state where the bearing capacity of the foundation is mobilized.
Thus, no further check is necessary.
Application of both DDBD and DDBD+NLSFSI in three case study wall buildings showed
that when structural strain limits govern the limit state design (medium-rise buildings),
105
accounting for nonlinear Soil-Foundation-Structure interaction leads to more flexible systems

with lower base shear and ductility demands. However, in such cases the structural
displacements increase and this may affect the non structural components response during an
earthquake. For tall buildings where code drift limits control the design, accounting for SFSI
leads to stiffer systems with larger base shear and lower ductility demands. This outcome will
require larger reinforcement content both in flexure and shear, but the confinement
reinforcement may be reduced. The stark contrast between the two design approaches lies on
the foundation design as accounting for SFSI leads to far smaller foundation dimensions.
Furthermore, a displacement based design method for elastic walls supported on rocking
foundations was developed by implementing the DRF and the stiffness degradation curves for
rocking systems on essentially elastic soil. The design approach was applied on a 12-storey
wall by implementing the initial stiffness based DRF curve and the secant stiffness base DRF
curve. The design verification of those two walls through nonlinear time history analysis
proved that the DRF curves that use secant stiffness based elastic damping are more reliable
and accurate in describing the response of elastic rocking walls under earthquake loading.
6.3 Future research

A lot of further work needs to be done so that solid conclusions regarding the issues discussed
herein can be drawn. Regarding the design curves for the response of shallow foundations,
maybe some calibration work on some of the parameters used within the macroelement is
necessary. Also, the EVD values obtained should be evaluated via large sets of nonlinear time
history analyses where the effect of radiation damping could also be assessed. Future work on
radiation damping evaluation is also related with the appropriate modelling of damping for
rocking systems through wave radiation.
Regarding the DDBD+NSFSI, as soon as the macro-element used herein is available to be

