141

S E I S M I C R E S P O N S E OF S T R U C T U R E S F R E E T O R O C K ON T H E I R F O U N D A T I O N S
M . J . N . P r i e s t l e y * , R.J. E v i s o n * * ,

A.J.Carr***

SUMMARY The p o s s i b i l i t y of f o u n d a t i o n r o c k i n g o f shear w a l l s t r u c t u r e s d e s i g n e d t o N Z S 4 2 0 3 is d i s c u s s e d . T h e o r y d e v e l o p e d by H o u s n e r for the free r o c k i n g o f a r i g i d b l o c k is c o m p a r e d w i t h e x p e r i m e n t a l r e s u l t s f r o m a s i m p l e structural m o d e l with a number of d i f f e r e n t foundation c o n d i t i o n s . A simple d e s i g n m e t h o d for assessing m a x i m u m r o c k i n g d i s p l a c e m e n t s , u s i n g e q u i v a l e n t e l a s t i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a n d a r e s p o n s e - s p e c t r a a p p r o a c h is p r o p o s e d , a n d c o m p a r e d w i t h r e s u l t s from s i m u l a t e d s e i s m i c e x c i t a t i o n of the m o d e l u s i n g an electro-hydraulic shake-table. A t y p i c a l d e s i g n e x a m p l e is i n c l u d e d .

1.

INTRODUCTION

Post-mortems on structural response subsequent to seismic attack have revealed u n e x p e c t e d b e h a v i o u r on some types of structures that can only be attributed to rocking of the entire s t r u c t u r e o n its f o u n d a t i o n s . For example, several seemingly unstable golf-ballon-a-tee types of elevated r e i n f o r c e d - c o n c r e t e water tanks incurred minimal damage during the Chilean earthquake of May 1960, while more stable ground-supported reinforced concrete tanks were severely d a m a g e d ( 1 ) . I n s p e c t i o n of the foundations of the apparently unstable tanks revealed clear evidence that the structures had rocked on their foundations. Investigations after the Arvin-Tehachapi earthquake (California, July 1952) i n d i c a t e d t h a t a n u m b e r of t a l l p e t r o l e u m cracking t o w e r s had escaped serious damage by stretching their anchor bolts, and rocking on their foundation pads * ' , It w a s a l s o n o t e d that free-standing stone pillars supporting h e a v y s t a t u e s in I n d i a n c i t i e s r e m a i n e d i n t a c t w h i l e m o r e s t a b l e s t r u c t u r e s in t h e v i c i n i t y were reduced to rubble. Seismic r e s p o n s e involving uplift of the m a j o r p o r t i o n o f t h e b a s e (rocking) is n o t , h o w e v e r , l i m i t e d to s u c h u n s t a b l e s t r u c t u r e s as d e s c r i b e d in t h e p r e v i o u s p a r a g r a p h . Design to t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f N Z S 4 2 0 3 : 1 9 7 6 * 3 ) result in s i t u a t i o n s where rocking of p a r t or a l l o f t h e s t r u c t u r e u n d e r s e i s m i c a t t a c k is probable. Consider the simplified structural system i l l u s t r a t e d in Fig. la, c o n s i s t i n g of end shear walls providing the required N-S seismic resistance, with vertical load mainly supported by flexible interior columns w h i c h do n o t c o n t r i b u t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y to l a t e r a l resistance. Despite the comparatively squat nature of the structure, the high ratio of tributary floor m a s s for transverse seismic r e s p o n s e to t r i b u t a r y f l o o r m a s s for v e r t i c a l loads c a n r e s u l t in the b a s e seismic o v e r t u r n ing m o m e n t e x c e e d i n g the r e s t o r i n g g r a v i t y moment.
c a n

required to inhibit the r o c k i n g that w o u l d r e s u l t , by i n c o r p o r a t i n g a m a s s i v e f o u n d a t i o n b e a m (Fig. 1 6 ) . If t h e s t r u c t u r e i n F i g . la is d e s i g n e d t o N Z S 4 2 0 3 f o r Z o n e A in Reinforced Concrete using Grade 380 steel, a S t r u c t u r a l T y p e f a c t o r S = 1.6 a n d M a t e r i a l s F a c t o r M = 1.0 a r e a p p r o p r i a t e . Assuming the w a l l to be designed on the b a s i s of a f l e x u r a l u n d e r c a p a c i t y f a c t o r o f <) = 0 . 9 0 , jf the f o u n d a t i o n s w o u l d n e e d to b e d e s i g n e d for an effective S x M v a l u e of reinforced concrete: ^r^0.9

S x M x - ^ = 1 . 6 x l . 0 x cj>
f

=
Q

2.4

where $ = 1.3 5 is t h e a p p r o p r i a t e o v e r c a p a c i t y f a c t o r to e n s u r e no r o c k i n g o r foundation yield. If t h e w a l l s w e r e c o n s t r u c t e d o f r e i n f o r c e d m a s o n r y , < ) = 0.65 Jf a n d M - 1.2 a r e r e q u i r e d , a n d t h u s reinforced

