Dissertation2008 Arefi

Effects of Soil-Structure Interaction on the Seismic
Response of Existing R.C. Frame Buildings

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements
for the Master Degree in

Earthquake Engineering & Engineering Seismology

By

M. Jawad Arefi

Supervisors:
Assoc. Prof. Misko Cubrinovski
Dr. Stefano Pampanin

November, 2008

Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori di Pavia
Universit degli Studi di Pavia
Index
iii

ABSTRACT

Comprehensive experimental and analytical studies have been carried out to understand the behaviour
of existing frame buildings constructed before the introduction of seismic design codes in 1970s.
Different aspects of the response have been investigated and inherent weaknesses have been pointed
out.
This usually has been done assuming a fixed-base structure while ignoring the flexibility of soil and
foundation.
In this thesis, the interaction between the super-structure and sub-structure (SSI) is investigated by
modelling the soil as simple as possible to capture the overall response of the system.
As new analytical hysteresis rules and more advanced tools of analysis have been developed in recent
years, first the nonlinear response of a single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system which can be
representative of a broad range of existing or newly designed structures, is investigated while allowing
for flexibility of the soil-foundation system and SSI effects.
This simple soil model then is employed to existing nonlinear frame models to quantify the effect of
SSI on the overall response of actual structures. The use of flexible base in the analysis can lead to
reduction in the structural response and damage consequences in joints and infills.
In a further step, the assessed existing frames are retrofitted in beam-column joints area and the effects
of flexible base condition on structural demand are examined in more detail.
The results of this study suggest that the compliance of simply modelled soilfor typical building
structures have in average beneficial effects in terms of structural demand especially for stiff
structures. On the other hand, the governing component of these effects, i.e. rocking of foundation, can
result in average to higher absolute deformation of floors which points out to potential pounding
problems for structures existing in close vicinity to each other.

Keywords: Soil-structure interaction (SSI); infill panel; existing structures; retrofit; SDOF system
Index
iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
ABSTRACT ..........................................................................................................................................iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................iv
LIST OF FIGURES...............................................................................................................................vi
LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................................................. x
LIST OF SYMBOLS.............................................................................................................................xi
1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Thesis outline.............................................................................................................................2
2 Dynamics of Soil-Structure Interaction............................................................................................. 3
2.1 Kinematic Interaction.................................................................................................................3
2.2 Inertial Interaction .......................................................................................................................5
2.2.1 Evaluating the Impedance Function..................................................................................7
2.2.2 Impedance functions for other cases.................................................................................9
2.3 Methods for Modelling SSI .......................................................................................................10
2.3.1 Direct methods ................................................................................................................10
2.3.2 Simple methods...............................................................................................................11
2.4 Soil-Structure Interaction in Seismic Codes & Provisions........................................................12
2.4.1 SSI in Seismic Codes ......................................................................................................12
2.4.2 SSI in Code Commentaries.............................................................................................14
3 Parametric Studies on SDOF Structure ........................................................................................... 18
3.1 Ground Motions.......................................................................................................................19
3.2 Hysteresis Models....................................................................................................................20
3.3 Strength and Strength Reduction .............................................................................................22
3.4 Sub-Structural Elements ..........................................................................................................22
3.5 Results of SDOF Analyses.......................................................................................................25
Index
v
3.5.1 Influence of Foundation Flexibility on SDOF seismic behaviour .................................25
3.5.2 Influence of Strong Ground Motion Intensity................................................................30
3.5.3 Influence of super-structural strength level ...................................................................34
3.5.4 Influence of strength reduction in super-structure .........................................................38
3.5.5 Influence of Selection of Strong Ground Motion ..........................................................43
3.6 Summary and Conclusion........................................................................................................47
4 Effects of SSI on the Assessment of Existing RC Frame Structures............................................... 48
4.1 Modelling procedure and issues ................................................................................................49
4.1.1 Modelling of the superstructure .....................................................................................49
4.1.2 Modelling of the substructure ........................................................................................52
4.1.3 Description of the physical models................................................................................53
4.2 Results of analyses...................................................................................................................62
4.2.1 Bare Frame.....................................................................................................................62
4.2.2 Partially Infilled Frame ..................................................................................................64
4.2.3 Uniformly Infilled Frame...............................................................................................68
5 Effects of SSI on Retrofitted Structures .......................................................................................... 72
5.1 Retrofitting Solutions...............................................................................................................73
5.1.1 Fibre-reinforced polymers .............................................................................................73
5.1.2 Metallic haunch..............................................................................................................75
5.2 Analysis Results.......................................................................................................................76
5.2.1 Bare frame......................................................................................................................76
5.2.2 Partially infilled frame ...................................................................................................78
5.2.3 Uniformly infilled frame................................................................................................81
6 REFERENCES................................................................................................................................ 84
APPENDIX A...................................................................................................................................... A1

List of Figures
vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Page
Figure 2.1: Averaging effect (Left), Decreasing motion amplitude with depth (centre), Wave scattering
at the corners (right) ........................................................................................................................ 4
Figure 2.2: Amplitude of transfer function between free-field motion and foundation input motion for
different foundation shapes. (a) Translational motion (b) Torsional motion (Veletsos & Prasad,
1989) ............................................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 2.3: Examples of using dampers to model radiation damping ..................................................... 5
Figure 2.4: Schematic representation of period lengthening and damping increase as a result of
considering SSI effect in dynamic response analysis of a SDOF structure (Stewart, 2003)........... 6
Figure 2.5: Frequency dependent values for horizontal motion (Gazetas, 1991) .................................... 7
Figure 2.6: Modelling the sub- and super-structure and solving the equations in one step (Kramer,
1996) ............................................................................................................................................. 11
Figure 2.7: Cone Model and equivalent lumped elements to be used in time history analysis (Wolf,
1994) ............................................................................................................................................. 12
Figure 2.8: Comparison of period lengthening ratios for SDOF structure with rigid circular foundation
on half-space for surface foundations ( = 0.45, = 5%,
m
= 0.15) (Stewart & Fenves, 1999).. 14
Figure 3.1: Varying parameters of super-structure system, (a) Different hysteresis rules (b) Structure
strength (c) Strength reduction for a range of structure periods.................................................... 18
Figure 3.2: Elastic Acceleration Response Spectra (5% Elastic Damping) of the 20 Earthquake Ground
Motion Records (Pampanin, 2002) ............................................................................................... 20
Figure 3.3: Comparison between EC8 elastic spectrum and mean response spectrum of 10 records
multiplied by a factor of 0.75 (Galli, 2005) .................................................................................. 21
Figure 3.4: Hysteretic Models Used in the Analyses (Carr, 2008) ........................................................ 21
Figure 3.5: Strength Reduction Variation, (Carr, 2008) ........................................................................ 22
Figure 3.6: Modelling of the foundation support................................................................................... 23
Figure 3.7: Variation of shear modulus with strain ............................................................................... 24
List of Figures
vii
Figure 3.8: Displacement response spectra for different level of soil flexibility................................... 26
Figure 3.9: Normalized displacement spectra, F
y
= 0.2 W; BSE-1 level Earthquake............................ 27
Figure 3.10: Displacement with and without considering SSI effects, F
y
= 0.2 W; BSE-1 level
Earthquake .................................................................................................................................... 27
Figure 3.11: Standard Deviation of different hysteresis rules, F
y
= 0.2 W; BSE-1 level Earthquake ... 28
Figure 3.12: Standard Deviation; F
y
= 0.2 W; BSE-1 level Earthquake................................................ 28
Figure 3.13: Displacement Spectra of Flexible Foundation, F
y
= 0.2 W, G = G
max
............................... 30
Figure 3.14: Relative displacement of each intensity level to fixed-base counterpart, F
y
= 0.2 * W, G =
G
max
............................................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 3.15: Relative displacement compared to BSE-1 level earthquake, F
y
= 0.2 * W, G = G
max
...... 32
Figure 3.16: Comparison of displacement of flexible and fixed-base SDOF structures ....................... 33
Figure 3.17: Standard Deviation, F
y
= 0.2 * W, G = G
max
...................................................................... 33
Figure 3.18: Standard Deviation, comparison of flexible and fixed base structures, F
y
= 0.2 * W, G =
G
max
............................................................................................................................................... 34
Figure 3.19: Displacement Spectra of flexible foundation, BSE-1 level earthquake, G = G
max
............ 34
Figure 3.20: Relative displacement of flexible-base structure to fixed-base structure, BSE-1 level
earthquake, G = G
max
..................................................................................................................... 35
Figure 3.21: Relative displacement to the structure with 0.2W, BSE-1 level earthquake, G = G
max
..... 36
Figure 3.22: Comparison of fixed-base and flexible-base structural displacement, BSE-1 level
earthquake ..................................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 3.23: Standard Deviation, BSE-1 level earthquake, G = G
max
.................................................... 37
Figure 3.24: Comparison of standard deviation of flexible to fix-based structures, BSE-1 level
earthquake, G = G
max
..................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 3.25: Displacement spectra of with and without strength reduction, BSE-1 level earthquake... 39
Figure 3.26: Relative displacement of flexible to fixed-base structure, BSE-1 level earthquake, G =
G
max
............................................................................................................................................... 40
Figure 3.27: Relative displacement of reduced strength to structure without strength reduction.......... 41
Figure 3.28: (a) Displacement with and without SSI effects. (b) Displacement with and without
strength reduction, BSE-1 level earthquake.................................................................................. 41
max
.................................................... 42
Figure 3.30: Comparison of standard deviation of flexible and fixed base structure, BSE-1 level
earthquake, G = G
max
..................................................................................................................... 42
Figure 3.31: Displacement response spectra of Loma Prieta (1989) earthquake Hollister Array
station............................................................................................................................................ 43
Figure 3.32: Displacement response spectra of Northridge (1994) earthquake Hollywood Store
station, BSE-1 level earthquake, G = G
max
.................................................................................... 44
List of Figures
viii
Figure 3.33: Displacement response spectra of Superstition Hills (1987) earthquake Plaster city
station............................................................................................................................................ 45
Figure 3.34: Average displacement response spectra of 10 recorded earthquakes, BSE-1 level
earthquake, G = G
max
..................................................................................................................... 46
Figure 4.1: Representation of multi-degree of freedom structure with a single degree of freedom...... 49
Figure 4.2: Lumped plasticity beam element......................................................................................... 49
Figure 4.3: Modified Takeda hysteresis loop (Otani, 1974) .................................................................. 50
Figure 4.4: Shear failure typical of poor construction of a beam-column joint (Galli, 2005) ............... 50
Figure 4.5: Pampanin reinforced concrete beam-column joint hysteresis (Carr, 2008) ........................ 51
Figure 4.6: Envelope (right) and the Crisafulli hysteresis rule (left) (Crisafulli, 1997) ........................ 52
Figure 4.7: Ramberg-Osgood Hysteresis............................................................................................... 53
Figure 4.8: Frames with different infill distribution: a) uniformly infilled, b) partially infilled c) bared
....................................................................................................................................................... 53
Figure 4.9: Geometric dimension of the six-storey bare frame (Galli, 2005)........................................ 54
Figure 4.10: Column sections of the six-storey frame (Galli, 2005) ..................................................... 54
Figure 4.11: Variation in Normalized shear modulus of intact specimens with shearing strain and
number of loading cycles from RC and TS tests (Stokoe, 1999) .................................................. 57
Figure 4.12: Effect of soil type on the G/G
max
-log relationship at a constant ' (Stokoe, 1999).......... 57
Figure 4.13: Effect of effective confining pressure on the G/G
max
log relationship for silty sand
(Stokoe, 1999)............................................................................................................................... 58
Figure 4.14: Trends in average G/G
max
log relationships with confining pressure (depth) and
plasticity index, PI (Stokoe, 1999)................................................................................................ 58
Figure 4.15: Generic curves proposed by Vucetic and Dobry (1991) showing the effect of plasticity
index (PI) on G/G
max
log relationships (Vucteic & Dobry, 1991). .......................................... 59
Figure 4.16: Variation in material damping ratio of intact specimens with shearing strain and number
of cycles (left), effect of soil type on the

log relationships at a constant `
m
= 0.5 atm (right)
(Stokoe, 1999)............................................................................................................................... 60
Figure 4.17: Generic Curves proposed by Vucetic et al (Vucetic & Dobry, 1991) showing the effect of
plasticity, (left); Effect of confining pressure on the

log relationships for silty sand (Stokoe,
1999) ............................................................................................................................................. 61
Figure 4.18: Pushover analysis on the six-storey bare frame, with and without SSI............................. 62
Figure 4.19: Bare frame: Envelope of floor displacements, interstorey drifts (average of 10 records). 63
Figure 4.20: Pushover analysis on six-storey partially infilled frame with one panel, with and without
SSI................................................................................................................................................. 64
Figure 4.21: Partially Infilled with one partition; Envelope of floor displacement and interstorey drifts
(average of 10 records).................................................................................................................. 65
List of Figures
ix
Figure 4.22: Pushover analysis on the six-storey partially infilled frame (double-panel), with and
without SSI.................................................................................................................................... 66
Figure 4.23: Partially Infilled with two partitions; Envelope of floor displacement and interstorey drifts
....................................................................................................................................................... 67
Figure 4.24: Pushover analysis on the six-storey uniformly infilled frame, with and without SSI ....... 68
Figure 4.25: Uniformly Infilled with one partition; Envelope of floor displacement and interstorey
drifts .............................................................................................................................................. 69
Figure 4.26: Pushover analysis on the six-storey uniformly infilled frame, with and without SSI ....... 69
Figure 4.27: Uniformly Infilled with two partitions; Envelope of floor displacement and interstorey
drifts (10 records).......................................................................................................................... 70
Figure 4.28: Pushover curves for different infill panel configurations.................................................. 70
Figure 5.1: Schematic illustration of RC joint strengthened with FRP (Antonopoulos, 2002) ............. 74
Figure 5.2: Hysteretic loop envelope of the test specimens (Ghobarah, 2001) ..................................... 74
Figure 5.3: Experimental behaviour of connection (left); schematic view of a hinged haunch solution
(right) (Pampanin, 2006). .............................................................................................................. 75
Figure 5.4: Maximum interstorey drift; retrofitted bare frame (average of ten records) ....................... 76
Figure 5.5: Envelope of total and relative maximum displacement of bare frame, partially retrofitted
(top) fully retrofitted (bottom) (average of 10 records) ................................................................ 77
Figure 5.6: Maximum interstorey drift; partially infilled frame, single panel (average of ten records) 78
Figure 5.7: Maximum interstorey drift; partially infilled frame, double panel (average of ten records)
....................................................................................................................................................... 78
Figure 5.8: Envelope of total and relative maximum displacements of partially infilled panel (single
panel), partially retrofitted (top) fully retrofitted (bottom) (average of 10 records) ..................... 79
Figure 5.9: Envelope of total and relative maximum displacements of partially infilled panel (double
Figure 5.10: Maximum interstorey drift; uniformly infilled frame, single panel (average of ten records)
....................................................................................................................................................... 81
Figure 5.11: Maximum interstorey drift; uniformly infilled frame, double panel (average of ten
records).......................................................................................................................................... 81
Figure 5.12: Envelope of total and relative maximum displacements of uniformly infilled panel (single
Figure 5.13: Envelope of total and relative maximum displacements of uniformly infilled panel
(double panel), partially retrofitted (top) fully retrofitted (bottom) (average of 10 records) ........ 83
List of Tables
x

LIST OF TABLES

Page
Table 2.1: The cone model properties of a surface disk foundation on a homogeneous half-space
[Wolf, 94]........................................................................................................................................ 9
Table 3.1: Scaled records used for the time history analyses (Christopoulos et al. 2002)..................... 19
Table 3.2: Properties of four soil types IBC(2000)................................................................................ 23
Table 3.3: Parameters of Half-Space Soil.............................................................................................. 24
Table 4.1: Material properties (Galli, 2005) .......................................................................................... 55
Table 4.2: First and second mode periods of bare frame structure........................................................ 63
Table 4.3: First and second mode periods of partially infilled frame structure ..................................... 66
Table 4.4: First and second mode periods of uniformly infilled frame structure .................................. 68
Table 5.1: Fundamental mode period of retrofitted bare frame structure.............................................. 76
Table 5.2: Fundamental mode period of retrofitted partially infilled frame structure........................... 79
Table 5.3: Fundamental mode period of retrofitted uniformly infilled frame structure ........................ 82

List of Symbols
xi

LIST OF SYMBOLS

a = Length of rectangular foundation
o
a
~
, a
o
= Dimensionless frequency
= Foundation area
b = Width of rectangular foundation
c, C = Viscous damping coefficient
d = Displacement
e = Embedment depth
F
y
= Yield force
g = Gravity acceleration
G, G
max
= Shear modulus of the soil
h = Effective height
I = Moment of inertia
j = Deformation mode
j
k = Impedance function
K = Spring stiffness
K
y
= Lateral stiffness of foundation
K
v
= Vertical stiffness of foundation
K