used in whole structure verification of the case study buildings through nonlinear time history
analyses has to be done and much more case study structures should be designed and verified
accordingly. Also, NLTH analyses should provide guidance on estimating higher mode
effects on wall buildings with flexible foundation whose bearing capacity is mobilized.
106
Refferences
REFERENCES
Anastasopoulos, I., Gazetas, G., Loli, M., Apostolou, M., Gerolymos, N. [2010] “Soil failure can be
used for seismic protection of structures,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering; Vol. 8, pp 309-326.
Anastasopoulos, I., Loli, M., Georgarakos, T., Drosos, V. [2013] “Shaking Table Testing of Rocking –
Isolated Bridge Pier on Sand,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp 1-32.
Beyer, K., Dazio, A., Priestley, M. J. N. [2008] “Elastic and Inelastic Wide-Column Models for RC
Non-Rectangular Walls,” Proceedings of 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Beijing, China.
Beyer, K., Dazio, A., Priestley, M. J. N. [2008] “Quasi-Static Cyclic Tests of Two U-Shaped
Reinforced Concrete Walls”, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 7, pp. 1023-1053.
Beyer, K., Dazio, A., Priestley, M. J. N. [2011] “Shear Deformations of Slender Reinforced Concrete
Walls under Seismic Loading,” ACI Structural Journal: Vol. 108, No. 2, pp. 167-177.
Ceballos, C. J. L., Sullivan, T. J. [2012] “ Development of improved inelastic displacement prediction
equations for the seismic design of hybrid systems,” Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for
Earthquake Engineering; Vol. 45, No. 1, pp 1-15.
Chatzigogos, C.T., Pecker, A., Salencon, J. [2009] “Macroelement modeling of shallow foundations,”
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering; Vol. 29, pp 765-781.
Chatzigogos, C. T., Figini, R., Pecker, A., Salencon, J. [2011] “A macroelement formulation for
shallow foundations on cohesive and frictional soils,” International Journal of Numerical and
Analytical Methods in Geomechanics; Vol. 35, pp 902-931.
Correia, A. A., Almeida, J. P., Pinho, R. [2008] “Force-Based versus Displacement-Based
Formulations in the Cyclic Nonlinear Analysis of RC Frames,” Proceedings of 14th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China.
Cremer, C., Pecker, A., Davenne, L. [2002] “Modeling of Nonlinear Dynamic Behaviour of a Shallow
Strip Foundation with Macro-element,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering; Vol. 6, No. 2, pp 175-
211.
Drosos, V., Georgarakos, T., Loli, M., Anastasopoulos, I., Zarzouras, O., Gazetas, G. [2012] “Soil-
Foundation-Structure Interaction with Mobilization of Bearing Capacity: Experimental Study on
107
Refferences
Sand,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviromental Engineering; Vol. 138, No. 11, pp 1369-
1386.
Dwairi, H., Kowalsky, M. [2004] “Investigation of Jacobsen’s equivalent viscous damping approach
as applied to displacement-based seismic design,” Proceedings of 13th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada.
Eurocode 8 [2000] Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures, part 5: Foundations,
Retaining structures and geotechnical aspects, prEN, 1998-5 European Committee for
Standardization, Brussels.
Eurocode 8 [2000] Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures, part 1: General rules,
seismic actions and rules for buildings prEN, 1998-1 European Committee for Standardization,
Brussels.
Figini, R., Paolucci, R., Chatzigogos, C. T. [2012] “A macro-element model for non-linear soil-
shallow foundation-structure interaction under seismic loads: theoretical development and
experimental validation on large scale tests,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics;
Vol. 41, pp 475-493.
Gajan, S., Kutter, B.L.[2008] “Capacity, Settlement, and Energy Dissipation of Shallow Footings
Subjected to Rocking,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviromental Engineering; Vol. 134, No.
8, pp 1129-1141.