S

masonry:
= 1.6

^ cp^

1.2

n o

7r^-7=-

1.35 0 . ob

= However, NZS

4.0 4203

, states

"... no f o u n d a t i o n s y s t e m n e e d be d e s i g n e d to r e s i s t forces and m o m e n t s g r e a t e r t h a n those resulting from a h o r i z o n t a l force c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o S x M = 2" clause 3.3.6.3.1 The consequences of this loadlimitation clause are that some structural systems will be allowed to rock on their foundations under seismic attack. It i s t h e w r i t e r s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h i s anomoly rather than representing an unsafe condition, may result in considerable advantages by allowing r o c k i n g in some c a s e s . I n F i g . lc a c o m p a r a t i v e l y l i g h t f o u n d a t i o n is p r o v i d e d , d e s i g n e d o n the b a s i s of S x M = 2.0 (for e x a m p l e ) . If t h e w a l l r o c k s , the lateral forces developed w i l l be limited to those inducing o v e r t u r n i n g a b o u t the t o e . T h e w a l l could be s p e c i f i c a l l y d e s i g n e d to remain elastic under these forces, thus eliminating structural damage. Similar advantages to those resulting from b a s e isolation ^ will result. The extent of

In *

some

c a s e s , the

designer

is

not

R e a d e r in C i v i l E n g i n e e r i n g , U n i v e r s i t y of C a n t e r b u r y . ** Construction Engineer, N.Z. Structures Ltd. * * * S e n i o r L e c t u r e r in C i v i l E n g i n e e r i n g , University of Canterbury.

B U L L E T I N O F T H E N E W Z E A L A N D N A T I O N A L S O C I E T Y F O R E A R T H Q U A K E E N G I N E E R I N G , V O L . 1 1 , N O . 3, S E P T E M B E R , 1 9 7 8 .

142
r o c k i n g is l i k e l y t o b e s m a l l , a n d d a m a g e can be expected to be confined to p l a s t i c deformation of soil under each end of the foundation beam. This damage would be easily repairable. The viability of this approach would depend on the extent of the rocking d i s placements induced. Although instability is i n c o n c e i v a b l e f o r t h e t y p e o f s t r u c t u r e s r e p r e s e n t e d b y F i g . 1, e x c e p t b y s o i l liquefaction, the incompatibility of vertical deformation b e t w e e n the rocking shear walls and t h e c o l u m n s h e l d in g r o u n d - c o n t a c t by the gravity loads would result in t w i s t i n g of floor s l a b s , and possibly some secondary structural damage. This paper describes the m e c h a n i s m s involved in the rocking response, and proposes a simple design m e t h o d for p r e d i c t i n g rocking d i s p l a c e m e n t s under seismic attack. The research has been limited to structural aspects of rocking r e s p o n s e , and i t is a s s u m e d t h a t t h e soil properties are such that under rocking a c o m p a r a t i v e l y small c o n t a c t at t h e t o e is sufficient to transmit the gravity loads carried by the w a l l . This assumption i s . e x a m i n e d f u r t h e r i n S e c t i o n 4. Bartlett ' has recently produced analytical methods describing the rocking r e s p o n s e of systems where soil compliance forms a more significant part of the total deformation. 2. THEORY
G

(see F i g .

2) a c c o r d i n g

to the

expression . (1)

4 where

cosh

l-0 /a'
Q

WR

(2)

and m( 2b(2h) 12
J

(2b) - ^ 2 12

MR

(3)

is the m a s s m o m e n t of i n e r t i a of the block about the point of rotation 0, where M = total m a s s of block and m = m a s s / u n i t v o l u m e . (9) Housner recognised that m u c h of the a d v a n t a g e to b e g a i n e d from a l l o w i n g a structure to rock is d e p e n d e n t o n the e f f i c i e n c y of the r o c k i n g p h e n o m e n o n as an energy dissipating mechanism. He assumed that impacts would produce no bouncing' and hence constitute purely inelastic collisions, radiating energy from the rocking system to the foundation h a l f - s p a c e . By equating momentum before and after impact, he showed that the kinetic energy reduction f a c t o r r, ( r a t i o o f k i n e t i c e n e r g y a f t e r impact to kinetic energy immediately before impact) c o u l d b e r e l a t e d to the b l o c k dimensions by the expression MR .2 1 c o s 2a) (4) (1 I
1

D e s p i t e the importance of the rocking p h e n o m e n o n as a seismic r e s p o n s e m e c h a n i s m , it h a s r e c e i v e d very l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n f r o m researchers. Meek() developed theory for predicting the response of single degree of freedom systems with no-tension capacity rigid foundations, using a time-history dynamic analysis approach. His interest was p r i m a r i l y in slender buildings w i t h high fundamental p e r i o d s , for w h i c h he found r e d u c t i o n to m a x i m u m lateral d i s p l a c e m e n t and b a s e shear f o r c e , if r o c k i n g w a s permitted. S e x t o n ( ?' i n a d i s c u s s i o n t o M e e k s p a p e r ( 6 ) d r e w a t t e n t i o n to t h e fundamental differences between the rocking response of squat stiff structures, and tall flexible o n e s , and suggested that b e n e f i t s m a y also be e x p e c t e d for s h o r t p e r i o d s t r u c t u r e s , t h o u g h r e d u c t i o n in displacements will not necessarily result.
1