= Rocking stiffness of foundation
m, M = Mass
PI = Plasticity index
r
u
= Horizontal foundation radius
r
v
= Vertical foundation radius
r
= Rotational foundation radius

r = Post-elastic bilinear factor
S
a
= Spectral acceleration (g)
T, T
~
= Fixed-base, flexible-base period
u
ff
= Free field motion
V
s
= Shear wave velocity
z
o
= Apex height
List of Symbols
xii
= Frequency dependency of impedance functions
= Frequency dependency of impedance functions
= Ramberg-Osgood bilinear factor
0
= Foundation damping factor
= Damping ratio of radiation and material damping in soil
= Shear strain
= Reference shear strain
t
e
= Elastic shear strain threshold
= Displacement
, = Flexible- and fixed-base damping ratio
= Poisson ratio
= Pi
= Soil density
= Effective confining pressure
= Shear stress
= Circular frequency

Chapter 1. Introduction
1

1 Introduction
Destructive earthquakes in urban areas such as Hyogo-ken Nanbu (Japan, 1995), Izmit
(Turkey, 1999) etc. emphasized the need for assessment of existing buildings constructed
before the introduction of capacity-designed-based seismic design provisions in 1970s.
During these earthquakes, those structures typically suffered significant damage and even
global collapse while newly constructed buildings designed according to modern seismic
codes performed reasonably well in these strong earthquakes.
As seismic assessment is the first step within a retrofit strategy to reduce the seismic risk,
comprehensive experimental-analytical studies, have been conducted in the past years to
investigate the seismic response of pre-1970s structures which were designed to carry gravity
loads only. The results generally confirmed the inherent weaknesses and deficiencies of these
buildings (Magenes and Pampanin, 2004).
The objective has been to understand the weak points of the structure under seismic loading
so as appropriate and efficient retrofit solutions could be developed. As a consequence of poor
reinforcement detailing and using plain round bars in the joints as well as lack of capacity
design principles in designing pre-70s buildings, it was found that in many cases suitable and
efficient way to strengthen the structure and enhance the ductility capacity is through the
rehabilitation of beam-column joints (Calvi et al. 2002). Innovative and reliable retrofit
solutions have been introduced and implemented into existing buildings (Ghobarah and Said,
2001; Pampanin et al. 2006; Pampanin et al. 2007)
Typically the studies on assessment and retrofit of existing buildings have assumed the
foundation of the structure to be rigid and compliance of foundation soil under seismic
loading has been ignored, since the SSI considerations bring more complexity to the model
and analytical procedure in general. It is known that flexibility of foundation usually is
accompanied with lengthening of the fundamental period of soil-structure system and an
increase in the damping. Using typical code spectra, this may lead always to a reduction in the
spectral acceleration and consequently, lower seismic demands for the superstructure. As
recent findings have revealed, this may not be the case for some soil sites and under some
specific earthquakes with particular properties (like particular frequency content).
Therefore, there is still a need for further studies to better understand the post-elastic response
of existing RC buildings under earthquake loading in presence of a flexible soil-foundation
system. The body of literature on soilstructure interaction (SSI) is truly enormous. So by
Chapter 1. Introduction
2
adopting a suitable and simple method of modelling SSI within the assessment and retrofit
response analyses, better understanding of the structure behaviour in the presence of soil can
be achieved. The results can be compared before and after the introduction of retrofit schemes
within the existing RC frame and the influence of SSI on the selection of retrofit performance
levels can be understood.
The objectives of this dissertation are to investigate the overall response of existing and
retrofitted buildings modelled on flexible foundation, and hence to evaluate the SSI effects on
the structural response albeit through the use of relatively simple soil models.
All the numerical analyses have been conducted using the inelastic dynamic analysis program
Ruaumoko (Carr, 2008).
1.1 Thesis outline
A brief explanation of each chapter is presented as follows:
Chapter 1 introduces briefly the background and the motivation of the thesis and explains
shortly its objectives.
Chapter 2 elucidates the soil-structure interaction problem, explaining the physics of the
phenomenon and a short literature review of how researchers have been dealing with it in the
past. The modelling issues are clarified and a simple analytical model is presented to be used
throughout the dissertation for simulating the flexibility of soil and foundation.
Chapter 3 represents a parametric study on single-degree-of-freedom systems with and
without flexible foundations. The important parameters which may increase the effect of SSI
have been considered such as the level of flexibility of the soil, the structural strength,
intensity of ground motion etc. Different hysteresis rules assigned to SDOF system were
assumed as representative of different MDOF structural types.
Chapter 4 gives the result from analyses of existing frame structures with different infill
configurations for a superstructure on a flexible base. Pushover and time history analyses of
the structure have been conducted to study the overall response of the buildings with and
without SSI effects.
Chapter 5 presents the outcomes of analyses on models representing retrofitted structures
again comparatively examining the response with and without SSI effects. Two performance
levels have been assumed to strengthen the beam-column joints, namely, a partial retrofit in
which only the exterior joints are retrofitted, and a complete retrofit in which all the joints in
the structure are strengthened appropriately.

Chapter 2. Dynamics of Soil-Structure Interaction
3

2 Dynamics of Soil-Structure Interaction
When analyzing the seismic response of structures it is common in practice to assume the
base of the structure to be fixed, which is a gross assumption since in most situations the
foundation soil is flexible. This assumption is realistic only when the structure is founded on
solid rock or when the relative stiffness of the foundation soil compared to the superstructure
is high. In all other cases, compliance of the soil can induce two distinct effects on the
response of the structure, first, modification of the free field motion at the base of the
structure, and second, the introduction of deformation from dynamic response of the structure
into the supporting soil. The former is referred to as kinematic interaction, while the latter is
known as inertial interaction and the whole process is commonly referred to as soil-structure
interaction.
The main concept of site response analysis is that the free field motion is dependent on the
properties of the soil profile including stiffness of soil layers. The stiffness of the deposit can
change the frequency content and amplitude of the ground motion. Likewise, on the path to
the structure, wave properties might be changed due to the stiffness of the foundation. In fact,
kinematic interaction is the inability of the foundation to conform to the deformations of the
free field ground (Kramer, 1996). On the other hand, the inertial forces and moments induced
by structure to the foundation can change the ground motion too. These two effects are
discussed in more detail in the following sections.
2.1 Kinematic Interaction
When the earthquake ground motion in the free-field is varying over the area corresponding to
that of the rigid foundation, then it can be constrained and modified by the rigid foundation.
This deviation from free field motion is called kinematic interaction between the soil and
foundation. Moreover, stiffness of the foundation can cause variation of ground motion with
depth and scattering of waves at the corners of the foundation (Fig 2.1). If the foundation
dimensions are small compared to the wave length of interested frequency range, kinematic
interaction has negligible effects on the response (Clough & Penzin, 2003). But if the
foundation dimensions are in the same order of the wave length, a base slab averaging effect
will result.
The output from an analysis accounting for the kinematic interaction is an effective input
motion, which is denoted as foundation input motion. The mathematical transformation from
the free field motion to the foundation input motion could be performed by a frequency
dependent transfer function which is a site-specific curve. Johnson (Johnson, 2003) has shown
4
several experimental tests on different sites and building types. It has been shown that
kinematic interaction is important for structures supported on large and stiff foundations.

Figure 2.1: Averaging effect (Left), Decreasing motion amplitude with depth (centre), Wave scattering at
the corners (right)

Veletsos (Veletsos & Prasad, 1989) and Veletsos (Veletsos et al., 1997) developed several
transfer functions between translational and torsional foundation motions and the free field
ground motion (Fig. 2.2) which were calibrated later by Kim (Kim & Stewart, 2003) against
observed foundation and free field behaviour. The transfer function amplitudes computed by
Veletsos and his co-workers presented in Figure 2.2 are for circular and rectangular
foundations subject to vertically incident incoherent SH waves. Similar curves are available
for non-vertically incident coherent waves in the references. The transfer functions in Figure
2.2 are prepared such that the foundations dimension 2a is measured parallel to the direction
of SH wave polarization, and 2b is the perpendicular dimension.
The foundation input motion (FIM) can be evaluated using free-field time histories
compatible with a design-based acceleration spectrum, through the following procedure:
- Evaluate the Fourier transform of the time history
- Multiplying the acceleration amplitude at each frequency by the corresponding value
of transfer function
- Evaluate the inverse Fourier transform of the product.
As experiments have shown, kinematic effects are more pronounced in pile and very stiff
foundations (Kramer & Stewart, 2004), therefore kinematic effects are ignored in this
dissertation and only inertial interaction is considered.

5

Figure 2.2: Amplitude of transfer function between free-field motion and foundation input motion for
different foundation shapes. (a) Translational motion (b) Torsional motion (Veletsos & Prasad, 1989)
2.2 Inertial Interaction
The second effect considering the existence of soft soil under the foundation of the structure is
denoted as inertial interaction. Inertial forces induced by foundation motion during the
earthquake can cause the compliant soil to deform which in turn affects the super-structure
inertial forces. This deformation propagates away from the structure in six degrees of freedom
of the foundation motion. In other words, the dynamic response of the superstructure
decreases. This removal of energy from the system is referred to as radiation damping in
literature. Wolf (Wolf, 1994) used a viscous damper to take into account the radiation
damping. The coefficient of the viscous damper is proportional to the wave velocity in the soil
and the foundation area. This increase in effective damping is significant for a soil site
approaching a homogeneous elastic half space (Wolf, 1994). Two classes of such models
proposed by De Barros (De Barros & Luco 1995) and Wolf (Wolf, 1994) are shown in Figure
2.3.

Figure 2.3: Examples of using dampers to model radiation damping
6
The compliance of soil foundation is correspondent to a stiffness value. This can be combined
with radiation damping properties of foundation in a complex impedance function as it is
denoted in soil-structure interaction (SSI) problems. As is depicted in Figure 2.3, the
compliance of soil can be modelled with springs. Evaluating the spring and viscous damper
properties and using the foundation motion as input motion, a more realistic dynamic analysis
of the system can be carried out.
The effect of SSI can be assessed by comparing the system responses with and without
springs and dashpots. This effect is usually accompanied with period lengthening due to
compliant soil added to the system and increasing damping due to the radiation effects,
(Figure 2.4). The new properties of the system can be evaluated in closed-form for single
degree of freedom structures. Figure 2.4 shows schematically the result of period lengthening
and increase of damping for the response of a SDOF structure. It is obvious that when using a
general acceleration response spectrum, consideration of SSI effects will reduce the response
of the SDOF system.

Figure 2.4: Schematic representation of period lengthening and damping increase as a result of
considering SSI effect in dynamic response analysis of a SDOF structure (Stewart, 2003)
But in general it is not possible to determine a priori whether the inertial interaction effects
will decrease or increase the response of the system. It has been shown whilst in most of the
cases ignoring the interaction effect is conservative, in some cases it can be detrimental.
Gazetas (Gazetas & Mylonakis, 2003) showed that in certain seismic and soil environments,
an increase due to SSI in the fundamental period of a moderately flexible structure may result
in an increase in the seismic demand.
7
2.2.1 Evaluating the Impedance Function
A complete set of simplified impedance functions for rigid circular or rectangular foundations
located on ground surface and underlain by homogenous visco-elastic half space associated
with swaying, vertical, rocking, and cross-swaying-rocking oscillations were derived
analytically by Gazetas (Gazetas, 1991). The proposed functions are frequency dependent and
are given in a complex format. The general impedance functions are of the form
0 0
( , ) ( , )
j j j
k k a i c a = + ( 2-1)
where j denotes the deformation mode (horizontal, vertical and rotational deformation), is
circular frequency, a
0
is a dimensionless frequency and is Poisson ratio of the soil. The real
stiffness and damping of the translational and rotational foundation springs and dashpots are
expressed by:
( 2-2)

where and express the frequency dependency of impedance functions, V
s
is shear wave
velocity of the soil and r is foundation translational or rotational radius and K represents the
static stiffness of the foundation for the respective mode of deformation. Typical frequency
dependent values of and are presented in Figure 2.5 for a horizontal motion.

Figure 2.5: Frequency dependent values for horizontal motion (Gazetas, 1991)
Various studies have been conducted to validate the above formulations and curves indicating
that the above reasonably agree with experimental findings.
Lysmer (Lysmer, 1965) for the first time solved the problem of a rigid plate under vertical
loading. Lysmer proposed a damping coefficient to adjust for the frequency dependent
response of the plate in such a way that in the entire range of frequencies and Poissons ratios

u u
u u u u u
s
v v
v v v v v
s
s
K r
k K c
V
K r
k K c
V
K r
k K c
V

= =
= =
= =
8
the computed amplitude of the response does not differ from the exact solution by more than
30 percent. The parameters for horizontal, rocking and torsional degrees of freedom were
developed later by others (Gazetas, 1983).
Wolf (Wolf, 1994) developed a series of cone models in which stiffness of the foundation is
similar to the stiffness proposed by Gazetas (Gazetas, 1983) though it is represented in a
different format. However, the viscous damping coefficient was assumed to be proportional to
the wave velocity in the soil and the foundation area
0
C cA = ( 2-3)
where C is viscous damping coefficient taking into account the radiation damping of the soil
and foundation, is soil density, c is wave velocity in the soil and A
0
is foundation area
(Wolf, 1994). It should be mentioned that, in all of these methods the soil has been assumed
to behave as an elastic material, and therefore there was no material damping added to the
models.
Richart (Richart & Whitman, 1967) and Wolf (Wolf, 1994) suggested a fictitious mass to be
added to the soil-structure model in time domain to reduce the error caused by frequency
dependent nature of the response. This added mass helps to have consistent results obtained
between experiments and analytical models in the range of desired frequencies. The proposed
cone model parameters by Wolf are summarized in Table 2.1.
The monkey tail mass is added as a fictitious mass for cases in which Poisson ratio of the soil
is greater than 0.33 or incompressible soil class. The foundation radii for translational and
rotational degree of freedom are calculated as follows

( 2-4)

where A
0
is the area of the foundation and I
0
is the moment of inertia.
All of these lumped parameter models which take advantage of simplicity of using spring,
dashpot and added mass have been popular in time history analysis of soil structure
interaction problems. Wolfs cone model is chosen for modelling the soil in this dissertation.
The details are explained in following chapter.
0
0
4
Equivalent translational radius
4
Equivalnet rotational radius
A
r
I
r
=
=
9
Table 2.1: The cone model properties of a surface disk foundation on a homogeneous half-space [Wolf, 94]
Motion
Spring Stiffness
K

Viscous damper
C
Added mass*
M

3 1

A v
p
. .

-
Vertical
2 1 3 1 <

1
4Ga
( ) A v
s
. 2 .

a A. . .
3
1
4 . 2

Horizontal
2
8Ga

A v
s
. .

-
3 1

r p
I v . .

-
2 1 3 1 <

( ) 1 3
8
3
Ga

( )
r s
I v . 2 .

a I
r
. . .
3
1
2 . 1

Added monkey tail mass
3 1

( )
2
. 1 . . .
32
9
s
p
r
v
v
a I

Rocking
2 1 3 1 <

( )
1 . . .
8
9
a I
r

-
3
16
3
Ga

t s
I v . .

-
Added monkey tail mass
Torsion
( )
1 . . .
8
9
a I
t

A: Area of the foundation A = . a
2
I
r
: Mass moment of inertia for rocking motion I
r
=

. a
4
/4
I
t
: Polar mass moment of inertia for the torsional motion I
t
=

. a
4
/2
G: Shear modulus of the soil, Poissons ratio of the soil
V
s
: Shear wave velocity of the soil and V
p
P-wave velocity of the soil

2.2.2 Impedance functions for other cases
Non-uniform soil profiles: For multi-layer soil deposits and non-uniform soil deposits the
lumped parameter models become more complicated and difficult to analyse. For increasing
shear stiffness with depth, there exist impedance functions (Gazetas, 1991) that estimate the
foundation stiffness. For gradually increasing shear stiffness with depth, foundation stiffness
can be evaluated by assuming an average value for soil properties between the ground surface
and a depth corresponding to 75% of the equivalent radius of the foundation (Kramer, 2004).
10
Embedded foundations: The static stiffness of the embedded foundations increases by
increasing the depth of the foundation by the following factors (Kramer, 2004):

( 2-5)

Where e is embedment depth and (K
U
)
E
and (K
)
E
are static stiffness of embedded foundation.
Embedment can increase the radiation damping considerably.
Foundation Shape: Roesset showed (Roesset, 1980) if the aspect ratio of the foundation is in
a reasonable range, impedance functions for arbitrary shape foundations can be found by
considering an equivalent circular or rectangular foundations. An equivalent translational
radius r
u
is obtained by taking the area of the mat as the equal to circular foundation and the
equivalent rotational radius r
is obtained by the same assumption for moment of inertia of the

mat.
Foundation flexibility: Except for some special cases, the foundation flexibility has no
significant effect on foundation impedance (Liou and Huang, 1994). Use of rigid foundation
elements in the computer analysis introduces smaller errors in the computations therefore, in
this dissertation the foundation is assumed to act as a rigid beam.