Gajan, S., Kutter, B. L. [2009] “Effects of Moment-to-Shear Ratio on Combined Cyclic Load-
Displacement Behavior of Shallow Foundations from Centrifuge Experiments,” Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenviromental Engineering; Vol. 135, No. 8, pp 1044-1055.
Gazetas, G. [1991] “Formulas and Charts for Impedances of Surface and Embedded Foundations,”
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering; Vol. 117, No. 9, pp 1363-1381.
Harden, C.W., Hutchinson, T. C. [2009] “Beam-on-Nonlinear-Winkler-Foundation Modeling of
Shallow, Rocking-Dominated Footings,” Earthquake Spectra; Vol. 25, No. 2, pp 277-300.
Mergos, P. E., Beyer, K. [2012] “Modeling Shear-Flexure interaction in equivalent frame models for
slender RC walls,” Proceedings of 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisboa,
Portugal.
Mylonakis, G., Gazetas, G. [2000] “Seismic Soil-Structure Interaction: Beneficial or Detrimental?,”
Journal of Earthquake Engineering; Vol. 4, No. 3, pp 277-301.
Mylonakis, G., Nikolaou, S., Gazetas, G. [2006] “Footings under seismic loading: Analysis and design
issues with emphasis on bridge foundations,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering; Vol. 26,
pp 824-853.
Negro, P., Paolucci, R., Pedretti, S., Faccioli, E. [2000] “Large Scale Soil-Structure Interaction
Experiments on Sand under Cyclic Loading,” Proceedings of 12th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand.
Paolucci, R. [1997] “Simplified Evaluation of Earthquake-induced permanent displacements of
Shallow Foundations,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering; Vol. 1, No. 3, pp 563-579.
108
Refferences
Paolucci, R., di Prisco, C., Vecchiotti, M., Shirato, M., Yilmaz, M. T. [2007] “Seismic Behaviour of
Shallow Foundations: Large Scale Experiments vs. Numerical Modeling and Implications for
Performance Based Design,” Proceedings of 1st US-Italy Seismic Bridge Workshop, Pavia, Italy.
Paolucci, R., Shirato, M., Yilmaz, M. T. [2008] “Seismic behaviour of shallow foundations: Shaking
table experiments vs. numerical modeling,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics;
Vol. 37, pp 577-595.
Paolucci, R., Figini, R., Petrini, L. [2013] “Introducing Dynamic Nonlinear Soil-Foundation-Structure
Interaction Effects in Displacement-Based Seismic Design,” Earthquake Spectra; Vol. 29, No. 2,
pp 1-22.
Pecker, A., Paolucci, R., Chatzigogos, C., Correia, A. A., Figini, R. [2013] “The role of Non-linear
dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction on the Seismic response of Structures,” Bulletin of Earthquake
Engineering; Vol. 10.
Pennucci, D., Sullivan, T. J., Calvi, G. M. [2011] “Displacement reduction factors for the Design of
Medium-and Long-period Structures,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering; Vol. 15, sup. 1, pp 1-
29.
Paulay, T., Priestley, M. J. N [1992] Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings,
John Wiley & Sons, USA.
Priestley, M. J. N., Calvi, G. M., Kowalsky, M. J. [2007] Displacement – Based Seismic Design of
Structures, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
Sullivan, T. J., Salawdeh, S., Pecker, A., Corigliano, M., Calvi, G. M. [2010] “Soil-foundation-
structure interaction considerations for performance-based design of RC wall structures on shallow
foundations,” Soil-Foundation-Structure Interaction, Ch. 25, Taylor & Francis group.
Tileylioglou, S., Stewart, J. P., Nigbor, R. L. [2011] “Dynamic Stiffness and Damping of a Shallow
Foundation from Forced Vibration of a Field Test Structure,” Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenviromental Engineering; Vol. 137, No. 4, pp 344-353.
Wolf, J. P., Song, C. [2002] “Some cornerstones of dynamic soil-structure interaction,” Engineering
Structures; Vol. 24, pp 13-28.
109
Appendix A
APPENDIX A
The agreement between the cyclic analysis point and the final stiffness degradation curves is
presented herein.
1.20
He/B=1.0
1.00
SF2_Analysis
0.80 Empirical curve
Kf/Kf0