T h i s c o e f f i c i e n t e n a b l e d h i m t o p ir e d i c t t h e p peak displacement after the n impact during n a t u r a l decay of rocking i n terms of t h e i n i t i a l d i s p l a c e m e n t <j> , a s
0

- /
and

(1- (1d > o = o a (see F i g . of a 2)

. (5)

where 2.2

Equivalent Viscous System

Damping

Rocking

N o w the fraction of critical damping, X , of a single degree of freedom oscillator w i t h viscous damping under free decay of vibration can be assessed from the relative amplitudes of the displacements peaks :

(8) Beck and Skinner describe similar preliminary dynamic analyses of the South Rangitikei Rail Bridge, a continuous prestressed concrete box-girder with 70 m h i g h t w i n - l e g g e d p i e r s w h i c h are free to rock b y ' s t e p p i n g ' f r o m leg to leg in t h e t r a n s v e r s e d i r e c t i o n to l i m i t s e i s m i c f o r c e s . H o w e v e r , in t h e i r a n a l y s e s , it w a s a s s u m e d that structural damping would occur only w i t h b o t h legs of a pier in contact with the foundation, and the energy loss from t h e s y s t e m o n i m p a c t of t h e l e g s w i t h t h e foundation was ignored. Consequently the analyses of Beck and Skinner predicted v e r y s l o w decay of rocking. 2.1 Housner's Rocking Block

2-rrm

n
e

(~
A

(6)

W h e r e m is the* n u m b e r o f c o m p l e t e c y c l e s separating peak displacements A and A . Since A and 4 are directly p r o p o r t i o n a l , > and since there are two impacts per cycle.
Q m

(7) eqn (6) c a n b e rewritten (8)

irn

e d > n
Y
Q

A m o r e f u n d a m e n t a l study of the p r o b l e m has been reported by H o u s n e r ^ ^ who derived relationships governing the free vibration of a rigid rocking block. (Fig. 2 ) . He s h o w e d that t h e f r e q u e n c y of t h e r o c k i n g response decreased with increasing amplitude

T h u s , b y d i v i d i n g e q u a t i o n (5) b y <J> , i n v e r t i n g , a n d s u b s t i t u t i n g i n e q u a t i o n (8) i t i s possible to define an equivalent v i s c o u s d a m p i n g of the rocking system. Substituting of trial v a l u e s r e v e a l s t h a t for 4> ^ 0.5, t h e v a l u e o f d a m p i n g o b t a i n e d f r o m e q n s (5) a n d (8) i s c o m p a r a t i v e l y i n s e n s i t i v e t o initial amplitude $ a n d n u m b e r o f i m p a c t s n.
0 0

143
and a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n X and r can b e d e v e l o p e d , w h i c h is shown g r a p h e d in f i g . 3. V a l u e s of X will vary from this relationship by less than 1 0 % for values o f <j> < 0.5 a n d n < 1 6 .
o

2.3

Response

Spectra

Design

Approach

It is t h u s p o s s i b l e to r e p r e s e n t a r o c k i n g b l o c k as a s i n g l e d e g r e e o f f r e e d o m oscillator with constant damping, whose period d e p e n d s on the amplitude of rocking. If i t i s a s s u m e d t h a t t h e p e a k r e s p o n s e t o seismic excitation depends only on the e q u i v a l e n t e l a s t i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (T, X ) at peak r e s p o n s e , then a t r i a l - a n d - e r r o r response spectrum approach may be used to determine the peak displacement. Such an analysis proceeds as follows.

a 1.5 m s q u a r e A l u m i n i u m t a b l e r u n n i n g o n 100 m m d i a m e t e r s t e e l g u i d e s t h r o u g h Glacier DU-PTFE bearings. D r i v e is p r o v i d e d by a h o r i z o n t a l d o u b l e - a c t i n g 50 k N h y d r a u l i c jack powered by a 7 5 litre/min p u m p , and c o n t r o l l e d by an M T S s e r v o - h y d r a u l i c electronic controller. This enables the t a b l e to b e d r i v e n h o r i z o n t a l l y in a n u m b e r of m o d e s ranging from simple s i n u s o i d a l m o t i o n , using a function g e n e r a t o r as signal source, to simulated seismic ground motion using an FM tape recorder with a s u i t a b l e s c a l e d e a r t h q u a k e r e c o r d as s i g n a l source. 3.2 Rocking Model

(1) Using the no-rocking natural period and damping of the structure, and the acceleration response spectra of the design earthquake, calculate the elastic response acceleration and c h e c k t h a t t h i s w i l l in fact i n d u c e rocking. (2) U s i n g e q n (4) a n d t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n r a n d X o f F i g . 3, c a l c u l a t e t h e equivalent viscous damping X of the r o c k i n g system.
e

(3) F r o m e q n (1) d e t e r m i n e t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between p e r i o d T and amplitude of rocking at the c e n t r e of m a s s . This is shown in F i g . 4a. (4) A n estimate of maximum rocking d i s p l a c e ment is initially 'guessed' and the c o r r e s p o n d i n g p e r i o d T ^ is r e a d o f f F i g . 4 a . (5) The maximum displacement response A2 of this equivalent elastic system (T^,X ) is f o u n d f r o m t h e d i s p l a c e m e n t r e s p o n s e s p e c t r a , as indicated in F i g . 4 b , w h i c h represents the tripartite response spectra. T h e d i s p l a c e m e n t A 2 is a r e f i n e d e s t i m a t e o f t h e r e s p o n s e , a n d a n e w p e r i o d T 2 is r e a d off F i g . 4 a , and u s e d in F i g . 4b to p r o d u c e a new estimate A 3 of peak displacement.
e