2.3 Methods for Modelling SSI
Modelling soil-structure interaction in dynamic analysis falls into two main categories
namely, multistep methods (substructure approach) and direct methods. The preceding
explanation of SSI phenomenon is the base for the multistep or lumped parameter methods
and helps to illustrate SSI effects independently. In the direct methods the entire system is
analyzed in one step considering the interaction implicitly.
2.3.1 Direct methods
In this approach, the equations of motion are solved directly in their coupled form and in one
step (Fig. 2.6). If the system is treated as being fully linear (or equivalent linear), the solution
can be carried out in the frequency domain which is faster than common time history analysis.
But if the structure foundation subsystem is modelled as a nonlinear system the solution
should be carried out in the time domain. In this case, the coupled nonlinear equations of
motion are solved using standard step-by-step numerical integration procedures. And all the
pertinent nonlinear and plasticity in soil and structure can be treated with equal rigour.
The advantage of these methods in fact is its versatility to coup with complex geometries and
material properties, but the data preparation and complexity of modelling makes it difficult to
implement in every-day engineering practice.
2
( ) (1 )
3
( ) (1 2 )
U E U
u
E
e
K K
r
e
K K
r

= +
= +
11
Another inherent flaw in these methods is the modelling an infinite media with a finite one
having boundaries. This can result in trapping of energy within the model and inducing error
in the computation. Some techniques have been developed to overcome this problem such as
assuming energy absorption boundaries or dampers in order to prevent reflection of energy
back into the model. Since most of the ground motions are usually recorded on the ground
surface, therefore, in conducting a finite element modelling of soil-structure interaction,
strictly speaking all ground motions should be deconvoluted to obtain the bedrock motion
before using those as input motions in such models. The complexity of soil layers causes the
deconvoluted motion not to be a single solution (Carr, 2008).

Figure 2.6: Modelling the sub- and super-structure and solving the equations in one step (Kramer, 1996)
It is suggested to use rigorous methods for calibration of simple methods such as lumped
parameter methods. Chambers (Chambers, 1998) verified such a simplistic method called
distributed spring-soil model against a rigorous boundary element method conducted by Zhao
(Zhao, 1989). This model is implemented in Ruaumoko (Carr, 2008). It was shown that the
agreement between simplified method and boundary element method is very good for linear
cases and acceptable for nonlinear cases.
2.3.2 Simple methods
Simplified methods are logical choice for use in the step-by-step SSI procedure explained in
Section 2.2. Using frequency-independent spring stiffness and a damping coefficient to
account for frequency dependency of interaction is the simplest way to consider the SSI
effects. These models are excellent for representing simple sites, such as an elastic half space
but for multi-layer soil deposits and embedded foundations the lumped parameter model
becomes more complicated.
The first such model was suggested by Lysmer (Lysmer, 1965) assuming a vertical spring and
a vertical dashpot for a SDOF system. The stiffness and damping coefficient were improved
later by others (Gazetas, 1983). To observe the effect of SSI in this dissertation a simple
model developed by Wolf (Wolf, 1994) is used.
12
In Wolfs cone model it is assumed that the rigid base-mat can be modelled with a truncated
semi-infinite cone of equivalent radius r
0
, apex height z
0
which depends on the soil and
foundation properties (Fig. 2.7a). A load applied to the foundation on the surface of half-space
results to stresses which spread geometrically with increasing depth. By equating the static
stiffness of the foundation with that of cone, the apex height can be found. And solving the
equation of motion for the proposed model by taking into account the static stiffness of
foundation obtains the properties of dashpot and the possible added fictitious mass (Table
2.1). Figure 2.7.c shows two different modelling approaches to be taken in a time history
analysis of a system.

Figure 2.7: Cone Model and equivalent lumped elements to be used in time history analysis (Wolf, 1994)

The top picture in Figure 2.7.c models the rotational degree of freedom with two sets of
springs and dashpots one of which has negative values. Because of inability of some of
dynamic analysis software to use the negative values for stiffness, the lower model in Figure
2.7.c is preferred. Still the equivalent lump parameters of cone model of soil can not predict
the shear deformations in adjacent soil as well as the behaviour of surrounding structures due
to rocking and pounding.

2.4 Soil-Structure Interaction in Seismic Codes & Provisions
2.4.1 SSI in Seismic Codes
Beneficial effect of soil structure interaction and its complicated process of analysis is the
main cause to ignore their existence in seismic codes. Eurocode 8 is probably the only
exception in which SSI effect is respected. The important cases in which SSI has a
pronounced effect need to be considered according to part five of Eurocode 8. These cases are
as follows:
13
- Structure where P- effects play a significant role.
- Structures with massive or deep-seated foundations, such as bridge piers, offshore
caissons, and silos;
- Slender tall structures, such as towers and chimneys.
- Structures supported on very soft soils, with average shear wave velocity less than
100m/s, such as subsoil class S
1

NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other
structures (FEMA 450); has incorporated a procedure to take into account the flexibility of
foundation and soil to evaluate the equivalent lateral force. By finding an effective period
considering the motion of the first mode of vibration a reduction of base shear is introduced
which results to reduction of lateral forces and overturning moments. The effective period to
be used in response spectrum is as follows:
( 2-6)

where T is fundamental period of fixed-base structure, k the stiffness of the fixed-base
structure, K
y
the lateral stiffness of the foundation,
K the rocking stiffness of foundation and

h the effective height of the structure usually 70% of the total height for most of the cases.
The quantity T T /
~
in equation 2-6 is referred to as a period lengthening ratio.
The corresponding effective damping to be used in response spectrum also can be found
(BSSC, 2003). The increase in period results from the flexibility of the soil whereas the
change in damping results mainly from the effects of energy dissipation in soil due to
radiation and material damping.

( 2-7)

where
0
is foundation damping factor and represents the damping contributions from
foundation-soil interaction (with hysteretic and radiation components) (Stewart, 1999a)
For the simple case of a circular foundation with radius r on a uniform half-space with
velocity V
s
and soil hysteretic damping ratio , the relationships between the fixed- and
flexible-base oscillator properties depend on r h / and the dimensionless parameters defined
below:
T V
h
s
( 2-8)
+ + =
K
h K
K
k
T
T
y
y
2
1 1
~
3
0
~
05 . 0
+ =
T
T

14

h r
m
m
2
= ( 2-9)
These parameters represent the ratio of the soil-to-structure stiffness and structure-to-soil
mass, respectively. The variations of T T /
~
with
T V
h
s
and r h / based on the analytical solution
of Veletsos and Nair (1975) are shown in Figure 2.8. The results show that T T /
~
increases
with
T V
h
s
and r h / , for 1 / > r h .

Figure 2.8: Comparison of period lengthening ratios for SDOF structure with rigid circular foundation on
half-space for surface foundations ( = 0.45, = 5%,
m
= 0.15) (Stewart & Fenves, 1999)
NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings (FEMA 273, 1997), also
suggests to consider SSI for near-field and soft soil sites in which the increase in the
fundamental period due to SSI increases spectral accelerations or can be ignored otherwise.
But it is commented that soil-structure interaction can not be used to reduce component and
element actions by more than 25%. This guideline (FEMA 273) also suggests the effective
period and damping, mentioned above, to be used in response spectrum analysis as well as
modelling the springs and dashpots directly in time history analysis.

2.4.2 SSI in Code Commentaries
To account for frequency dependency of the SSI, Stewart (Stewart, 1999) proposes to
evaluate the impedance function at an assumed period for the flexible-base structure at the
beginningT
~
, incorporating all the required modification factors for foundation shape,
flexibility and embedment. Dynamic properties of motion explained in section 2.2.1 can then
be found at the same assumed effective period T
~
using Veletsos and Verbic equations
(Veletsos & Verbic, 1973). A new estimate of T
~
can be found using:
15

( 2-10)

These steps should be repeated until the dynamic coefficients defined in Section 2.2.1 are
estimated at T
~
and they converge.
FEMA 274 (Commentary of FEMA 273, 1997) explains another approach which leads to
similar results with the methods explained in Section 2.4.1. This method involves modifying
the stipulated free-field design ground motion, evaluating the response of the given structure
to the modified motion of the foundation and solving simultaneously with additional
equations that define the motion of the coupled system. This is in contrary to above-
mentioned method in which the dynamic properties of the system are updated with respect to
foundation and soil properties.
+ + =
K
h K
K
k
T T
y
y
2
1 1
~
16
2.5 Summary of soil-structure interaction effects
- The dynamic interaction between superstructure and substructure can be divided into two
components: inertial interaction and kinematic interaction. Early SSI development was
motivated by the seismic design of nuclear power plants.
- Kinematic interaction is referred to the deviation of ground motion due to presence of a stiff
foundation with/without mass and inertial interaction is a consequent deformation of
foundation soil due to induced base shear and moments from the superstructure. The relative
importance of these two components depends on the foundation characteristics and nature of
incoming wave field.
- Since usually mass of the soil excavated to construct the foundation is similar to the
structure mass, kinematic interaction can be ignored unless the replaced foundation is very
stiff (Johnson, 2003). Therefore, kinematic component of SSI analyses are usually of concern
in designing nuclear power plants or off-shore structures and oil industries. In addition, for
motions that are not rich in high frequencies the input motion can approximately be
considered equal with that of the free field. Kinematic interaction effects are usually far more
difficult to evaluate rigorously than inertial interaction effects.
- Kinematic interaction effects are negligible for shallow foundations in a seismic
environment consisting exclusively of vertically propagating shear waves or dilatational
waves. Kinematic interaction or base averaging effects typically filters out high frequencies.
- In-situ soil properties are notoriously variable and difficult to determine with any degree of
accuracy. Therefore, a soil model that is easy to implement and computationally efficient is
desirable as it enables the user to conduct sensitivity studies and determine the effect of a
range of subsurface conditions on the seismic response of the structure that is being modelled.
Introducing springs (impedance problem) and dashpots in the base of the structure is the
simplest way to take into account the flexible boundary condition for evaluating seismic
demands. The results for a uniform half-space are quite amenable (Wolf, 1994).
- Modelling the foundation soil and base mat with finite elements gives more realistic results
but it is too complicated for everyday engineering applications.
- Seismic codes suggest cases in which SSI should be considered. NEHRP Commentary
Studies of the interaction effects in structure-soil systems have shown that within the common
ranges of parameters for structures subjected to earthquakes, the results are insensitive to the
period and that it is sufficiently accurate for practical purposes to use the static stiffness.
- Stiffness properties of soil are less significant than the stiffness and mass properties of super
-structure on response (Chu, 2002).
- Soil-structure interaction (SSI) can be significant for stiff structures founded on soft soils
(Kramer, 2007). The rocking component of SSI effects in general, tend to be most significant
for laterally stiff structure such as buildings with shear walls particularly those located on soft
soils (Stewart, 2003). In this case the effects of frequency dependence are not usually large
17
because the frequency of this mode of vibration is usually low, and not in the range where the
effects are important. Interactions effects for higher vibration modes are small. Inertial
interaction is most important for fundamental model because it has high participation in base
shear and base moment.
- Fundamental period of the flexible-base structures is longer than fixed-base structures as
well as effective damping which is higher for the soil-structure system than for the structure
alone.
- Total displacements of the structure are larger in flexibly based structure and can be quite
important for pounding of buildings; on the hand, drifts and damage to structural components
are smaller than those of fixed-base structures (Chambers, 1998).
- The response of soil-structure system is very sensitive to intensity of the input motion. A
strong earthquake can bring the soil foundation into the inelastic range reducing the stiffness
and increasing the damping while during a small earthquake the soil remains relatively stiff
and damping is low.
- Under some site condition and ground motion properties, SSI can induce detrimental effect
on some moderately flexible structures (Gazetas and Mylonakis, 1998; Gazetas, 2001).
- Similar to the response of structures to far-field earthquakes, the effect of SSI on the seismic
performance of structures subjected to near-field earthquake is more pronounced in soft soil
types, and has less and negligible effects in stiff and rock soil types, respectively, (Galal,
2008).

Chapter 3. Parametric Studies on SDOF Strucutre
18

3 Parametric Studies on SDOF Structure
To understand the behaviour of structures considering the soil-structure interaction (SSI), it is
desirable to investigate the behaviour of single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system which in
turn can be used to approximately represent multi-degree-of-freedom systems. This can be
used later to compare how far SDOF results match with their corresponding results for MDOF
systems. In this chapter the statistical results of SDOF systems are organized to evaluate the
effect of SSI by varying important parameters. These parameters are: period of structure, level
of flexibility of the soil, relative lateral strength of the structure, and intensity of the ground
motion. Figure 3.1 schematically shows the varying parameters in the superstructure element.
In addition, the influence of different hysteresis rules for the superstructure and the reduction
of strength due to higher ductilities is also investigated. Other parameters that can also be
considered include the post-yield stiffness ratio in bilinear systems, the ratio of the unloading
stiffness in stiffness-degrading systems, the level of hysteretic damping in the soil etc., which
all have a less significant effect but they will be taken into account in a later study.
T
(b)
(c)
(a)

Figure 3.1: Varying parameters of super-structure system, (a) Different hysteresis rules (b) Structure
stiffness and strength (c) Strength reduction for a range of structure periods
The main structural response which can be used later to evaluate the performance is the peak
deformation demand (e.g. peak roof displacement, peak interstorey drift ratio, etc.). Both
relative and total displacements of the SDOF system are scrutinized in this dissertation. The
relative deformation can be representative of the level of damage in the super-structural
components of the system. However, in addition to peak deformations, residual deformations
also play an important role in defining the performance of a structure and can have important
19
consequences. In particular, the amplitude of residual deformations is critically important in
determining the technical and economical feasibility of repairing damaged structures.
Furthermore, residual drift demands have also been identified as one of the most important
response parameters in assessing the residual capacity of damaged structures to sustain
aftershocks (Garcia & Miranda, 2006; Pampanin et al. 2002). Some seismic guidelines for
assessing and retrofitting of existing structures recommend some limit on the residual
deformations (FEMA 356). Therefore, residual responses are worthy to be looked at while the
foundation is flexible. This can be done in a further study of the investigation of SSI effect on
the assessment of existing buildings.
3.1 Ground Motions
A set of ten recorded historical strong ground motion records from a bigger ensemble of 20
records has been selected (Christopoulos et al 2002) for use in time history analyses using
Ruaumoko 2D (Carr, 2008). These records are Californian representatives of ordinary
earthquakes having a probability of exceedence of 10% in 50 years. No directivity and near
fault effect is present in the records and all of them are recorded on soil types C and D
(medium stiff to soft soils). Table 3.1 gives further details on the characteristics of these
earthquake records.
Table 3.1: Scaled records used for the time history analyses (Christopoulos et al. 2002)
EQ n Event Year M
w

Station Soil
Type
PGA
(g)
Significant
duration
(sec)
Source
Distance
(m)
EQ1 Cape Mendocino 1992 7.1 Fortuna C 0.44 44 23.6
EQ2 Landers 1992 7.3 Desert C 0.42 50 23.3
EQ3 Landers 1992 7.3 Yermo D 0.33 44 24.9
EQ4 Loma Prieta 1989 6.9 Hollister D 0.36 40 25.8
EQ5 Northridge 1994 6.7 Mulhol C 0.37 30 19.6
EQ6 Northridge 1994 6.7 Palmas D 0.43 25 25.4
EQ7 Northridge 1994 6.7 Sunland C 0.44 40 17.7
EQ8 Northridge 1994 6.7 Hollywood C 0.35 30 14.6
EQ9 Superstition Hills 1987 6.7 El Centro D 0.49 40 13.9
EQ10 Superstition Hills 1987 6.7 Plaster D 0.41 22 21.0
A 5% damped design elastic acceleration response spectrum proposed in UBC97 and NEHRP
provisions for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings is targeted for a seismic zone 4 and soil
type C or D to scale the ground motion records. This target response spectrum also
corresponds to the design spectrum defined by the International Building Code (ICC, 2000) as
two thirds of the Maximum Considered Event (MCE) spectrum. The MCE response spectrum
corresponds to a probability of 2% in 50 years. These two levels are also denoted as BSE-1
(Basic Safety Earthquake) and BSE-2, respectively (NEHRP, 1997).
Each of the records were scaled in a way that the square of the error between its 5% damped
response spectrum and the target UBC and NEHRP spectrum at five period values: T=0.1,
0.25, 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 is minimum. These scaling factors used in original set are listed
elsewhere (Christopoulos et al., 2002).
20
In this study the two aforementioned levels, namely BSE-1 and BSE-2 are used along with a
third set scaled down by 75% to match with the EC8 elastic response spectrum at 5%
damping for soil type B. Therefore, BSE-1 set is an ensemble of 10 records to match the
design spectrum; BSE-2 set is comprised of these records multiplied by a factor of 1.5 and the
last set is 0.75 * BSE-1.