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
θ/θup
1.20
He/B=1.0
1.00
0.80
Kf/Kf0
0.60
SF4_Analysis
0.40
Empirical curve
0.20
0.00
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
θ/θup
Α1
Appendix A
1.20
He/B=1.0
1.00
0.80
Kf/Kf0
0.60
SF8_Analysis
0.40
Empirical curve
0.20
0.00
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
θ/θup
1.20
He/B=1.0
1.00
0.80
Kf/Kf0
0.60
SF15_Analysis
0.20
0.00
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
θ/θup
1.20
He/B=1.0
1.00
0.80
Kf/Kf0
0.60 SF30_Analysis
0.20
0.00
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
θ/θup
Α2
Appendix A
1.20
He/B=1.0
1.00
0.80
Kf/Kf0
0.60 SF60_Analysis
0.20
0.00
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
θ/θup
1.20
He/B=2.0
1.00
SF2_Analysis
Kf/Kf0
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
θ/θup
1.20
He/B=2.0
1.00
0.80
Kf/Kf0
0.60 SF4_Analysis
0.20
0.00
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
θ/θup
Α3
Appendix A
1.20
He/B=2.0
1.00
SF8_Analysis
0.80
Kf/Kf0
Empirical curve
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
θ/θup
1.20
He/B=2.0
1.00
0.80
Kf/Kf0
0.60
SF15_Analysis
0.20
0.00
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
θ/θup
1.20
He/B=2.0
1.00
0.80
Kf/Kf0
0.60 SF30_Analysis
0.20
0.00
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
θ/θup
Α4
Appendix A
1.20
He/B=2.0
1.00
0.80
Kf/Kf0
0.60 SF60_Analysis
0.20
0.00
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
θ/θup
1.20
He/B=3.0
1.00
SF2_Analysis
Kf/Kf0
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
θ/θup
1.20
He/B=3.0
1.00
0.80 SF4_Analysis
Kf/Kf0
Empirical curve
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
θ/θup
Α5
Appendix A
1.20
He/B=3.0
1.00
SF8_Analysis
Kf/Kf0
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
θ/θup
1.20
He/B=3.0
1.00
0.80 SF15_Analysis
Kf/Kf0
Empirical curve
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
θ/θup
1.20
He/B=3.0
1.00
0.80 SF30_Analysis
Kf/Kf0
Empirical curve
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
θ/θup
Α6
Appendix A
1.20
He/B=3.0
1.00 SF60_Analysis
Kf/Kf0
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
θ/θup
1.20
He/B=4.0
1.00
SF2_Analysis
Kf/Kf0
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
θ/θup
1.20
He/B=4.0
1.00
SF4_Analysis
Kf/Kf0
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
θ/θup
Α7
Appendix A
1.20
He/B=4.0
1.00
SF8_Analysis
Kf/Kf0
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
θ/θup
1.20
He/B=4.0
1.00
SF15_Analysis
0.80
Empirical curve
Kf/Kf0
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
θ/θup
1.20
He/B=4.0
1.00
SF30_Analysis
Kf/Kf0
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
θ/θup
Α8
Appendix A
1.20
He/B=4.0
1.00
SF60_Analysis
Kf/Kf0
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
θ/θup
Α9
Appendix B
APPENDIX B
In appendix B, the analytical expressions of the curves fitted to the EVD results are presented.
The general expression is shown in equation (B.1) and the values of the parameters for each
different curve in table B.1.
௙ ≤ ଵ : ௙ = ௙,௠௜௡ :. 1
ଵ < ௙ ≤ ଶ : ௙ = ln ௙ + (:. 1)
ଶ < ௙ : ௙ = ln ௙ + ! (:. 1)
Table B. 1: EVD curves parameter values for He/B=1.0.
SF ξf,min a b c d θ1 θ2
2 0.05 0.1355 0.9861 - - 0.001 0.01
4 0.033 0.1067 0.7682 -0.237 -0.7827 0.001 0.01
8 0.02 0.1412 0.8402 -0.0865 -0.208 0.003 0.01
15 0.01 0.1121 0.6612 -0.059 -0.1789 0.003 0.01
30 0.0 0.0527 0.2641 -0.043 -0.1099 0.007 0.02
Β1
Appendix B
Table B. 2: EVD curves parameter values for He/B=2.0.
2 0.05 0.1429 0.976 - - 0.002 0.01
4 0.033 0.085 0.5585 -0.089 -0.2026 0.002 0.013
8 0.012 0.073 0.458 -0.066 -0.1672 0.003 0.013
15 0.005 0.1216 0.7041 -0.03 -0.0653 0.003 0.01
30 0.0 0.0335 0.1677 -0.027 -0.0698 0.007 0.02
Table B. 3: EVD curves parameter values for He/B≥3.0.
2 0.05 0.1162 0.8348 - - 0.001 0.01
4 0.0375 0.114 0.6854 -0.074 -0.1628 0.003 0.01
8 0.012 0.0829 0.4754 -0.051 -0.1258 0.003 0.01
15 0.006 0.0785 0.4207 -0.025 -0.0555 0.005 0.01
30 0.0035 0.028 0.144 -0.016 -0.0378 0.007 0.016
Β2
View publication stats