Dimensions of the m o d e l w e r e dictated by t h e s i z e a n d c a p a c i t y of t h e s h a k e - t a b l e . A simple one-sixth scale simulation of a concrete masonry shear-wall structure with prototype pre-rocking fundamental period of 0.4 s e c w a s a d o p t e d . Fig. 5 shows relevant dimensions of the m o d e l , w h i c h w a s designed to have a model natural period of about 0.067 s e c , s a t i s f y i n g C a u c h y s i m i l i t u d e and w a s p r o p o r t i o n e d so t h a t r o c k i n g w o u l d initiate at a response acceleration of 0.34 g. Although this would imply prototype r o c k i n g at an u n r e a l i s t i c a l l y l o w r e s p o n s e a c c e l e r a t i o n o f 0 . 0 5 7 g, i t e n a b l e d e x t e n s i v e examination of the rocking phenomenon at comparatively low levels of e a r t h q u a k e excitation, and resulted in a m o d e l of convenient dimensions. Structural form of the m o d e l w a s chosen to g i v e t h e r e q u i r e d characteristics, rather than geometric similitude. To ensure even reaction of the model dead w e i g h t , it w a s s u p p o r t e d o n four circular discs of adjustable h e i g h t , with thin insertion-rubber pads glued to the b o t t o m of the d i s c s to p r e v e n t d a m a g e to the table surface on impact during rocking. Three main foundation conditions were investigated : (a) Model supported directly on table, (b) m o d e l s u p p o r t e d o n 25 m m l a y e r o f h a r d ness IRHD rubber, simulating a deformable foundation material. The design of this pad w a s such t h a t a t h r e e - f o l d i n c r e a s e in n a t u r a l no-rocking period resulted. (c) A s f o r (b) b u t w i t h t h e f o u r l e v e l l i n g feet r e m o v e d to p r o v i d e c o n t i n u o u s c o n t a c t between the m o d e l base and rubber pad. In a d d i t i o n , l i m i t e d ' f r e e - r o c k i n g ' tests were carried o u t in the field, supporting the m o d e l on w e l l - c o m p a c t e d clay soil. These different foundation conditions w e r e not designed to m o d e l specific realistic values, but rather were used to investigate the general significance of foundation compliance on results. 3.3 Tests Performed dynamic test were

(6) The trial~and-error approach proceeds w i t h a l t e r n a t e r e c o u r s e to F i g s . 4a and 4b until convergence results. This generally takes three or four cycles. 3. MODEL STUDIES

The authors are not aware of any published reports o n simulated seismic testing of models free to rock on their f o u n d a t i o n s , t h o u g h a recent p a p e r by Kelly and Tsztoo^ ' describes dynamic testing of a frame where exterior columns w e r e allowed to lift under seismic excitation. Because of this paucity of experimental data, a simple structural model was constructed, and tested on the S h a k e T a b l e a t t h e D e p a r t m e n t of C i v i l E n g i n e e r i n g , University of Canterbury. Aims of the e x p e r i m e n t a l s t u d y w e r e t o (a) c h e c k t h e theoretical equations developed by Housner a n d (b) c o m p a r e r e s p o n s e o f t h e m o d e l t o simulated seismic excitation, with values predicted using the equivalent response spectra approach developed in Section 2.3. 3.1 Shake-Table The Facility used for the tests is

Four categories of investigated, namely

1. Natural decay of free v i b r a t i o n at amplitudes less than t h a t r e q u i r e d in initiate rocking. This enabled natural n o - r o c k i n g f r e q u e n c i e s a n d d a m p i n g to be measured. 2. Natural decay of rocking m o t i o n . The m o d e l was displaced to an a m p l i t u d e exceeding