Figure 3.2: Elastic Acceleration Response Spectra (5% Elastic Damping) of the 10 Earthquake Ground
Motion Records
The mean and the envelopes of the maximum and minimum spectral values of the original 20
scaled records along with the NEHRP target spectrum are shown in Figure 3.2. As it is shown
in the figure, the mean value of the PGA for the 20 scaled records is about 0.4g. Note also that
the BSE-2 spectrum is in reasonable agreement with the envelope of maximum spectral
ordinates of the twenty records. Figure 3.3 illustrates the mean response spectrum of the third
ensemble along with the EC8 elastic spectrum at 5% damping considering PGA=0.3g and soil
type B.
3.2 Hysteresis Models
Four hysteretic rules are employed in this chapter to model the cyclic force-deflection
characteristics of the SDOF representation of the buildings considered: a linear model, an
elastoplastic model, a modified Takeda model, and a pinching and stiffness degrading
Pampanin model (Fig. 3.4).
0
1
2
0 1 2 3 4 5
Period (s)
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

a
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)
Mean BSE-2
BSE-1 0.75-BSE1
Maximum
Minimum
21
The elastic model is a benchmark for parametric studies on SDOF systems. The elastoplastic
model is regarded as representative of steel framed structures and also a point of reference for
analyses of non-linear SDOF systems.
Figure 3.3: Comparison between EC8 elastic spectrum and mean response spectrum of 10 records
multiplied by a factor of 0.75 (Galli, 2005)
The modified Takeda hysteretic model can be representative of reinforced concrete
structures, and the pinching hysteretic model of Pampanin representative of existing pre-1970
structures. The bilinear factor for inelastic hysteresis models were assumed to be r=0.015 in
order to have a single envelope with different loading and unloading rules. The sensitivity of
analyses to this parameter will not be investigated in this chapter, but it is desirable that it is
examined in the future as the negative bilinear factor representing a P- effect may influence
the results.

Figure 3.4: Hysteretic Models Used in the Analyses (Ruaumoko library, Carr, 2008)
0 1 2 3 4 5
Period [sec]
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
P
G
A

[
g
]
Mean elastic spectrum
EC8 elastic spectrum
22
3.3 Strength and Strength Reduction
The reduction of strength as a result of cyclic inelastic action can be considered in Ruaumoko,
the program has been modified such that as the yield forces, or moments degrade, the stiffness
also degrades (Carr, 2008). This means that the yield displacements remain constant and the
definitions of ductilities remain more consistent. Figure 3.5 illustrates the variation of
reduction in strength as a result of achieving higher level of ductility in the structure.

Figure 3.5: Strength Reduction Variation, (modified after Carr, 2008)
In Figure 3.5, DUCT1 and DUCT2 are the ductilities in which the strength reduction begins
and stops, respectively, and RDUCT is the residual strength as a fraction of the initial yield
strength. Range of DUCT1 = 2-3 and of DUCT2 = 4-5 is assumed in the analyses. RDUCT
can be as low as 60-80%.
The initial yield strength F
y
of the structures varies quite substantially depending on the
design assumptions. This strength usually is assumed to be a fraction of the total weight of the
structure. From poorly designed pre-1970 to recently designed structures a range, of F
y
=
0.1W-0.4W is assumed.
3.4 Sub-Structural Elements
As was explained in the previous chapter, to model the semi-infinite half-space an appropriate
simple cone model developed by Wolf (Wolf, 1994) can be implemented in the program
Ruaumoko to take into account the flexibility of the foundation and soil. Three elements are
required to model the soil and foundation appropriately, among which the monkey-tail
fictitious mass is used only for cases with a Poissons ratio higher than 0.33 (Section 2.2.1).
The sensitivity of analyses to Poissons ratio is not considered here. The other two elements,
i.e. stiffness and damping, are evaluated to be added in each degree of freedom of the
foundation as a function of soil and foundation properties (Figure 3.6). As the foundation
dimensions should be known in order to evaluate the spring stiffnesses, the vertical and
rotational springs can be replaced by a single multi-spring model taking into account the
vertical and rotational degrees of freedom by one element. This is done in this chapter as long
as stability problems do not occur during the analyses.
23

Figure 3.6: Modelling of the foundation support
The values of the stiffnesses of the springs are dependent on the mechanical characteristics of
the soil material, the dimensions of the foundation, and its embedment depth. The mechanical
characteristics of the foundation soil medium are represented by the effective shear modulus
G, the mass density , and Poissons ratio . At low strain, the maximum shear modulus G
0
is
related to the shear wave velocity C
s
according to the following expressions (ATC-40, 1996):

( 3-1)
IBC (2000) classifies different soil types by soil shear wave velocity. Table 3.2 shows four
types of soil classification namely, soil class E, D, C and B.
Table 3.2: Properties of four soil types IBC(2000)
Soil type
(IBC)

Soil Profile
Range of shear wave velocity
E Soft soil C
s
< 180
D Stiff soil 180 < C
s
< 360
C Very dense soil and soft rock 360 < C
s
< 750
B Rock 750 < C
s
< 1500

Galal (Galal, 2008) showed that for soil type E, the effect of SSI is more pronounced
compared to other soil classes and for the case of soil type B the foundation can be assumed
rigid. It was concluded that SSI effect is higher for tall buildings than for low-rise buildings.
In this dissertation shear wave velocity of the soil type E according to IBC (2000) is
considered as it can be assumed of the worst scenario of flexible base.
0
G
C
s
=
24
Table 3.3: Parameters of Half-Space Soil
Characteristics Value
Soil Shear Wave Velocity (m/s) 150
Poisson Ratio 0.33
Mass Density (kg/m
3
) 1700
It is generally difficult to model the material damping in the soil but it can be considered as a
hysteretic rule adopted. By finding the values for ultimate bearing capacity of the soil, Galal
(2008) has assumed such a hysteretic model to take into account the material damping
ignoring the radiation damping of the soil. In this section only radiation damping explained in
section 2.2.1 is modelled and an equivalent linear approach is adopted to identify the spring
parameters. A viscous damper is used to represent the frequency independent radiation
damping of the soil.
As the soil enters into its non-linear status, the shear modulus of the soil reduces substantially
which means a decrease in shear wave velocity correspondingly (Figure 3.7). In the
equivalent linear approach, we can assume that the soil is at its initial state or in a degraded
state with reduced stiffness at in higher strains. In fact these two cases can be considered as
the extreme cases of soil behaviour in terms of stiffness but in reality soil acts as a medium in
between of those.

Figure 3.7: Variation of shear modulus with strain (modified after Kramer, 1996)
Assuming a 90% reduction in shear modulus value of the soil in higher level of strain during
the strong ground motion, is not far from reality. Two levels of shear wave velocity is
considered for the SDOF parametric studies of SSI and more of them are used to analyse the
MDOF structures in the next chapter. In addition a non-linear approach using a Ramberg-
Osgood model is used for MDOF analyses to investigate the response for a more realistic
non-linear hysteretic rule (Ramberg & Osgood, 1943).
25
In the following sections, the effects of the above mentioned parameters and modelling issues
while flexibility of the soil are investigated on SDOF system response, which then followed
by a chapter investigating the SSI effects on their influence on MDOF systems. Overall,
responses of the systems are scrutinized, however other local behavioural features can also be
examined as more understanding of the seismic actions is needed.
3.5 Results of SDOF Analyses
Important factors which may influence on the SSI effectiveness have been considered in
following sections. A particular SDOF system has been assumed as a benchmark and other
factors vary appropriately in order to observe the sensitivity of soil-structure interaction
effects to those parameters.
The benchmark SDOF system has been assumed with following characteristics:
- The intensity of the ground motion: BSE-1 level earthquake.
- Yield force (In the case with nonlinearity in the superstructure): F
y
= 0.2 W.
where W is the weight of the superstructure.
- No reduction in strength and P- effects

3.5.1 Influence of Foundation Flexibility on SDOF seismic behaviour
As was explained in the previous section, two levels of stiffness in the foundation soil are
considered. First, with the initial soil stiffness G = G
max
, and second when the shear strain in
the soil is well beyond the linear threshold and has resulted in a reduced modulus of G = 0.1 *
G
max
. The relative displacement of the SDOF mass to the moving base is compared. Figure
3.8 illustrates such a relative displacement response spectra for different hysteresis loops of
super-structure. The solid line shows the response spectra for a fixed-base model while the
dashed line is showing the response for a soil with an initial stiffness, and the dotted line is
the response when G = 0.1 * G
max
was used for the soil modulus.
Figure 3.9 illustrates the ratio of displacement of the cases with flexible foundation to the one
with the fixed-base foundation. It is obvious that for the structures with fundamental periods
of less than one second, considering the SSI effects, leads to a conservative response in terms
of relative displacement. The ratio does not decrease lower than 0.8. On the other hand for
less stiff structures with period more than one second, flexibility of the soil and foundation
has increased this ratio, though this increase is less than 15%.
Seemingly, the results show that taking into account the soil flexibility may change the
response but it is obvious from Figure 3.9 that the level of considered flexibility in the soil
may not be significantly different from each other. And this trend seems to be generic for all
types of hysteretic rules. It should be added that the displacements presented in Figures 3.8
and 3.10 are relative displacements of SDOF mass to the moving base or in another word,
they are structural displacements. The total-displacement spectra of the SDOF mass is not
26
presented here. This can be important when neighbourhood structures are close to each others
but in general only structural displacements can be a measure of damage occurred in the
structure.
In a more general view, figure 3.10 shows the fact that considering SSI might have
advantageous or detrimental influences on the structural response and these effects either
positive or negative, in most of the cases are less than 20%.
Note that the presented results are the average of 10 analyses by 10 different earthquake
ground motions.

Figure 3.8: Displacement response spectra for different level of soil flexibility
Elastic Hysteresis
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

D
i
s
p
.
(
m
)
Elastoplastic Hysteresis
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

D
i
s
p
.
(
m
)
Pampanin Hysteresis
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

D
i
s
p
.
(
m
)
Takeda Hysteresis
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

D
i
s
p
.
(
m
)
Takeda Hysteresis
0
0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5
Fixed-Base G = Gmax G = 0.1*Gmax
27

Figure 3.9: Normalized displacement spectra, F
y
= 0.2 W; BSE-1 level Earthquake

Figure 3.10: Displacement with and without considering SSI effects, F
y
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Displacement (Fixed Base)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
S
S
I
)
R-O Soil G = Gmax G = 0.1*Gmax
Elastic Hysteresis
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
D
i
s
p
.

A
m
p
l
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

F
a
c
t
o
r

(
F
l
e
x
i
b
l
e
)
/
(
F
i
x
e
d
)
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
D
i
s
p
.

A
m
p
l
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

F
a
c
t
o
r

(
F
l
e
x
i
b
l
e
)
/
(
F
i
x
e
d
)
Pampanin Hysteresis
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
D
i
s
p
.

A
m
p
l
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

F
a
c
t
o
r

(
F
l
e
x
i
b
l
e
)
/
(
F
i
x
e
d
)
Takeda Hysteresis
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
D
i
s
p
.

A
m
p
l
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

F
a
c
t
o
r

(
F
l
e
x
i
b
l
e
)
/
(
F
i
x
e
d
)
0
28

Figure 3.11: Standard Deviation of the response of different hysteresis rules, F
y
= 0.2 W; BSE-1 level
Earthquake

Figure 3.12: Standard Deviation; F
y
Elastic Hysteresis
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
Pampanin Hysteresis
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
Takeda Hysteresis
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
0
0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0 0.1 0.2
Standard Deviation (Fixed Base)
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n

(
S
S
I
)
R-O Soil G = Gmax G = 0.1*Gmax
29
As it is expected, the stiff structures on soft soil will be affected the most by assuming more
realistic modelling of the soil. This fact is shown by several authors (Johnson 2003, Kramer
1996 etc). The general trend for flexible- and fixed-base spectral displacements for different
hysteresis models for the structure columns is similar except for the linear elastic model of the
concrete column founded on a degraded soil with G = 0.1 * Gmax. This extreme case may
resemble a very stiff structure such founded on very soft soil. SSI can help to reduce the
response substantially in this case.
The standard deviation of the spectral displacement for these 10 different earthquakes exhibits
the level of scattering and emphasizes the care to be taken on the selection of ground motion
ensemble. Variation of standard deviation for different hysteresis and periods is shown in
Figure 3.11. Similarly, except for the linear elastic column, it is shown that for structures with
period less than one second bringing SSI into considerations reduces the level of scattering in
the results while for softer systems not even can induce minor detrimental effect but also the
average results show a wider scatter, this means it is rational to consider SSI for long-period
structures.
It can be concluded that, though ignoring the SSI for stiff structures might result to more
conservative responses but considering it results to more robust answers. Figure 3.12 shows
better how much the standard deviation may be affected by introducing the SSI modelling of
the system.
It should be added that the points representing R-O soil in Figure 3.11 correspond to the
equivalent single degree of freedom of a six-storey building analysed in chapter 4. For that
assumed structure a Ramberg-Osgood model of the soil was assumed to take into account the
hysteretic energy dissipation of the foundation and soil.

30
3.5.2 Influence of Strong Ground Motion Intensity
Three levels of strong ground motion were employed as was explained in Section 3.1.
Different nonlinear displacement response spectra are shown in Figure 3.13 for structures
with flexible foundations and as per the previous section which concluded the level of
assumed flexibility may not be as important as introducing the SSI itself, hence the soil is
considered to be with its initial stiffness i.e. G = G
max
. BSE-1 is used as a reference
throughout this section. The strength of the super-structure is kept so as the yielding force is
20% of the weight of the structure, F
y
= 0.2 * W.

Figure 3.13: Displacement Spectra of Flexible Foundation, F
y
= 0.2 W, G = G
max
To compare the fixed- and flexible-base foundation systems in different levels of ground
shaking, it is essential to normalize all the spectral ordinates. To do this all the spectral
displacement ordinates of flexible foundation is divided by their corresponding one with
fixed-base foundation. Figure 3.14 illustrates the ratio of spectral displacement of flexible
foundations to fixed-base one for each level of ground motion. The three spectra
corresponding to elastoplastic, Takeda and Pampanin hysteresis have similar trends which
may be due to the fact that they include induced damping in the structure.
Linear Elastic Hysteresis
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

D
i
s
p
.
(
m
)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

D
i
s
p
.
(
m
)
Pampanin Hysteresis
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

D
i
s
p
.
(
m
)
Takeda Hysteresis
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

D
i
s
p
.
(
m
)
0
0.5
0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5
BSE-1 BSE-2 0.75BSE-1
31
It is clear that for stiff structures, the BSE-1 level earthquake is comparatively more effective
on the structure with and when fixed-base and flexible-base SDOF are analyzed. The other
two levels of strong ground motion, namely, BSE-2 and 0.75 * BSE-1 have minimal
influence. This means, dealing with these two levels of motion considering or ignoring the
SSI effect may not change the results significantly for the structure with F
y
= 0.2 * W.
The same analogy may be obtained for other levels of structural strength. It means that very
strong and very weak earthquakes for a particular structure may not show the effect of SSI on
the response. This emphasizes the relative importance of soil-structure interaction on the
system to different level of strong motion.
To observe clearly the difference, in a further step, BSE-1 level with other reference
parameters used in previous section can be used as a benchmark. Hence, the ordinates of
BSE-2 and 0.75 * BSE-1 level earthquakes are divided by the response of BSE-1 earthquake
which is chosen as a base line. It can be seen that, stiff structures with BSE-2 and 0.75 * BSE-
1 level shaking, have higher spectral displacement than the ones undergone BSE-1 level in the
presence of soft soil. This effect is reverse for soft structures (Figure 3.15); however these
changes are less than 15%. It should be mentioned that, although SSI is more effective for
BSE-1 and for of structural strength F
y
= 0.2 * W, it may not be the case for other levels of
strengths.

.