Displacement Based Design of RC Walls Accounting ForNLSFSI

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

Displacement Based Design of RC Walls Accounting ForNLSFSI

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Displacement Based Seismic Design of RC Wall Buildings accounting_for

Thesis · March 2014

Impact of nonlinear soil-foundation-structure-interaction on the damage response of 3D buildings. View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

for the Master Degree in

Supervisor(s): Dr. Timothy Sullivan

Dr. Antonio Araujo Correia

Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori di Pavia

Università degli Studi di Pavia

The dissertation entitled “Displacement-Based Seismic Design of RC Wall buildings

Timothy Sullivan …… … ………

Antonio Araujo Correia………… …

In this study, a shallow foundation macro-element is implemented in order to derive empirical

1.2 Organization of the report .......................................................................................................... 2

2 LITERATURE OVERVIEW ON SFSI ............................................................................................. 4

2.2 Kinematic Interaction................................................................................................................. 4

2.3 Inertial Interaction...................................................................................................................... 5

2.4 Beneficial and Detrimental effects of SFSI ............................................................................... 7

2.5 Linear SFSI .............................................................................................................................. 11

2.6 Nonlinear SFSI......................................................................................................................... 12

2.7 Modeling of Nonlinear SFSI .................................................................................................... 13

2.7.1 Modeling of the Near-Field sub-domain ........................................................................ 15

2.8 Direct Displacement – Based Design and SFSI ....................................................................... 18

2.9 Soil – Structure Interaction Eurocode 8 ................................................................................... 23

3 DERIVATION OF STIFFNESS DEGRADATION AND DAMPING CURVES FOR SHALLOW

3.1.1 Inelastic Displacement Reduction Factor (DRF) estimation ......................................... 27

3.1.2 Stiffness Degradation of Rocking Foundations ............................................................. 35

3.2 Foundation systems lying on inelastic soil .............................................................................. 38

3.2.1 Derivation of stiffness degradation curves..................................................................... 38

3.2.2 Equivalent viscous damping curves ............................................................................... 47

4 DESCRIPTION AND DESIGN OF CASE STUDY BUILDINGS ................................................ 56

4.1.1 Building and Structural elements geometry ................................................................... 56

4.1.2 Gravity loads and mass .................................................................................................. 58

4.2 Design of Case Study Buildings with fixed base ..................................................................... 59

4.2.1 Seismic Hazard .............................................................................................................. 59

4.2.2 Material Properties ......................................................................................................... 60

4.2.3 Direct Displacement Based Design................................................................................ 61

4.2.4 Force Based Design ....................................................................................................... 66

4.2.5 Flexural and Shear Design of buildings based on DDBD.............................................. 70

4.2.6 Foundation Design ......................................................................................................... 74

4.3 Design method of wall buildings accounting for SFSI ............................................................ 78

5 VERIFICATION OF CASE STUDY BUILDINGS DESIGN........................................................ 92

5.2 Elastic Rocking Walls .............................................................................................................. 98

6 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................... 104

6.3 Future research ....................................................................................................................... 106

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 107

Figure 2.1: Schematic description of SFSI. ................................................................................7

Figure 2.3: Conceptual sub-domains for nonlinear SFSI modelling. .......................................14

Figure 2.4: Generic SFSI modelling in the case of macro-elements. .......................................18

Figure 3.18: Stiffness degradation curves for He/B=1. .............................................................42

Figure 3.19: Stiffness degradation curves for He/B=2. .............................................................43

Figure 3.20: Stiffness degradation curves for He/B=3. .............................................................43

Figure 3.21: Stiffness degradation curves for He/B=4. .............................................................44

Figure 3.24: Calculation of hysteretic damping. .......................................................................47

Figure 3.25: EVD results for He/B≥3.0 ....................................................................................48

Figure 3.26: EVD results for He/B=2.0 ....................................................................................48

Figure 3.27: EVD results for He/B=1.0. ...................................................................................49

Figure 4.1: Typical plan view of case study buildings. ............................................................57

Figure 4.6: Ductility component of Concrete Shear - Resisting Mechanism. ..........................74

Figure 5.1: Force - displacement response of study case buildings. .........................................94

Figure 5.6: Moment - rotation curves of footings. ....................................................................99

Table 3.1: Foundation Macroelement parameters. ...................................................................39

ி = ி,௠௜௡ + ி,௠௔௫ − ி,௠௜௡

= ௚௧௔௡ఝ ,

= ! "8 (3.1)

= # "8 (3.2)

%ெ,଴ = ± %ே ିଵ.ହொಿ , && #' (3.4)