shake-table

144
that required to cause u p l i f t , and released. Measurements of amplitude of rocking, natural period and rate of decay provided experimental data for comparison w i t h H o u s n e r ' s e q u a t i o n s . 3. Sinusoidal Excitation. The model was s u b j e c t e d to f o r c e d s i n u s o i d a l b a s e a c c e l e r a t i o n to f a c i l i t a t e the study o f r e s p o n s e to different frequencies. 4. Simulated seismic excitation. A suitably scaled record o f the N-S c o m p o n e n t of the 1940 El Centro earthquake was used as table excitation. To provide similitude, model/ prototype frequency and acceleration scales o f 6.0 w e r e r e q u i r e d . The earthquake a c c e l e r a t i o n r e c o r d , so s c a l e d , w a s i n t e g r a t e d t w i c e by c o m p u t e r and r e c o r d e d o n a n a l o g u e magnetic tape as a displacement trace. Scaling of magnitude was provided by attenuation through the MTS Controller/ and the m o d e l w a s s u b j e c t e d to v a r i o u s levels of e x c i t a t i o n c o r r e s p o n d i n g to the r a n g e 2 0 % to 100% of El Centro 1940 N - S . Because of space limitations only results of the free-rocking and seismic testing a r e included in this p a p e r . More c o m p l e t e i n f o r m a t i o n is i n c u d e d i n r e f . N o . 11. 3.4 Instrumentation a best fit w i t h the experimental d a t a , and is s u b s t a n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t from the v a l u e o f r = 0.70 p r e d i c t e d b y e q n (4) f r o m t h e model parameters. I t is a p p a r e n t t h a t t h e i m p a c t s w e r e n o t t o t a l l y i n e l a s t i c , as a s s u m e d by H o u s n e r , and t h a t a s i g n i f i c a n t proportion of the energy of impact was being returned to the rocking system. It is of i n t e r e s t t h a t t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l v a l u e of r w a s e f f e c t i v e l y i n d e p e n d e n t of the foundation condition. The natural decay displacement traces also p r o v i d e d d a t a for a s s e s s i n g H o u s n e r ' s relationship between frequency and amplitude of r o c k i n g , g i v e n in eqn ( 1 ) . F i g . 8b shows the comparison between theory and experimental results for rigid base and rubber-pad base conditions. A g r e e m e n t is excellent for both base c o n d i t i o n s . It will be noted that for the rubber-pad base, m a x i m u m r o c k i n g f r e q u e n c y i s 3.7 H z , c o r r e s ponding to the natural no-rocking frequency. Above this level, H o u s n e r s theory does not apply.
1

4.2

Response

to El Centro

1940 N-S

Excitation

M o d e l d i s p l a c e m e n t s r e l a t i v e to the shake-table w e r e m o n i t o r e d by H e w l e t t Packard DCDT's , and a c c e l e r a t i o n s w e r e measured by Kyowa AS-10B accelerometers. Instrumentation locations are included in F i g . 5. In addition, table displacement and a c c e l e r a t i o n w e r e m o n i t o r e d to p r o v i d e comparison with specified values. Analogue traces of r e s p o n s e w e r e r e c o r d e d on a 25 channel Bryan Southern U-V recorder. Fig. 4. 4.1 6 shows the model RESULTS of Rocking under test.

A t y p i c a l m o d e l response to simulated s e i s m i c e x c i t a t i o n s i s s h o w n i n F i g . 9, w h i c h traces t i m e - h i s t o r i e s of m o d e l a c c e l erations and displacement resulting from 0.6 x E l C e n t r o e x c i t a t i o n f o r t h e r u b b e r - p a d b a s e condit.ion. It w i l l b e n o t e d t h a t rocking initiates almost immediately in the response record, and continues to the end of the b a s e e x c i t a t i o n . Peak response disp l a c e m e n t o c c u r s a t a b o u t 1.5 s e c (9.0 s e c in p r o t o t y p e t i m e - s c a l e ) a n d d a m p s o u t comparatively rapidly. Vertical accelerations r e s u l t i n g from i m p a c t of the feet o n the rubber pad are clearly apparent and are r e f l e c t e d in the h o r i z o n t a l a c c e l e r a t i o n record. The design approach developed in section 2.3 w a s u s e d t o e s t i m a t e t h e p e a k m o d e l response. First model characteristics were converted to equivalent p r o t o t y p e values using the m o d e l / p r o t o t y p e relationships : accelerations displacements periods
r

EXPERIMENTAL Natural

Decay

A typical composite record of free rocking decay is shown for the rigid base c o n d i t i o n i n F i g . 7. It will be noted that though the vertical displacements at front and b a c k feet do not indicate s i g n i f i c a n t * bounce', high vertical accelerations were induced on i m p a c t , w h i c h are reflected in significant superimposed accelerations on the horizontal acceleration record. These p e r t u r b a t i o n s at the natural structural frequency do not appear to affect the basic rocking response. It was noticeable that the t r a c e s r e c o r d e d for the flexible b a s e conditions (rubber-pad foundations and soil-base) contained much lower superimposed a c c e l e r a t i o n s from the i m p a c t s , as w o u l d b e expected ( H ) . From the horizontal displacement records for t h e f o u r b a s e c o n d i t i o n s (e.g. c e n t r a l t r a c e i n F i g . 7) t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l r a t e o f rocking decay, ^ n , could be determined as a function of ^o number of i m p a c t s , n. The r e s u l t s for all b a s e c o n d i t i o n s fell on t h e s a m e c u r v e , a n d a r e c o m p a r e d i n F i g . 8a with predictions based on equation (5), using a value of r = 0.87. It will be seen that the t h e o r e t i c a l decay v a l u e is in good agreement with average experimental behaviour. T h e v a l u e o f r = 0.87 w a s a d o p t e d t o p r o v i d e

: : :

a A

p p

= L = L

r r

^ a a m T m

(9) (10) (11)

= L

where L = 6 is t h e p r o t o t y p e / m o d e l l e n g t h r a t i o , and p a n d m r e f e r to p r o t o t y p e and model values respectively. T h e e x p e r i m e n t a l v a l u e o f r - 0.87 w a s a d o p t e d , r e s u l t i n g , from F i g . 3, in a n equivalent viscous damping of 4.8%. Using a n a p p r o p r i a t e l y s c a l e d v e r s i o n o f F i g . 8b and the El Centro N-S tripartite response s p e c t r a (see F i g . 1 2 ) , r e s u l t s i n a p r o t o t y p e d i s p l a c e m e n t of 300 m m a f t e r f o u r t r i a l - a n d error cycles b a s e d o n an initial g u e s s of 120 m m d i s p l a c e m e n t . This scales to a p r e d i c t e d m a x i m u m m o d e l d i s p l a c e m e n t of 50 m m (eqn 1 0 ) w h i c h c o m p a r e s w i t h t h e m e a s u r e d v a l u e of 45 m m . T h i s a g r e e m e n t is felt to be acceptable considering the approximations inherant in the a n a l y s i s .
1 1

5.