Figure 3.14: Relative displacement of each intensity level to fixed-base counterpart, F
y
= 0.2 * W, G = G
max

Elastic Linear Hysteresis
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
A
m
p
l
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

F
a
c
t
o
r
(
S
S
I
)
/
(
F
i
x
e
d
)
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
A
m
p
l
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

F
a
c
t
o
r
(
S
S
I
)
/
(
F
i
x
e
d
)
Pampanin Hysteresis
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
A
m
p
l
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

F
a
c
t
o
r
(
S
S
I
)
/
(
F
i
x
e
d
)
Takeda Hysteresis
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
A
m
p
l
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

F
a
c
t
o
r
(
S
S
I
)
/
(
F
i
x
e
d
)
0
0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5
BSE-1 BSE-2 0.75xBSE-1
32
Figure 3.16 shows the spectral displacement of SDOF in the presence of flexible foundation
versus the one with fixed-base foundation. It is clearer that the SSI effect is more pronounced
when the structure is under BSE-1 level shaking as the corresponding points are off-set from
the 45 degrees line.
Note that the level of scattering is increasing with increasing period of the SDOF (Fig. 3.17).
This scattering for the SDOF with the pinching Pampanin hysteresis has the highest value. It
is seen in Figure 3.18 that assuming SSI effect in the analyses while the earthquake shaking
level is BSE-2 or 0.75 * BSE-1 does not affect the level of scattering compared to the fixed-
base cases.

Figure 3.15: Relative displacement compared to BSE-1 level earthquake, F
y
= 0.2 * W, G = G
max

0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
(
I
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
)
/
(
B
S
E
-
1
)
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
(
I
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
)
/
(
B
S
E
-
1
)
Pampanin Hysteresis
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
(
I
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
)
/
(
B
S
E
-
1
)
Takeda Hysteresis
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
(
I
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
)
/
(
B
S
E
-
1
)
0
0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5
33

Figure 3.16: Comparison of displacement of flexible and fixed-base SDOF structures

Figure 3.17: Standard Deviation, F
y
= 0.2 * W, G = G
max

0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
t
n

(
S
S
I
)
Elastic Hysteresis
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
Pampanin Hysteresis
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
Takeda Hysteresis
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
0
0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5
BSE-1 BSE-2 0.75BSE-1
34

Figure 3.18: Standard Deviation, comparison of flexible and fixed base structures, F
y
= 0.2 * W, G = G
max

3.5.3 Influence of super-structural strength level

Figure 3.19: Displacement Spectra of flexible foundation, BSE-1 level earthquake, G = G
max

0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Standard Deviation(Fixed Base)
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n

(
S
S
I
)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

D
i
s
p
.
(
m
)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

D
i
s
p
.
(
m
)
Pampanin Hysteresis
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

D
i
s
p
.
(
m
)
Takeda Hysteresis
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

D
i
s
p
.
(
m
)
0
0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5
0.1W 0.2W 0.4W
35
In this section, the varying parameter is the super-structure strength, from as low as F
y
= 0.1W
to F
y
= 0.4W, where W is the weight of the structure. The nonlinear displacement spectra are
shown in Figure 3.19. The level of earthquake shaking in this section is assumed to be BSE-1.
To find out the amplification or deamplification due to soil-structure interaction, displacement
of each level of structural strength with flexible soil is divided by the displacement of the
structure with fixed-base foundation (Fig. 3.20). Note that for structures with F
y
= 0.1W and
F
y
= 0.4W the SSI has negligible effect and this factor is close to one, whereas, as was
mentioned before, for the structures with F
y
= 0.2W and BSE-1 level earthquake the effect is
more. It is essential to observe the effect of stronger and weaker motions than BSE-1 level
seismic motion on structures with F
y
= 0.1W and F
y
= 0.4W. It is expected that very strong
and very weak motions do not affect the response in terms of SSI analyses.
Similar to the previous section, it is possible to choose the structure with F
y
= 0.2W as a
reference and scrutinize how much the spectral displacement for different periods vary with
the strength of the structure (Fig. 3.21).

Figure 3.20: Relative displacement of flexible-base structure to fixed-base structure, BSE-1 level
earthquake, G = G
max

0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
(
F
l
e
x
i
b
l
e
)
/
(
F
i
x
e
d
)
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
(
F
l
e
x
i
b
l
e
)
/
(
F
i
x
e
d
)
Pampanin Hysteresis
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
(
F
l
e
x
i
b
l
e
)
/
(
F
i
x
e
d
)
Takeda Hysteresis
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
(
F
l
e
x
i
b
l
e
)
/
(
F
i
x
e
d
)
0.4
0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5
0.1W 0.2W 0.4W
36
Figure 3.21 shows similar trends for different hysteresis. Considering the same situations,
spectral displacements for stiff structures and with Fy = 0.1W or 0.4W is about 10% more
than the one with Fy = 0.2W. This trend is reverse for soft structures but the standard
deviation for soft structures is higher and the conclusion may not be true for some earthquakes
due to high amount of scattering.
It is suggested to carry out more analyses to investigate the effect of SSI for a F
y
= 0.1 * W
under 0.75 * BSE-1 and also for a F
y
= 0.4 * W under BSE-2 level earthquake. From trends
obtained in the previous section and current section, it is predicted that for those two case
studies, the effect of SSI may not be negligible. This can be performed in a further study.
In Section 3.5.5 the effect of selection of earthquake is studied in more detail but it is
instructive to compute the standard deviation of the results obtained by using the 10
earthquakes described in Section 3.1. It is to be mentioned that with increasing level of
strength of structure the level of scattering in results are less. This may be due to the less
nonlinear behaviour of the stronger structures. In limit, the stronger structures behave like
linear ones. This fact is straight forward when one compares the structure with F
y
= 0.4W and
the linear structure for different hysteresis plots (Fig. 3.23)

Figure 3.21: Relative displacement to the structure with 0.2W, BSE-1 level earthquake, G = G
max

0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
(
S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
)
/
(
0
.
2
W
)
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
(
S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
)
/
(
0
.
2
W
)
Pampanin Hysteresis
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
(
S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
)
/
(
0
.
2
W
)
Takeda Hysteresis
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
(
S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
)
/
(
0
.
2
W
)
0
0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5
0.2W 0.1W 0.4W
37
As was explained in previous section, SSI does not introduce more scattering for structures
off-set from reference i.e. the case with F
y
= 0.2W undergone a BSE-1 input earthquake (Fig.
3.24).

Figure 3.22: Comparison of fixed-base and flexible-base structural displacement, BSE-1 level earthquake

max

0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
t
n

(
S
S
I
)
0.1W 0.2W 0.4W
Elastic Hysteresis
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
Pampanin Hysteresis
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
Takeda Hysteresis
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
0
0 5 0 7 0 9 1 1 1 3 1 5
0.1W 0.2W 0.4W
38

Figure 3.24: Comparison of standard deviation of flexible to fix-based structures, BSE-1 level earthquake,
G = G
max

3.5.4 Influence of strength reduction in super-structure

Cyclic response and nonlinear action can reduce the strength of the structure. It can provide
some insight on the response when SSI effects are studied as well as strength reduction
effects. Figure 3.25 presents such nonlinear spectra of SDOF in presence of soft soil and
strength reduction in the structure. As shown in the graph (Fig. 3.25), unless the chosen
hysteresis rule is Pampanin hysteresis, the introduction of strength degradation does not
change the maximum relative displacement of SDOF system within the usual frequency
range.
To have a better insight of the combined effect of SSI and strength reduction, the ratio of
relative displacement of flexible and fixed-base foundations is presented in Figure 3.26. It is
seen that unless for a limited period range for Pampanin hysteresis, the introduction of
strength reduction as a result of cyclic action, reduces the effects of SSI as the dashed line is
nearly equal to one.
This may mean that the behaviour of the structure is more sensitive to strength degradation
than it is to soil-structure interaction. Note that the ratio of the displacement of the structure
with strength reduction in presence and absence of flexibility of soil is almost one which
implies the SSI is not important when the strength of the structure may degrade during the
strong motion.

0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n

(
S
S
I
)
0.1W 0.2W 0.4W
39

Figure 3.25: Displacement spectra of with and without strength reduction, BSE-1 level earthquake
If the SDOF system without strength reduction is adopted as a reference, the ratio obtained by
dividing the ordinates in Figure 3.26 obtains the plots in Figure 3.27. The trends shown in
Figure 3.27 suggest that the spectral displacements which undergo a reduction in the strength
are slightly less than the one without strength reduction for soft structures. As the effect of
SSI in this case is insignificant compared to the reduction in strength (Figs. 3.27. 3.28), more
parametric analyses should be carried out to understand the behaviour of the system due to
degradation of strength.
Figures 3.29 and 3.30 represent the scattering in the results of analyses for 10 different
earthquake inputs. The results for Pampanin hysteresis results with reduction in strength show
clearly higher scattering. It is obvious that the reduction in strength has not increased nor
decreased the scattering level in the results (Fig. 3.30).

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.3 1.3
Period (sec)
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

D
i
s
p
.
(
m
)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.3 1.3
Period (sec)
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

D
i
s
p
.
(
m
)
Pampanin Hysteresis
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.3 1.3
Period (sec)
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

D
i
s
p
.
(
m
)
Takeda Hysteresis
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.3 1.3
Period (sec)
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

D
i
s
p
.
(
m
)
0
0.3 0.8 1.3 1.8
Flexible-Not Reduced Flexible-Reduced
40

Figure 3.26: Relative displacement of flexible to fixed-base structure, BSE-1 level earthquake, G = G
max

0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0.3 1.3
Period (sec)
(
F
l
e
x
i
b
l
e
)
/
(
F
i
x
e
d
)
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0.3 1.3
Period (sec)
(
F
l
e
x
i
b
l
e
)
/
(
F
i
x
e
d
)
Pampanin Hysteresis
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0.3 1.3
Period (sec)
(
F
l
e
x
i
b
l
e
)
/
(
F
i
x
e
d
)
Takeda Hysteresis
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0.3 1.3
Period (sec)
(
F
l
e
x
i
b
l
e
)
/
(
F
i
x
e
d
)
0
0.3 0.8 1.3 1.8
Flexible-Not Reduced Flexible-Reduced
41

Figure 3.27: Relative displacement of reduced strength to structure without strength reduction

Figure 3.28: (a) Displacement with and without SSI effects. (b) Displacement with and without strength
reduction, BSE-1 level earthquake
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
(
S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
)
/
(
0
.
2
W
)
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
(
S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
)
/
(
0
.
2
W
)
Pampanin Hysteresis
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
(
S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
)
/
(
0
.
2
W
)
Takeda Hysteresis
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
(
S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
)
/
(
0
.
2
W
)
0
0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5
Not Reduced Reduced
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
t
n

(
S
S
I
)
No Reduction With Reduction
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Displacement (Reduced)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
N
o
t

R
e
d
u
c
e
d
)
42

max

Figure 3.30: Comparison of standard deviation of flexible and fixed base structure, BSE-1 level
earthquake, G = G
max

Elastic Hysteresis
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.3 1.3
Period (sec)
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
Pampanin Hysteresis
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.3 1.3
Period (sec)
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
Takeda Hysteresis
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.3 1.3
Period (sec)
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
0
0.3 0.8 1.3 1.8 Not Reduced Reduced
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n

(
S
S
I
)
No Reduction With Reduction
43
3.5.5 Influence of Selection of Strong Ground Motion
In previous sections, the results were the average values of 10 different analyses by 10
earthquake inputs. Thought, each ground motion record is scaled by the same procedure
(Section 3.1), it may have different frequency content, predominant frequency etc. Therefore,
there might exist discrepancies amongst the results for each of the records. Standard deviation
of each set of analysis was presented in previous sections to present the scattering.

Figure 3.31: Displacement response spectra of Loma Prieta (1989) earthquake Hollister Array station
Three sets of results obtained by three particular accelerograms are presented in following
pages, namely, Loma Prieta (EQ. 4), Northridge (EQ. 8) and Superstition Hills (EQ. 10). The
following graphs (Figs. 3.31, 3.32, 3.33) show the ratio of the relative flexible-base
displacement spectra to the displacement spectra of a fixed-base foundation. The dashed line
represents the SDOF with the initial stiffness and dotted line is the spectra for the SDOF with
degraded stiffness in the soil at higher level of shear strain.

0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
D
i
s
p
(
S
S
I
)
/
D
i
s
p
(
F
i
x
e
d
)
Elastoplstic Hysteresis
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
D
i
s
p
(
S
S
I
)
/
D
i
s
p
(
F
i
x
e
d
)
Pampanin Hysteresis
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
D
i
s
p
(
S
S
I
)
/
D
i
s
p
(
F
i
x
e
d
)
Takeda Hysteresis
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
D
i
s
p
(
S
S
I
)
/
D
i
s
p
(
F
i
x
e
d
)
0 .6
0 .5 0 .6 0 .7 0 .8 0 .9 1 1 .1 1 .2 1 .3 1 .4 1 .5
Fixed-Base SSI/Gmax SSI/0.1*Gmax
44
It is apparent that the spectral displacements for flexible base are slightly different from the
one for fixed base if the initial stiffness is used (barely exceed by 10%, Figs. 3.31, 3.32, 3.33).
This shows that for most of the cases and types of hysteresis the SSI effect is negligible when
soil is in its initial stage G = G
max
and for these three records of accelerograms. It is to be
mentioned that the 10% difference occurs for stiff structures with natural periods of lower
than 0.75 seconds.
Similarly, the average values of these 10 earthquake records also suggest the fact that for stiff
soil and different hysteresis, the effect of SSI for long period structures can be ignored (Fig.
3.34). But since soil does not remain in its stiff conditions during the earthquake, there might
be necessary to take into account SSI if it is expected the soil to exhibit significant
nonlinearity as it is suggested by graphs assuming a 90% reduction in the shear stiffness of
the soil in higher level of shear strains (dotted line in Figs. 3.31, 3.32, 3.33)

Figure 3.32: Displacement response spectra of Northridge (1994) earthquake Hollywood Store station,
BSE-1 level earthquake, G = G
max

0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.3
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
D
i
s
p
(
S
S
I
)
/
D
i
s
p
(
F
i
x
e
d
)
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.3
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
D
i
s
p
(
S
S
I
)
/
D
i
s
p
(
F
i
x
e
d
)
Pampanin Hysteresis
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.3
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
D
i
s
p
(
S
S
I
)
/
D
i
s
p
(
F
i
x
e
d
)
Takeda Hysteresis
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.3
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
D
i
s
p
(
S
S
I
)
/
D
i
s
p
(
F
i
x
e
d
)
0 .5
0 .5 0 .6 0 .7 0 .8 0 .9 1 1 .1 1 .2 1 .3 1 .4 1 .5
45

Figure 3.33: Displacement response spectra of Superstition Hills (1987) earthquake Plaster city station
The discrepancy amongst the displacement spectra is more for SDOF system with a flexible
soil of degraded soil. For this particular level of shear modulus of the soil, considering SSI
may have detrimental or advantageous influences as depicted in Figs. 3.31-3.33.
While the figures shown in previous pages show a wide range of response spectra for different
earthquake records, Figure 3.34 which is the average of the results of 10 earthquake records
illustrates that the effects usually are within the range of 10%. For very stiff structures and
linear elastic hysteresis this may increase to 30%. It is shown that the average result of 10
earthquakes show that if Pampanin hysteresis can be a reasonable representative of existing
concrete buildings, for stiff structures SSI may accompany with detrimental influences on
response. To understand how far a SDOF with Pampanin hysteresis can represent the existing
pre-1970s structures more comparative analyses should be carried out.
Other hysteresis rules in Figure 3.34 demonstrate on average a beneficial effect of considering
soil-structure interaction in the analyses. It is to be mentioned that the total spectral
displacement of the SDOF taking into account SSI, may be higher than the one without SSI
considerations. This is important when the pounding of structures is of concern.
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.3
1.5
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
D
i
s
p
(
S
S
I
)
/
D
i
s
p
(
F
i
x
e
d
)
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.3
1.5
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
D
i
s
p
(
S
S
I
)
/
D
i
s
p
(
F
i
x
e
d
)
Pampanin Hysteresis
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.3
1.5
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
D
i
s
p
(
S
S
I
)
/
D
i
s
p
(
F
i
x
e
d
)
Takeda Hysteresis
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.3
1.5
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
D
i
s
p
(
S
S
I
)
/
D
i
s
p
(
F
i
x
e
d
)
0 .5
0 .5 0 .6 0 .7 0 .8 0 .9 1 1 .1 1 .2 1 .3 1 .4 1 .5
46

Figure 3.34: Average displacement response spectra of 10 recorded earthquakes, BSE-1 level earthquake,
G = G
max

0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
D
i
s
p
(
S
S
I
)
/
D
i
s
p
(
F
i
x
e
d
)
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
D
i
s
p
(
S
S
I
)
/
D
i
s
p
(
F
i
x
e
d
)
Pampanin Hysteresis
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
D
i
s
p
(
S
S
I
)
/
D
i
s
p
(
F
i
x
e
d
)
Takeda Hysteresis
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
D
i
s
p
(
S
S
I
)
/
D
i
s
p
(
F
i
x
e
d
)
0 .5
0 .5 0 .6 0 .7 0 .8 0 .9 1 1 .1 1 .2 1 .3 1 .4 1 .5
47
3.6 Summary and Conclusion
Parametric analyses to study soil-structure interaction effects on the response of SDOF
systems in the presence of other influential factors were carried out in this chapter. Different
nonlinear hysteretic rules were considered for SDOF structure to represent the behaviour of
some typical MDOF structures. Two levels of flexibility in the soil were assumed that can be
considered the two extreme cases of stiffness in soil, where soil can be in its initial stage and
degraded stage.
Following conclusions can be derived according to results presented in the body of this
chapter:
- The type of earthquake selected to analyze the seismic response of SDOF system has a
major effect on the output results. The high value of standard deviation is an
indication of such a wide scatter.
- In majority of the cases, just introducing the flexibility of foundation soil is sufficient
to observe the SSI effects; lower level of flexibility due to higher shear strain may not
change the results significantly.
- The intensity of ground motion is important to be able to observe the SSI effects. Very
strong and very weak earthquake records can not bring up the soil-structure interaction
consequences in terms of seismic response. In other words, a system with a constant
capacity undergone a high or low demand may not be affected with SSI
considerations. When demand is lower than capacity the behaviour of the system is in
elastic range and higher demand corresponds to very ductile behaviour.
- Likewise, for a particular ground motion intensity level, very strong and very weak
SDOF structures may not respond differently in presence or absence of flexible soil
foundation. In other words, low demand and high demands compared to capacity of
the structure does not show the effects of SSI on the response.
- The impact of reduction in structural strength is more important than the SSI effects
on seismic response. In another words, in presence of strength reduction, SSI can be
considered as second-order significance.
- It is important to notice the diverse response of SDOF with different hysteretic curves.
Pinching behaviour introduces very peculiar behaviour of SDOF system.
- The SSI effects are different for stiff and soft structures; it can be advantageous for
one case and detrimental for the other case.

Chapter 4. Effects of SSI on the Assessment of Existing RC Frame Structures
48

4 Effects of SSI on the Assessment of Existing RC Frame
Structures
Experimental research to investigate the behaviour of existing RC frame structures built
before 1970 has been conducted in the past. Several analytical modelling approaches have
been proposed (Chu 2002, Crisafulli 1997, Galli 2005, Panagiotakos 1996, Shing 2002).
Structural and non-structural components of the pre-70 buildings have been modelled and
those models have been validated through experimental studies. Modelling the infill panels
and joints in pre-1970s frame structures are of interest to understand the overall behaviour of
structures constructed before the development of seismic codes.
One of those models uses equivalent diagonal struts to simulate infill panels and rotational
springs to model the beam-column joints. It has been shown (Crisafulli, 1997) that the
presence of infills can reduce the overall deformation demand but it will increase the seismic
actions. Later, the effect of opening in infill panels on the structural response was investigated
(Chu, 2002). It was concluded that the presence of openings can change the ultimate strength
and displacements by 30% if the foundation is assumed to be rigid. In contrary, when the
flexibility of the foundation soil is taken into account, the opening in the infill panels has
negligible effects leaving the response very similar to panel without openings. Therefore, the
disadvantages of openings in the existing buildings can be compensated by the advantages of
introducing flexibility of the foundation.
Seismic assessment is the first step within adopting retrofit strategies to reduce the seismic
risk. To understand better the behaviour of the RC buildings, all the pertinent sources
affecting the motion should be modelled appropriately. One of this sources which is ignored
often is the soil-structure interaction. Its effects on the assessment of existing buildings are
investigated in this chapter.
The effect of soil-structure interaction on a six-storey existing building with different infill
panel configurations is discussed in the following. The original models developed by Galli
(Galli, 2005) were investigated to understand the global behaviour of the structure with
different infill distributions along the height of the structure. These models exhibit different
responses and have different fundamental periods, therefore single-degree-of-freedom
(SDOF) models representing this range of structures can be sought from the results presented
in the previous chapter (Fig. 4.1).
49
Modelling of the superstructure and substructure of the investigated frame is explained in the
following sections. The validation of the superstructure modelling is presented by Galli based
on the results from several tests conducted in the past on beam-column joints (Galli, 2005).

Figure 4.1: Representation of multi-degree of freedom structure with a single degree of freedom system

4.1 Modelling procedure and issues
Depending on the level of the refinement of the response expected to be evaluated, the model
should be adopted adequately to represent the real situations. In this dissertation, overall
behaviour of the structure founded on flexible soil is sought; therefore the modelling is kept
as simple as possible. The superstructure and substructure models are defined in the following
sections.
4.1.1 Modelling of the superstructure
Structural Elements: Among the several available common approaches, the lumped
plasticity approach is chosen because it is a good compromise between simplicity and
accuracy. In this approach, all in-elastic deformation of the frame member is concentrated at
specifically identified parts of the member which are expected to undergo plastic
deformations. The other parts of the member are modelled as elastic elements (Fig. 4.2).

Figure 4.2: Lumped plasticity beam element (modified after Carr, 2008)
To describe the hysteretic behaviour of the plastic hinge, modified Takeda hysteresis loop is
adopted (Fig. 4.3). The dependency of the columns moments to axial forces is represented by
calculating an M-N (moment-axial force) interaction diagram (Galli, 2005).
50

Figure 4.3: Modified Takeda hysteresis loop (Otani, 1974)
Joint Modelling: A lumped plasticity approach is adopted in present study to model the
beam-column joint behaviour. To model the poor behaviour of joints in pre-1970s concrete
buildings, a simple model was proposed which consists of a non-linear rotational spring.
Rigid elements are used to connect the beams and columns to the rotational spring (Pampanin
et al., 2002). Development of a so-called shear hinge mechanism (Pampanin et al., 2003) by
means of this type of modelling is illustrated in Figure 4.4 for a typical exterior beam-column
joint in a pre-1970s structure. This model can describe the post-cracking shear deformation.

Figure 4.4: Shear failure typical of poor construction of a beam-column joint (Galli, 2005)

To define the moment-rotation relationship of the joint spring, results obtained in
experimental studies performed at the University of Pavia (Pampanin, 2002) were used.
Ruaumoko (Carr, 2008), the finite element code used for numerical simulations, can
accommodate the proposed hysteretic rule and its corresponding parameters (Fig. 4.5). The
51
moment-rotation relationship is obtained using a shear deformation-principal tensile stress
relationship and then it is assigned to the rotational spring. It should be noted that the exterior
and interior beam-column joints might show different behaviour which must be taken into
account. While the exterior joints undergo strength degradation the interior ones show a
hardening effect (Galli, 2005).

Figure 4.5: Pampanin pinching and stiffness degrading hysteresis loop (Carr, 2008)
Masonry Infills: The level of uncertainty and scattering in the mechanical and geometrical
properties of masonry infill panels makes it unnecessary to model them in detail. Therefore, a
simple and reliable strut model is desirable for the purpose of the study (Galli, 2005). The
results obtained by Crisafulli (Crisafulli, 2000), indicated that the single strut model provides
an adequate tool when the analysis is focussed on the overall response of the structure which
is the aim of this study.
Stiffness, strength and the hysteretic rule are parameters which need to be evaluated to model
the infills properly. Based on the mechanical and geometrical properties of the panels, these
parameters can be calculated by means of empirical relationships (Galli, 2005).
Based on the height of the cross section and the elastic modulus of masonry infills the axial
stiffness of equivalent struts can be evaluated. Due to several failure mechanisms of masonry
infills, the strength needs to be defined with care. Four different possible failures have been
identified (Galli, 2005) namely, compression at the centre of the panel, compression of
corners, sliding shear failure and diagonal tension. Ultimate stress formulae,
w
is associated
to each failure mechanism and the one with lowest value is considered to be the most
probable value of the strength of the equivalent strut. And lastly for modelling the hysteretic
behaviour of the axial struts the masonry strut hysteresis of Crisafulli (Crisafulli, 1997) is
adopted (Fig. 4.6).
It is to be mentioned that the models under this study include a bare frame without
introducing any infill panels, two partially infilled frames with one or two panels representing
52
one or two bricks, distributed along the height of the structure except for the first storey, and
two uniformly infilled frames with one or two panels, distributed uniformly along the height
of the structure. The behaviour of these five models have been investigated under seismic
action (Galli, 2005) assuming a fixed-base foundation. The purpose of this chapter is to
understand the overall responses of these structures considering flexible-base conditions.

Figure 4.6: Envelope (right) and the Crisafulli hysteresis rule (left) (Crisafulli, 1997)
A series of experimental tests on existing concrete frame structures has been performed and
the proposed models for beam-column joints and the equivalent diagonal struts of the
superstructure has been calibrated and validated through the data collected (Colangelo, 2003;
Negro, 1995; Pampanin et al.2002).
4.1.2 Modelling of the substructure
As was explained in the previous chapter, the simple cone model can be employed for soil to
capture the behaviour of the overall response of structures in presence of flexible base. The
spring and dashpot properties can be found by using soil and foundation parameters. The
assumption for the semi-infinite soil layer is the same as what was used in section 3.4.
Because the spring stiffness and dashpot coefficients directly depend on the foundation
dimensions, and the response may be sensitive to the foundation dimensions, a parametric
range for stiffness and damping coefficient is considered herein.
A nonlinear Ramberg-Osgood model (Fig. 4.7) for spring force is implemented to capture the
nonlinearity of the soil and at last will be compared against the elastic or equivalent linear
approach adopted in early stages. It is explained later in this chapter how to evaluate the
required parameters in order to define the Ramberg-Osgood backbone curve.
A new mass element is added into Ruaumoko (Carr, 2008) which provides the ability to
assign some hysteretic damping to the soil model. This is not considered in this chapter but its
effect can be the subject of more studies on SSI effects. Though, the radiation damping has
been taken into account throughout the procedure.
53

Figure 4.7: Ramberg-Osgood Hysteresis
4.1.3 Description of the physical models
The analytical tools described in the previous section are employed by Galli (Galli, 2005) to
construct a 2D six-storey building with different configurations of infill panels. Extensive
numerical investigation studies on this type of buildings were carried out by Galli to
understand the effect of different solution in the distribution of infill panels. All these studies
ignored the soil-structure interaction. In the following sections, the structure subjected to
earthquake loading is studied by modelling the flexibility of soil as simple as possible.
The analytical tools described in previous sections are adopted to construct the six-storey
building plotted in Figures 4.8 and 4.9.
Figure 4.8: Frames with different infill distribution: a) uniformly infilled, b) partially infilled c) bare
(c) (b) (a)
54
In cases with infills, the frames have been studied assuming the masonry infills composed of a
single panel and a double panel of bricks; they can be representative of the internal
partitioning and external walls, respectively. A complete set of mechanical properties for
masonry is reported by Galli (Galli, 2005). It was shown that these values are highly
dispersed, which makes it difficult to have a good estimate of stiffness and strength of the
equivalent struts.
Figure 4.9: Geometry and dimensions of the six-storey bare frame (Calvi, 2002)
20
3
0
0

300
250
4 16

Pilastro C1
4 16

4 18

Pilastro C2 Pilastro C3
350
3
5
0

20 20
2
5
0
Section C1 Section C2 Section C3
20
3
0
0

300
250
4 16

Pilastro C1
4 16

4 18

Pilastro C2 Pilastro C3
350
3
5
0

20 20
2
5
0
Section C1 Section C2 Section C3

Figure 4.10: Column sections of the six-storey frame (Calvi, 2002)
C2
C1
C3 C3
C2 C2
C2
C1
C1
C1
C1
1
7
,
7
5

m
3

m
3

m
3

m
3

m
3

m
2
,
7
5

m
4,5 m
11 m
2 m 4,5 m
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1 C1
C1
C1
C2 C2
55
As it can be seen, the frame is part of a three-bay and six-storey building with interstorey
height of 3 meters with the exception of the first floor (2.75m). It is a part of a frame system
formed by a series of parallel frames at a distance of 4.5 m, hence the tributary area of the mat
foundation for one frame can be assumed to be A = 2.25x11= 24.75 m
2
. The frame was
designed assuming material properties from 1950s. The structural elements have been
designed according to the Italian code provisions available at the time (1950-70). A summary
of the material properties are listed in Table 4. .
Table 4.1: Material properties (Galli, 2005)
Quantity Value
f
wh
horizontal compressive strength of masonry 3.84 MPa
f
wv
vertical compressive strength of masonry 2.7 MPa
E
wh
horizontal elastic modulus of masonry 2586 MPa
E
wv
vertical elastic modulus of masonry 1195 MPa
G shear modulus of masonry 1389 MPa
f
ws
shear strength of masonry 0.57 MPa
f
wu
sliding resistance of mortar 0.3 MPa
f
y
yielding strength of steel bars 3800 kg/cm
2
s
allowable stress of steel bars 1600 kg/cm
2

R
ck
cubic compressive strength of concrete 200 kg/cm
2

c
allowable stress of concrete 72.5 kg/cm
2

reinforcing ratio 1%

As was explained in the previous section, to model beams, columns and beam-column joints
the approach adopted is based on a lumped plasticity assumption and equivalent strut models
the infill panels (Section 4.1.1). Wolf cones model is also employed to simulate the
flexibility of the soil. As was explained in chapter two, the springs and dashpots
corresponding to this model behave linearly and elastically, therefore material damping does
not exist as the hysteresis is a straight line. To investigate whether a nonlinear hysteretic curve
enables to capture nonlinear behaviour of the soil, a Ramberg-Osgood hysteresis is calibrated
according to sandy soils of type E, IBC (2000). At the end, results obtained by equivalent
linear soil models and nonlinear Ramberg-Osgood soil models are compared.
Ramberg-Osgood Model: An alternative method for including material damping in the soil
model is to use hysteretic rules to represent the cyclic stress-strain behaviour of the soil
springs by means of mathematical relationships and to determine the values of the
corresponding parameters. These parameters are classified into those that have physical
meanings such as shear modulus and correlation parameters that do not have physical
meanings. Ramberg-Osgood mathematical expression is:
56
+ =
1
max
1
f
G
( 4-1)
where G
max
denotes the shear modulus at small strains,
f
denotes shear strength, and are
parameters. Note that
f
need not to be shear strength and it can be also treated as a correlation
parameter. The hysteresis curve or unloading-reloading loops are usually modelled by
applying Masings rule to the skeleton curve expressed above.
There are two parameters which control the nonlinearity in the model. To determine those
parameters, the test results can be plotted in terms of G/G
max
-

and - relationships. If the
reference strain is defined as where G/G
max
=0.5, then
f
can be computed from the equation
below (Japanese Geotechnical Society, 1998)
r f
G
max
= ( 4-2)
where
r
is the reference strain. can be computed by the following equation (Japanese
Geotechnical Society, 1998)
( 4-3)

where
max
is the maximum damping ratio from - relationships. It can be easily shown that
( 4-4)

To evaluate , Ruaumoko (Carr, 2008) employs following equation:
1
2
( 4-5)
To define the input parameters of the Ramberg-Osgood model in Ruaumoko, the maximum
damping
max
and reference shear strain,
r
need to be estimated. Many curves have been
developed expressing the variation in shear modulus and damping of the soil with different
soil properties and loading protocols. As was explained earlier a silty sand (SM) type of soil
under particular circumstances has been assumed in this chapter.
The effect of number of loading cycles on the secant shear modulus was observed in
laboratory tests by Stokoe (Stokoe, 1994). As shown in Figure 4.11
r
is referred to the point
where the shear modulus has reduced to 50% of the initial value. As shown for a silty sand
(SM) with an effective confining pressure of `
m
= 0.5 atm, the number of loading cycles in
resonant column (RC) and torsional shear (TS) tests have minor effect on the modulus
reduction curve for relatively small number of loading cycles. Therefore, the reference shear
strain can be assumed
r
= 0.04% for small number of loading cycles of N<1000 (Stokoe,
1999). In Figure 4.11,
t
e
is an elastic threshold strain below which the shear modulus is
constant and equal to G
max
.
( )
( ) 1
1 2
max
+
max
max
2
2
+
=
57

Figure 4.11: Variation in Normalized shear modulus of intact specimens with shearing strain and number
of loading cycles from RC and TS tests (Stokoe, 1999)
Figure 4.12 illustrates how different the reference shear strain can be for fat clay soils under
similar effective confining pressure.