DESIGN

EXAMPLE results rocking confirm behaviour

The experimental Housner's analysis of

and

145
p r o v i d e some support for the p r o p o s e d s i m p l i fied a n a l y s i s t e c h n i q u e described in section 2. It m a y b e o f i n t e r e s t , h o w e v e r , t o consider a typical design example and investigate the likely response using the response-spectra analysis. Consider the N-S response of the fivestorey masonry structure shown in F i g . 1 0 . The equivalent weight of beams and slabs i s t a k e n a s 5.0 k P a , a n d s e i s m i c l i v e - l o a d a s 1.67 k P a . Half the total Dead plus Live Load contributes to the seismic shear of each end w a l l , b u t vertical load for each wall comes only from the wall dead weight plus a 5.0 m w i d e t r i b u t a r y s t r i p f r o m e a c h f l o o r . Including roof and ground floor, total vertical l o a d i s e s t i m a t e d a t 4.0 M N / w a l l . For normal seismic analysis, the mass distribution may be replaced by the equivalent No-Rocking 1 F m o d e l in Fig. 1 0 , which results in a n a t u r a l p e r i o d o f T = 0.4 3 s e c , b a s e d o n E - 5.0 G P .
1 2 m a

is (2)

assured. Rocking Response

For simplicity, assume the total mass contributing to seismic shear to the wall is u n i f o r m l y d i s t r i b u t e d o v e r t h e w a l l a r e a , rather than concentrated at floor heights. T h e a p p r o x i m a t i o n i n v o l v e d is s m a l l . D i s t r i b u t e d m a s s p e r u n i t a r e a is t h e n 1200 17.5 x 15.0 2 from 4.57 eqn tonnes/m (3) 2 = 11 Io = m ( I x x + + yy) + M R .4 m I 7 Now I o = 4.57 R = y/9
2

(17.5

15 + 12

15

17.5)

The (1)

analysis

steps

are ? Io Now

1200 x 209 107

130 tm MN
4

t.m

Will

Structure

Rock

Compare the wall overturning shear with code^ shear. Rocking will occur when the overturning moment exceeds the restoring moment. That is, when 9.81 - x 1 2 . 9 > 4.0 M N x 7 . 0 , g w h e r e a is t h e r e s p o n s e a c c e l e r a t i o n required to induce rocking, and the length of toe i n c o n t a c t w i t h soil is a s s u m e d to b e 2.0 m , g i v i n g a l e v e r a r m o f t h e r e s t o r i n g m o m e n t o f 7.0 m . .*. a > 0. 2 4 5 g is the r e q u i r e m e n t for rocking. (12) 0.900 x

W = 4.0

From Eqn (2), P = 4.0 x 1 0 2.091 x 0.463 Period of Rocking eqn ( 1 ) , the relationship and amplitude is
1

11.4 10
8

Inverting between period _ 4 cosh

-1

(l-9o/a) 0.661 rad.

(16)

for

Compare with NZS 4 2 0 3 ^ Zone A, Class III 0.15 x 1.6 x 1.2 x

requirements

Now and where

a = tan ^ ~ = 0 o = AR / 17.5

CSMIR thus ie

1.0

1.0

Vd = a =

0 . 2 8 8 W, 0.288 g. (13)

A R is t h e r o o f eqn (16) r e d u c e s

displacement.

Thus T =

T h i s e x c e e d s t h e v a l u e g i v e n i n e q n (12) to i n d u c e r o c k i n g . Note also that the code value is based on d e p e n d a b l e flexural strength, u s i n g a n u n d e r c a p a c i t y f a c t o r <) = 0 . 6 5 . jf Based on ideal strength, response acceleration will be 0.288 0.65 0.443 g (14)

8.64

to 1 -1 , cosh (1-0.0864 A ) is p l o t t e d in F i g . 1 1 .

(17)

This

relationship

Damping S u b s t i t u t i n g i n t o e q n (4) f o r t h e e n e r g y r e d u c t i o n f a c t o r r, g i v e s [7

If o v e r s t r e n g t h d u e to s t r a i n - h a r d e n i n g e t c . d e v e l o p s , a n o v e r c a p a c i t y f a c t o r (J> = 1.35 could be appropriate for grade 380 steel. Thus

0

L_

1 2 0 0 x 13 209 107 0.21

(1 - c o s

(2 x

37.9)

1.35 x

0.443 g =

0.598

(15)

C o m p a r i n g e q u a t i o n s (14) a n d (15) w i t h e q n (12) i t i s c l e a r t h a t r e s p o n s e a t d e s i g n level loading w i l l result in rocking. For further confirmation of rocking, check t h e e l a s t i c r e s p o n s e s p e c t r a to ensure elastic response exceeds code requirements. From Skinner's response spectra* ' u s i n g T = 0.43 s e c a n d A = 5% c r i t i c a l , a c c e l e r a t i o n r e s p o n s e = 0.91 g . Thus rocking