Figure 4.12: Effect of soil type on the G/G
max
-log relationship at a constant ' (Stokoe, 1999)
It is seen from Figure 4.13 that for `
m
= 2 atm, the reference shear strain can be as high as
0.08% for silty sand soils. Furthermore, Figure 4.14 suggests that the assumption of
r
=
0.04% is a reasonable estimation for a broad range of sandy and non-plastic soils.
Furthermore, Vucetic et al. (Vucetic and Dobry, 1991) also found similar results for non-
plastic sandy soils (Fig. 4.15).
58

Figure 4.13: Effect of effective confining pressure on the G/G
max
log relationship for silty sand (Stokoe,
1999)

Figure 4.14: Trends in average G/G
max
log relationships with confining pressure (depth) and plasticity
index, PI (Stokoe, 1999)
59

Figure 4.15: Generic curves proposed by Vucetic and Dobry (1991) showing the effect of plasticity index
(PI) on G/G
max
log relationships (Vucteic & Dobry, 1991).
Having assumed
r
= 0.04%, the reference shear stress
f
can be estimated as:
2
2
2
max
/ 15300
0004 . 0 1700 150
m N
C
G
f
f
r s f
r f
=
=
=
=

The values for shear wave velocity and density of soil were expressed in section 3.4. Knowing
the reference shear strain, a reference yielding force in the soil spring can be evaluated by
assuming a mat foundation underneath the six-storey with an area of A = 24.75 m
2
(Section
4.1.3).
F
r
= 15.3 x 24.75 = 378.675 KN
As was explained before, , is dependent on the maximum material damping. To choose the
maximum material damping,
max
= 0.15 is assumed as the graphs shown in Figure 4.16
suggest for damping values corresponding to = 0.1%.
60

Figure 4.16: Variation in material damping ratio of intact specimens with shearing strain and number of
cycles (left), effect of soil type on the

log relationships at a constant `
m
= 0.5 atm (right) (Stokoe,
1999)
Damping may exceed this limit for higher levels of shear strain achieved during the strong
motion (Fig. 4.17) but to capture the sensitivity of results compared to equivalent linear
analyses which ignores hysteretic damping, this level of damping was employed to calculate
with the above equation. Higher levels of damping can be used in a further study of effect of
hysteretic damping in the soil on the soil-structure investigations. Figure 4.18 shows that
max

= 0.15 also provides a good estimate for higher effective confining pressures. Hence, was
estimated as:

On the other hand, is a parameter which controls the fatness of the hysteretic curve and is
calculated automatically by Ruaumoko by means of the following formula:
533 . 1
2
2
1 616 . 1
1
=
=
=

It should be mentioned that = 1 corresponds to non-linear elastic hysteresis which is
associated with elastic behaviour without energy dissipation (Carr, 2008). Two parameters,
i.e. F
r
and are sufficient to match a Ramberg-Osgood hysteretic curve to the springs which
are representative of the soil and foundation flexibility.
616 . 1
15 . 0 2
15 . 0 2
2
2
max
max
=

+
=
+
=

61

Figure 4.17: Generic Curves proposed by Vucetic et al (Vucetic & Dobry, 1991) showing the effect of
plasticity, (left); Effect of confining pressure on the

log relationships for silty sand (Stokoe, 1999)
62
4.2 Results of analyses
As was explained in previous sections, three different configurations of infill panels are
considered for the six-storey pre-1970 frame structure. Therefore, the effect of SSI can be
followed by decreasing the period of the structure as a result of adding stiff masonry walls. As
Galal (Galal, 2008) concluded and also as SDOF results in the previous chapter suggest, the
effect of SSI is higher for well-designed high-rise buildings than it is for well-designed
medium-rise buildings. To investigate whether this is the case for poorly designed structures
constructed before 1970s, other building heights need to be considered in a further study.
In the following sections, two types of panels have been used i.e. internal thin partitions as
one panel and external thick walls, as two panels.
4.2.1 Bare Frame
A triangular force distribution has been assumed to carry out pushover analyses on six-storey
frame structure with different infill configurations. The results of the analyses for bare frame
are summarized in Figure 4.18.

Figure 4.18: Pushover analysis on the six-storey bare frame, with and without SSI
To carry out the pushover analysis, it was assumed that the soil is in its initial state where G =
G
max
. To account for the nonlinear effects in a time history analyses, an equivalent linear
approach was adopted in which a degraded shear modulus of the soil was used.
Figure 4.18 indicates that the structure based on a relative stiff soil follows the same trend as
that of a structure with fixed base. This is intuitive if one recalls that soil-structure interaction
effects are more pronounced when dynamic and seismic actions are considered. It can be
seen that after achieving 0.20 m of top floor displacement, which corresponds to 1.1% drift,
the curve approaches a plateau level of about 150 KN of maximum base shear. Presenting
displacement profile of the structure, Galli (Galli, 2005) reported that this level of drift is the
onset of developing a soft storey mechanism between the 3
rd
and 4
th
floor. This fact is clearer
in the time history analyses results.
Pushover of Bare frame
0
50
100
150
200
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
Top Floor Disp (m)
B
a
s
e

S
h
e
a
r

(
K
N
)
Bare fixed-base Bare flexible-base
63
In addition, non-linear time history analyses were carried out. Table 4.1 lists the first and
second mode periods of the bare frame structure for different levels of degradation in the
shear modulus of the soil. It is seen that the fundamental period of the structure can increase
up to 15% when the soil undergoes higher levels of shear strain; the frequency of the second
mode of vibration remained constant.
Table 4.2: First and second mode periods of bare frame structure
Period(Sec) G = 0.1 G
max
G = 0.3 G
max
G = 0.5 G
max
G =
G
max

Ramberg-
Osgood
Fixed-base
Foundation
First Mode 1.947 s 1.78 s 1.74 s 1.72 s 1.7 s 1.69 s
Second Mode 0.617 s 0.61 s 0.61 s 0.61 s 0.61 s 0.60 s
The ten records described in section 3.1 have been employed as input motion to perform time-
history analyses and the average of the results has been calculated. In the following figures,
the results of the average response as above are presented in terms of envelope of maximum
displacement of each floor and the maximum interstorey drifts are presented.

Bare Frame
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Maximum Interstorey Drift [%]
S
t
o
r
e
y
Without SSI G=Gmax
=1.616 G=0.1Gmax

Figure 4.19: Bare frame; Envelope of floor displacements, interstorey drifts (average of 10 records)
Bare Frame
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
-0.26 -0.06 0.14
Envelope Max Floor Total Disp. (m)
S
t
o
r
e
y
G=0.1Gmax =1.616
G=Gmax Without SSI
Bare Frame
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
-0.26 -0.06 0.14
Envelope Max Floor Relative Disp. (m)
S
t
o
r
e
y
G=0.1Gmax =1.616
G=Gmax Without SSI
64
The upper graph on the left in Figure 4.19 is the sketch of envelope of total displacements of
each floor for different flexibility of the soil and the graph on the right is the envelope of
relative displacement in each floor which means the relative horizontal displacement and
rocking displacement of the foundation have been removed from the total displacements of
each floor. The graph corresponding to = 1.616 is the system response when soil spring
behaves as Ramberg-Osgood hysteresis loop.
It has been suggested by Chambers (1998 and Chu (2002), as shown in Figure 4.19, that the
total displacements of the floor in presence of flexible foundation can be higher than the one
with a fixed-base structure. It is found that the results in absence of flexible foundation can be
different by approximately10% as compared to the case in which the soil has a significantly
degraded stiffness of G = 0.1 G
max
. The difference is clear in the roof floor displacements.
This effect is important when pounding of nearby structures are of concern.
On the other hand, the relative displacement of each floor for flexible-base frame is lower
than that of a fixed-base structure. This decrease in structural displacement is less than 5 %
and is limited to the case where soil G = 0.1 G
max
was used for the soil stiffness.
The development of a soft storey mechanism between 3
rd
and 4
th
floor is clear in Figure 4.19.
This means that the detrimental consequences of reduction in the column cross section in that
level (Galli, 2005), is not affected by SSI considerations. Whereas, the interstorey drift for
some floors can decrease by 10% as a result of SSI effects.
4.2.2 Partially Infilled Frame
Pushover analysis results on the partially infilled frame with one partition presented in Figure
4.20 suggest a reduction in the elastic stiffness of the structure when SSI is considered. It is
evident that the structure reaches to the plateau at a lower top drift demand compared to bare
frame while the maximum base shear is higher for the infilled case.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Top Floor Disp (m)
B
a
s
e

S
h
e
a
r

(
K
N
)
Without SSI With SSI

Figure 4.20: Pushover analysis on six-storey partially infilled frame with one panel, with and without SSI
65
Note the pushover results for partially infilled frame with two partitions shown in Figure 4.22,
gives very similar results regardless of the type of masonry infill adopted. This implies that
the general behaviour of the structure is more affected by other factors rather than the number
of infill panels.

Partially Infilled with one partition
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
S
t
o
r
e
y
Without SSI G=Gmax
=1.616 G=0.1Gmax

Figure 4.21: Partially Infilled with one partition; Envelope of floor displacement and interstorey drifts
(average of 10 records)
Graphs shown in Figures 4.21 and 4.23 clearly indicate that the soft storey mechanism in the
first floor governs the response of the structure regardless of the number of panels used. It was
shown by Galli (Galli, 2005) that the selection of ground motion also does not affect the
presented results neither does the height of the structure.
It is to be mentioned that, though the general behaviour of the structure is governed by soft
storey mechanism in the first floor, SSI considerations have also considerable influences on
the response. While the maximum total displacement of roof can increase by 40%, the
maximum relative displacement at the roof level can decrease by 15%. The interstorey drift
results reveal that SSI considerations can reduce the first floor drift demand in compensation
of a small increase of drift demand in upper floors. The interstorey drift at first level needs to
be controlled and can not be ignored even with advantageous SSI assumptions.
Partially Infilled with 1 partition
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
-0.20 -0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20
S
t
o
r
e
y
G=0.1Gmax =1.616
G=Gmax Without SSI
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
-0.16 -0.06 0.04 0.14
S
t
o
r
e
y
G=0.1Gmax =1.616
G=Gmax Without SSI
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
-0.20 -0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20
S
t
o
r
e
y
G=0.1Gmax =1.616
G=Gmax Without SSI
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
-0.20 -0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20
S
t
o
r
e
y
G=0.1Gmax =1.616
G=Gmax Without SSI
66
Note that the curves corresponding to Ramberg-Osgood model of the soil stands between the
two extreme cases of linear analysis i.e. where soils with an initial stiffness (G = G
max
) or
significantly degraded stiffness (G = 0.1G
max
). This may appear intuitive if the Ramberg-
Osgood model of the soil is able to represent the realistic nonlinearity of the soil. As was
explained before soil stiffness degrades incrementally accompanied by hysteretic damping.
Care need to be taken to calibrate it.
Table 4.2 lists the first and second mode periods of the partially infilled structures with
different levels of soil flexibility. It is seen that the period of this type of structure in presence
of flexible soil and during the strong ground motion can increase by 50%. It should be noted
that, if one only applies fundamental mode of the structure in a response spectrum analysis,
ignoring other factors, inconsistent results may be obtained. It was shown for the partially
infilled structure that the soft storey mechanism in the ground level governs the behaviour and
the response of equivalent single degree of freedom may not represent the frame adequately.
Once again it is shown that, the number of panels has no major effect on natural period of the
structure and it is only slightly less for the double panel frame (Table 4.2).
Table 4.3: First and second mode periods of partially infilled frame structure
Period (Sec)
G = 0.1 G
max
G = 0.3 G
max
G = 0.5 G
max
G =
G
max

Ramberg-
Osgood
Fixed-
base
Single
Panel
Double
Panel

0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Top Floor Disp (m)
B
a
s
e

S
h
e
a
r

(
K
N
)

Figure 4.22: Pushover analysis on the six-storey partially infilled frame (double-panel), with and without
SSI
67

Partially Infilled with two partitions
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 1 2 3 4 5
S
t
o
r
e
y
Without SSI G=Gmax
=1.616 G=0.1Gmax

Figure 4.23: Partially Infilled with two partitions; Envelope of floor displacement and interstorey drifts
Partially Infilled with 2 partitions
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
-0.20 -0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20
Envelope Max Floor Displacement (m)
S
t
o
r
e
y
G=0.1Gmax =1.616
G=Gmax Without SSI
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
-0.14 -0.04 0.06
S
t
o
r
e
y
G=0.1Gmax =1.616
G=Gmax Without SSI
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
-0.20 -0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20
S
t
o
r
e
y
G=0.1Gmax =1.616
G=Gmax Without SSI
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
-0.14 -0.04 0.06
S
t
o
r
e
y
G=0.1Gmax =1.616
G=Gmax Without SSI
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
-0.20 -0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20
S
t
o
r
e
y
G=0.1Gmax =1.616
G=Gmax Without SSI
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
-0.20 -0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20
S
t
o
r
e
y
G=0.1Gmax =1.616
G=Gmax Without SSI
68
4.2.3 Uniformly Infilled Frame
The pushover analysis results are presented in Figures 4.24 and 4.26. Similar to what was
shown for partially infilled frames, the elastic stiffness of the structure is lower for the cases
with flexible foundation. In fact, SSI hinders the initiation of damage in infills to higher
lateral deformations i.e. from
y
= 0.06 m to
y
= 0.09 m whereas the maximum base shear
remains unchanged.
As is noted in Figure 4.28, after cracks initiate and propagate in the masonry wall of
uniformly infilled frame, the strength decreases but still is higher than those of a bare frame.
This implies that constructing masonry wall is a good way to increase the strength and
stiffness of the structure which is accompanied by period shortening of the structure.
It was concluded in the previous chapter that, SSI is more effective for stiff structures. Table
4.3 clearly indicates that fundamental period of the uniformly infilled frame can increase
remarkably due to the introduction of flexibility in the foundation and soil underneath. This
softening also appears in second mode of vibration. Further investigation is needed to match
each particular structure with specific soil properties to the corresponding SDOF structures
presented in the previous chapter.
It is instructive to investigate further how far the SDOF structures with different
characteristics can be representative of MDOF counterpart systems.
Table 4.4: First and second mode periods of uniformly infilled frame structure
Period (Sec)
G = 0.1 G
max
G = 0.3 G
max
G = 0.5 G
max
G =
G
max

Ramberg-
Osgood
Fixed-
base
Single
Panel
Double
Panel

0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Top Floor Disp (m)
B
a
s
e

S
h
e
a
r

(
K
N
)

Figure 4.24: Pushover analysis on the six-storey uniformly infilled frame, with and without SSI
69

Uniformly Infilled with one partition
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
S
t
o
r
e
y
Without SSI G=Gmax
=1.616 G=0.1Gmax

Figure 4.25: Uniformly Infilled with one partition; Envelope of floor displacement and interstorey drifts
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Top Floor Disp (m)
B
a
s
e

S
h
e
a
r

(
K
N
)

Figure 4.26: Pushover analysis on the six-storey uniformly infilled frame with double-layer partitions,
with and without SSI
Uniformly Infilled with 1 partition
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
-0.18 -0.08 0.02 0.12
Envelope Max Floor Total Disp (m)
S
t
o
r
e
y
G=0.1Gmax =1.616
G=Gmax Without SSI
Uniformly Infilled with 1 partition
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
-0.18 -0.08 0.02 0.12
Envelope Max Floor Relative Disp(m)
S
t
o
r
e
y
G=0.1Gmax =1.616
G=Gmax Without SSI
70
Uniformly Infilled with two partitions
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.0 0.5 1.0
S
t
o
r
e
y
Without SSI G=Gmax
=1.616 G=0.1Gmax

Figure 4.27: Uniformly Infilled with two partitions; Envelope of floor displacement and interstorey drifts
(10 records)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Top Floor Disp (m)
B
a
s
e

S
h
e
a
r

(
K
N
)
Uni-double Uni-single Par-double
Par-single Bare

Figure 4.28: Pushover curves for different infill panel configurations
Uniformly Infilled with 2 partitions
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
-0.16 -0.06 0.04 0.14
S
t
o
r
e
y
G=0.1Gmax =1.616
G=Gmax Without SSI
Uniformly Infilled with 2 partitions
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
-0.16 -0.06 0.04 0.14
S
t
o
r
e
y
G=0.1Gmax =1.616
G=Gmax Without SSI
71
Figures 4.25 and 4.27 emphasize the important contribution of the foundation rocking in total
displacement of each floor in uniformly infilled structures. It is seen that after removing
horizontal motion due to rocking and sliding of the foundation, the floor displacement reduces
tremendously. Low curvature of the total displacement of floors in Figure 4.28 implies that
the motion of the structure is governed by rocking.
As is clear in Figure 4.28, the strength and stiffness of the frame with two panels is much
higher than the frame with single panel. This apparently, has led to different behaviours in
presence of SSI in terms of interstorey drifts (Figs 4.28 & 4.29). Flexibility of the soil
foundation has resulted to major improvement of interstorey drift for double-panel frame
while in the other hand, degraded soil (G = 0.1G
max
) has increased the interstorey drift in
second floor imposing higher demand on the structural elements.
The idea of assuming Ramberg-Osgood model of the soil as an intermediate status between
two extreme cases of soil i.e. G = G
max
and G = 0.1G
max
, is clearer in Figure 4.27.