T h u s e q u a t i o n (4) p r e d i c t s a v e r y l o w v a l u e for squat structures such as t h e e x a m p l e wall. However, since the model studies indicated the calculated v a l u e for r u n d e r estimates the true v a l u e , conservatively adopt r = 0.50, giving, from F i g . e, X = 2 3 % . The trial-and-error approach using the r e l a t i o n s h i p of F i g . 11 and t h e t r i p a r t i t e response spectra for El Centro N-S 1940 (Fig. 12) r e s u l t s in a c e n t r e - o f - m a s s d i s p l a c e m e n t of a b o u t 80 m m , c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o a roof level displacement of 160 m m , occurring f o r T = 1.6 s e c .

146
The extent of rocking indicated by this e x a m p l e is n o t e x c e s s i v e , b u t p o s s i b l e d a m a g e resulting from twisting of floor slabs and soil yield w o u l d need to be b a l a n c e d against r e d u c e d d a m a g e to t h e s h e a r w a l l s , a n d s a v i n g s in f o u n d a t i o n d e s i g n . It s h o u l d b e noted that s e v e r a l r e c o r d e d e a r t h q u a k e s (eg P a r k f i e l d 1 9 6 6 a n d P a c o i m a S 7 5 W 1 9 7 1 ) h a v e m o r e s e v e r e s p e c t r a l r e s p o n s e in t h e l o n g p e r i o d r e g i o n , a n d c o u l d b e e x p e c t e d to induce more extensive rocking than El Centro N-S 1940. 6. CONCLUSIONS 7. Loadings for Buildings", P u b . S.A.N.Z., W e l l i n g t o n , 1 9 7 6 , 80 p p . S k i n n e r , R. I. a n d M c V e r r y , G. H . , "Base Isolation for Increased Earthquake Resistance of Buildings", B u l l . N . Z . N a t . S o c f o r E . E . , V o l . 8, N o . 2 , J u n e , 1975, pp 93-101. B a r t l e t t , P. E . , " F o u n d a t i o n R o c k i n g on a Clay Soil", M . E . Thesis, Rept. N o . 1 5 4 , S c h o o l of Eng., U n i v . of A u c k l a n d , N o v . 1976, 144 p p . M e e k , J. W . , " E f f e c t s o f F o u n d a t i o n Tipping on Dynamic Response", Journal Struct. Div. ASCE Vol. 101, No. ST7 July 1975, pp 1297-1311. S e x t o n , H . J., D i s c u s s i o n o f r e f 6. J o u r n . S t r u c t . Div. A S C E V o l . 102 No ST 6 June 1976, p 1262. B e c k , J. L . a n d S k i n n e r , R . I . , " T h e S e i s m i c R e s p o n s e of a P r o p o s e d R e i n forced Concrete Railway Viaduct", DSIR R e p t N o . 3 6 9 , M a y 1 9 7 2 , 17 p p . H o u s n e r , G. W . , " T h e B e h a v i o u r o f Inverted Pendulum Structures During E a r t h q u a k e s " , B u l l . S e i s . S o c . of Am., V o l . 5 3 , N o . 2, F e b . 1 9 6 3 , pp 4 0 3 - 4 1 7 . K e l l y , J. M . a n d T s z t o o , D . F., "Earthquake Simulation Testing of a Stepping Frame with Energy-Absorbing Devices". Bull. N . Z . Nat. Soc. for E . E . , V o l . 1 0 , N o . 4, D e c . 1 9 7 7 p p 196-207. E v i s o n , R. J. , " R o c k i n g F o u n d a t i o n s " , M . E . Thesis, Dept. Civil Eng., Res. Rept. No. 77-8, University of Canterbury, F e b . 1 9 7 7 , 96 p p . Priestley, M.J.N., "Seismic Resistance of Reinforced Concrete Masonry Shear Walls with High Steel Percentages", Bull. N . Z . Nat. Soc. E.E., Vol. 10, N o . 1, M a r c h , 1 9 7 7 . pp 1-16. S k i n n e r , R. I . , " H a n d b o o k f o r E a r t h q u a k e G e n e r a t e d F o r c e s and M o v e m e n t s in T a l l Buildings",N.Z. DSIR Bull. No. 166, 1964.

4.

5.

6.

(1) T h e r e s p o n s e of a s t r u c t u r e free to rock o n its f o u n d a t i o n s o f f e r s a m e a n s of b a s e - i s o l a t i o n , in that lateral a c c e l e r a t i o n s are limited to the level inducing r o c k i n g . Structural d a m a g e can be reduced by designing s t r u c t u r a l e l e m e n t s to r e m a i n elastic, at t h e rocking acceleration. (2) Housner's equations describing the relationship between frequency and amplitude for a r o c k i n g b l o c k h a v e b e e n v e r i f i e d f o r a simple structural m o d e l . Foundation conditions did not have a significant influence on the rocking r e s p o n s e . However, Housner s assumption that rocking impacts would r e p r e s e n t i n e l a s t i c c o l l i s i o n s w a s found to be u n c o n s e r v a t i v e .
1

8.

9.

10.

11. (3) Extension of H o u s n e r s theory resulted in the d e v e l o p m e n t of a s i m p l e m e t h o d for predicting m a x i m u m d i s p l a c e m e n t of rocking, by u s e of d i s p l a c e m e n t r e s p o n s e s p e c t r a and an e q u i v a l e n t e l a s t i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the rocking system. Limited shake-table testing provided reasonable v e r i f i c a t i o n of the theory.
1

12.

13. (4) The approach developed was intended to p r o v i d e a m e a n s for e s t i m a t i n g the rocking response of b u i l d i n g s t r u c t u r e s . Application to o t h e r s t r u c t u r e s , s u c h a s b r i d g e p i e r s and c h i m n e y s , e x a m p l e s of w h i c h have already been designed to rock during earthquakes, is o b v i o u s . Non-structural applications , such as rocking of stacked c o n t a i n e r s , could also be considered. (5) V e r i f i c a t i o n of t h e t h e o r y h a s so far been limited to a single m o d e l and a single earthquake record. F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h is needed to t e s t the s c o p e of a p p l i c a b l i l i t y of the m e t h o d . In p a r t i c u l a r , the h i g h equivalent v i s c o u s damping predicted for squat rocking structures needs verification. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS T h e e x p e r i m e n t a l w o r k d e s c r i b e d in t h i s p a p e r w a s p a r t of a n M . E . p r o j e c t by E v i s o n , supervised by Priestley and Carr. Grateful a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t is m a d e of f i n a n c i a l s u p p o r t by H o l m e s W o o d P o o l e a n d J o h n s t o n e , C o n s u l t i n g Engineers, Christchurch. REFERENCES 1. C l o u d , W . K., " P e r i o d M e a s u r e m e n t s of S t r u c t u r e s in C h i l e " , B u l l . S e i s m o l o g i c a l Society of America. V o l . 53 N o . 2 , Feb. 1963, pp 359-379. H o u s n e r , G. W . , "Limit D e s i g n of S t r u c t u r e s t o R e s i s t E a r t h q u a k e s " , P r o c . 3rd W o r l d Conf. on Earthquake Eng. 1956, pp 5.1-5.13. S . A . N . Z . , "NZS 4 2 0 3 : C o d e of P r a c t i c e for G e n e r a l S t r u c t u r a l D e s i g n and D e s i g n

Paper

received

7 August,

1978.

2.

3.

147

f l o o r area lateral (a) Floor

contributing N-S

to

seismic

load , Plan:

Distribution

of

Floor

Loads

FIGURE 2: ROCKING

HOUSNER'S BLOCKS

(b) Heavy

Foundation

Beam

(c)

Light

Foundation

Beam

- Ductile

Response

-Rocking

Response

FIGURE 1: A L T E R N A T I V E P H I L O S O P H I E S FOR S E I S M I C R E S P O N S E OF C A N T I L E V E R S H E A R W A L L S

T, \
Period Energy Reduction Factor, r. {b) TRIPARTITE RESPONSE SPECTRA

FIGURE 3: A P P R O X I M A T E R E L A T I O N S H I P BETWEEN E Q U I V A L E N T V I S C O U S D A M P I N G A N D ENERGY REDUCTION FACTOR

FIGURE 4 : E S T I M A T E O F M A X I M U M DISPLACEMENT FROM RESPONSE SPECTRA

148

FIGURE 5: SCHEMATIC OF MODEL ON SHAKE-TABLE

FIGURE 6: M O D E L UNDER TEST

FIGURE 7: M O D E L N A T U R A L ROCKING RESPONSE DECAY ( r i g i d base)

149

Theory Exp. Exp. Exp.

r = O. 8 7 base pad base

rigid rubber soil

8 No. DECAY

of

12 Impacts ROCKING

16 (n)

20

(a)

OF

10 Theory (f-lousner) base pad

\
0)
No-rocking for rubber freq. pad 16 a cr
4

Exp. Exp.

rigid rubber

24 Displacement

32 (mm)

Horizontal (b) FREQUENCY vs

AMPLITUDE

FIGURE 8 : THEORY vs. EXPERIMENT FOR MODEL

FIGURE 9 : M O D E L R E S P O N S E TO 0.6 x EL CENTRO 1 9 4 0 N-S (rubber pad + feet)

150

Shear

Waifs

I
190mm

"~

m m m m

N
A 11

s
30 m E l e v a t ion 100t >200t >200t >200t >200t *.4sy300t 900 t Typical Floor Plan

Wall Wall Elevation N-S

Masses

for

No-Rocking

1*F

Model

Exci t a t i o n

FIGURE 10: SIMPLIFIED M A S O N R Y BUILDING FOR DESIGN E X A M P L E

D A M P I N G V A L U E S A R E 0. 2. 5. 10 A N D 2 0 P E R C E N T O F C R I T I C A L

cn c o or

250 Roof

500 Level

750 Displacement

1000 (mm)

.04

. 0 6 .08 .1

.4

3 1

PERIOD

(sees)

10

20

FIGURE 11: ROCKING C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S OF EXAMPLE STRUCTURE

FIGURE 12: TRIPARTITE R E S P O N S E SPECTRA, EL CENTRO 1 9 4 0 N-S