Chapter 5. Effects of SSI on Retrofitted Structures
72

5 Effects of SSI on Retrofitted Structures
Following recent destructive earthquakes in urban areas such as the 1994 Northridge
(California, USA), the 1995 Hanshin-Awaji (Kobe, Japan) and the 1999 Kocaeli (Turkey), the
need for an upgrade of the existing structures have arisen so as to meet the performance levels
required by current seismic design standards. Innovative and practical techniques to improve
seismic behaviour of buildings constructed before 1970s have been developed and adopted in
the past three decades.
As was mentioned in previous chapters, the first step within the retrofitting strategy is the
seismic assessment of existing buildings. Recent experimental investigations on the seismic
performance of existing reinforced concrete buildings designed before the introduction of
seismic codes, have repeatedly demonstrated the inherent weakness of these systems
(Pampanin et al., 2002). These structures have been designed to carry gravity loads only and
ductile behaviour and capacity design philosophy were not considered in their design. These
structures have non-ductile reinforcing plain round bars in the beam-column joint area in the
form of inadequate or even no shear reinforcement. It has been observed that a brittle shear
and bond failure in the frame joints was the principal cause of the severe deterioration of the
capacity and even collapse of such structures. Moreover, the joint shear stresses
recommended by ACI 352R-91 are valid only for newly constructed beam-column joints and
older concrete buildings do not meet these criteria. Experimental studies have further shown
that joints designed before 1970 fail at a much lower stress level (Gergely, 2000). This
mechanism is associated with inclined cracking, cover concrete spalling and rupture of
transverse reinforcement.
Therefore, because of the large extent of the problem, several innovative and economic
methods to upgrade the joints capacity have been developed in order to prevent brittle failure
of the joint and instead shift the failure towards a ductile beam plastic hinging mechanism.
Some of those retrofit solutions for example involve use of fibre reinforced polymers (FRP)
and metallic haunch. These two methods are explained briefly in following sections. An FRP
methodology is adopted to upgrade the beam-column joints of the frame presented in the
previous chapter in presence of flexible soil foundation.
It has been observed that the exterior beam-column joints are more vulnerable than interior
joints, which are confined by surrounding beams attached to four sides of the joint. Therefore,
a multi-level retrofit strategy is desirable in which two levels of performance objectives can
be defined: ultimate performance by which a weak-beam strong-column system can be
73
achieved and intermediate performance by which a beam-column joint hierarchy of strength is
allowed.
Hence, the model of the six-storey existing structure presented in the previous chapter will be
retrofitted in two levels, i.e. partially upgrade by which only exterior joints are upgraded to
prevent the overall collapse of the structure (allowing formation of plastic hinges in beams
framing into exterior columns and interior columns) and a full upgrade by which all the joints
including interior joints are upgraded allowing development of plastic hinges only in beams.
The results of the analyses are presented in Section 5.2.
5.1 Retrofitting Solutions
Many approaches have been studied and examined in recent 30 years to strengthen existing
structures (Bakis et al. 2002; Sugano, 1996). The aims are to provide increased strength
and/or ductility or change the hierarchy of strength in the case of joints rehabilitation.
Conventional techniques such as jacketing or infills and more recent approaches including
base isolation, FRP or shape memory alloys are amongst the many different retrofitting
methods, of which two efficient solutions namely, FRP and metallic haunch are explained
briefly in the following sections.
Confining and shifting the plastic hinge away from the panel zone are the results of
implementation of FRP jacketing around a beam-column joint. This simple method has been
adopted within the beam-column joints of the six-storey existing frame model to stiffen the
beam-column joints by means of rigid elements and in two different performance levels in
presence of flexible soil foundation.
5.1.1 Fibre-reinforced polymers
Strengthening of reinforced concrete joints is a difficult task. Several solutions have been
applied to upgrade the joints in the past but each of them has some associated difficulties. To
overcome these problems i.e. intensive labour, artful detailing and handling, invasiveness,
increased dimensions, resistance to corrosion, stiffness-to-weight and strength-to-weight ratio,
and special attachments, a new retrofit method involving the use of FRP has been in the centre
of attentions. This class of structural materials has been in use since 1940s but only recently
has attracted the attention of civil engineers.
Externally bonded fibre-reinforced polymers are in the form of carbon, glass or aramid fibres.
Usually they are epoxy-bonded in the form of flexible sheets or strips with fibres oriented in a
way that tension forces due to shear can be carried (Fig. 5.1). It can be installed either
manually or by means of automated wrapping systems.
It has been concluded from experimental studies that even a few layers of FRP materials
increase the shear capacity of RC joints considerably (Antonopoulos, 2002).
Some design methodologies have been proposed (Pantelides 1999, Ghobarah 2001, El-
Amoury 2002). For example, Ghobarah (Ghobarah, 2001) proposed to provide fibre
reinforcement to replace the missing joint shear reinforcement to upgrade the shear capacity
of the existing beam-column joints. In addition, some standards such as American Concrete
74
Institute (ACI), Canadian Standard Association (CSA), Intelligent Sensing for Innovative
Structures (ISIS), and Federation Internationale du Beton (FIB) have some guidelines for the
design of FRP to retrofit the structural members.

Figure 5.1: Schematic illustration of RC joint strengthened with FRP (modified after Antonopoulos, 2002)
It has been concluded that rehabilitation of beam-column joints with FRP eliminates the
brittle joint shear failure, improves the bond conditions of the beam top reinforcement, delays
the slippage of the bottom steel bars, increases the energy dissipation and reduces the stiffness
degradation of the joint (El-Amoury, 2002). Figure 5.2 illustrates the hysteretic envelope of
such a rehabilitation scheme adopted for exterior beam-column joint specimens. T0 is the
original beam-column joint constructed based on pre-1970 specifications. After T0 is being
tested new concrete is poured to replace the cracked material and then it is rehabilitated, T1
and tested again. The retrofitted original T0 before testing represents the T2 specimen.

Figure 5.2: Load-displacement envelope of the test specimens (modified after Ghobarah, 2001)
75
5.1.2 Metallic haunch
Haunch type strengthening of beam-column joints first was developed within the SAC project
in 1998. The objective was focused on developing guidelines for the inspection, evaluation
and repair of existing steel moment resisting frame buildings affected by the Northridge
earthquake. The idea of using a haunch type system was to move the stresses away from the
core joint region and changing the hierarchy of strength in welded connection. But when this
method is applied to existing RC frame structures challenges arise because, contrary to steel
structures, the desired plastic hinging mechanism may not develop in the beam. Figure 5.3
illustrates development of plastic hinge mechanism in the specified location of the beam.
Three key parameters namely, haunch stiffness K
d
, distance from interface L, and connection
angle (Fig. 5.3), can be evaluated based on proposed design philosophies e.g. Pampanin et
al. (2006).

Figure 5.3: Experimental behaviour of connection (left); schematic view of a hinged haunch solution
(right) (Pampanin et al., 2006).
The efficiency of the haunch intervention in modifying the internal shear forces and moments
in the beams and columns is dependent on the selection of the three aforementioned design
parameters namely, L, , and axial stiffness K
d
. Step-by-step design procedure can be
summarized as follows:
1- Preliminary choice of haunch properties
2- Definition of acceptable limit states
3- Forcing the plastic hinge to develop in the beam
4- Checking the avoidance of column hinging prior beam or joint.
5- Checking the shear capacity in all the members as well as the global hierarchy of
strength
76
6- Iteration to converge to solution
Detailed proposed design procedure is explained in Pampanin et al. (2006).
5.2 Analysis Results
The outcomes of applying FRP to strengthen the beam-column joints, namely, stiffening the
joint and shifting the hinging away from the panel zone, have been assumed to stiffen the
beam-column joints in presence of flexible soil foundation and in two different performance
levels. First, only the exterior beam-column joints (partially retrofit) have been modelled as
rigid links and in the second step all joints of the six-storey frame structure explained in the
previous chapter have been stiffened (complete retrofit). The results for different infill
configurations are presented and discussed in the following sections. The following results are
the average for ten earthquake records described in Section 3.1.
5.2.1 Bare frame
The interstorey drift and envelope of maximum displacement of each floor of the retrofitted
bare frame are presented in Figures 5.4 and 5.5. As illustrated in Tables 5.1 and 4.1, the
stiffening of the beam-column joints results in stiffening of the superstructure as a whole. It is
observed that the fundamental period of the structure can decrease by 50%.
Therefore, as it was concluded in chapter 3, observing the more pronounced effect of SSI on
reducing the interstorey drift is intuitive. It is shown in Figure 5.4 that in the case of very
flexible foundation with G = 0.1* G
max
and fully retrofitted structure, the critical soft storey
can move down from forth floor to second floor.
Table 5.1: Fundamental mode period of retrofitted bare frame structure
Period(Sec) G = 0.1 G
max
G = G
max
Ramberg-OsgoodFixed-base Foundation
Partially 1.67 s 1.40 s 1.4 s 1.36 s
Complete 1.32 s 0.95 s 0.95 s 0.90 s
Partially Retrofitted
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
S
t
o
r
e
y
With out SSI G = 0.1 Gmax
G = Gmax = 1.616

Fully Retrofitted
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
S
t
o
r
e
y
G = Gmax = 1.616

Figure 5.4: Maximum interstorey drift; retrofitted bare frame (average of ten records)
77

Figure 5.5: Envelope of total and relative maximum displacement of bare frame, partially retrofitted (top)
fully retrofitted (bottom) (average of 10 records)
The clear beneficial effect of rocking component of soil-structure interaction mechanism is
obvious in Figure 5.5 for fully retrofitted structure. The left figure shows the maximum total
displacement of each floor while the right graph illustrates the relative displacement of each
floor after eliminating the rocking and horizontal components of foundation motion. As it is
clear in the left graph (Fig. 5.5), the horizontal motion of the foundation is negligible and
hence it can be concluded that the difference between the fixed-base and flexible-base motion
stems from the rocking motion. This effect was not clear in existing bare frame before
retrofitting (Fig. 4.18).
Within the reducing seismic risk of frame structure, considering advantageous effects of soil-
structure interaction may reduce the cost of strengthening as it is clear from comparing the
partially retrofitted structure in presence of flexible soil and with the fully retrofitted structure
in absence of flexible soil foundation.

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
-0.26 -0.06 0.14
S
t
o
r
e
y
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
-0.26 -0.06 0.14
S
t
o
r
e
y
Fully Retrofitted
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
-0.26 -0.06 0.14
S
t
o
r
e
y
G = 0.1Gmax G = Gmax
= 1.616 Without SSI
Fully Retrofitted
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
-0.26 -0.06 0.14
S
t
o
r
e
y
= 1.616 Without SSI
78
5.2.2 Partially infilled frame
Similar to the previous section, retrofitting the partially infilled frame implies shortening of
the fundamental period of the structure, but since the soft storey development in the first floor
governs the response, the general effect of soil-structure interaction is similar to the response
of existing partially infilled structure. The flexibility of soil may reduce the first storey drift
(Figures 5.6 and 5.7) but yet drift is too high in order the structure to be able to withstand
strong ground motions. This implies that the consequences of irregularity along the height of
the structure can not be resolved by applying only beam-column joint improvement and
considering beneficial SSI effects.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 1 2 3 4 5
S
t
o
r
e
y
Without SSI G = 0.1 Gmax
G = Gmax = 1.616

Fully Retrofitted
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 1 2 3 4 5
S
t
o
r
e
y
G = Gmax = 1.616

Figure 5.6: Maximum interstorey drift; partially infilled frame, single panel (average of ten records)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 1 2 3 4 5
S
t
o
r
e
y
G = Gmax = 1.616

Fully Retrofitted
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 1 2 3 4 5
S
t
o
r
e
y
G = Gmax = 1.616

Figure 5.7: Maximum interstorey drift; partially infilled frame, double panel (average of ten records)
It is clear in Figures 5.6 and 5.7 that Ramberg-Osgood model of the soil exhibits very similar
results in terms of interstorey drift to the case where soil has shear modulus G = G
max
. This
trend is in contrary to what was observed for existing frames. This may be due to the fact that
79
as the period of the structure reduces the spectral displacement decreases likewise, and the
effect of hysteretic damping of the soil becomes less significant. Table 5.2 marks the
inadequacy of beam-column joint strengthening. It is clear that the period of the structure does
not vary significantly compared to the existing partially infilled frame (Table 4.2 and 5.2).
Similar to the existing frame, Figures 5.8 and 5.9 indicate that the number of panels does not
change the response of the retrofitted partially infilled frames.
Table 5.2: Fundamental mode period of retrofitted partially infilled frame structure
Period (Sec) G = 0.1 G
max
G = G
max
Ramberg-OsgoodFixed-base
Partially Retrofit 1.26 s 0.77 s 0.77 s 0.70 s
Single Panel
Fully Retrofit 1.19 s 0.65 s 0.66 s 0.57 s
Double Panel
Full Retrofit 1.19 s 0.64 s 0.64 s 0.55 s

Figure 5.8: Envelope of total and relative maximum displacements of partially infilled panel (single panel),
partially retrofitted (top) fully retrofitted (bottom) (average of 10 records)
Fully Retrofitted
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
-0.20 -0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20
S
t
o
r
e
y
= 1.616 Without SSI
Fully Retrofitted
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
-0.20 -0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20
S
t
o
r
e
y
= 1.616 Without SSI
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
-0.20 -0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20
S
t
o
r
e
y
= 1.616 Without SSI
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
-0.20 -0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20
S
t
o
r
e
y
= 1.616 Without SSI
80

Figure 5.9: Envelope of total and relative maximum displacements of partially infilled panel (double
panel), partially retrofitted (top) fully retrofitted (bottom) (average of 10 records)
It should be emphasized that the P- effect has not been considered for analysis of the soil-
structure system in this dissertation. Figures 5.8 and 5.9 display the importance of the rocking
component of the foundation in presence of very soft soil. This may lead to the pre-mature
collapse of the structure in the case where negative effects of P- are considered in the
analyses.

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
-0.20 -0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20
S
t
o
r
e
y
= 1.616 Without SSI
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
-0.20 -0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20
S
t
o
r
e
y
= 1.616 Without SSI
Fully Retrofitted
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
-0.20 -0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20
S
t
o
r
e
y
= 1.616 Without SSI
Fully Retrofitted
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
-0.20 -0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20
S
t
o
r
e
y
= 1.616 Without SSI
81
5.2.3 Uniformly infilled frame
It was shown in previous chapters that soil-structure interaction effects are clearer in stiff
structures than it is for soft structures. Figures 5.10 and 5.11 clearly display this phenomenon
once more. The interstorey drift demand of the structure can decrease enormously in the
presence of soft soil. As the results presented here are the average of ten records of
accelerograms, it should be mentioned that this may not be the case for some strong motion
records.
Paritally Retrofitted
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
S
t
o
r
e
y
G = Gmax = 1.616

Fully Retrofitted
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
S
t
o
r
e
y
G = Gmax = 1.616

Figure 5.10: Maximum interstorey drift; uniformly infilled frame, single panel (average of ten records)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.0 0.5 1.0
S
t
o
r
e
y
G = Gmax = 1.616

Fully Retrofitted
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.0 0.5 1.0
S
t
o
r
e
y
G = Gmax = 1.616

Figure 5.11: Maximum interstorey drift; uniformly infilled frame, double panel (average of ten records)
Nearly constant interstorey drift in Figure 5.11 for uniformly infilled frame with two
partitions implies that the superstructure is moving similar to a rigid body on the top of the
very soft soil (G = 0.1 G
max
). Table 5.3 illustrates that the retrofitting of uniformly infilled
frame may not change the fundamental period of the structure but it can affect structural
82
response in terms of interstorey drift. Figure 5.12 and 5.13 show that the Ramberg-Osgood
model of the soil results to similar solutions to the stiff soil with G = G
max
. This fact was
observed for partially infilled frame too.
It can be concluded that distributing infill panels uniformly along the height of the structure is
an efficient solution to retrofit existing bare frame and partially infilled frames to reduce the
seismic demands. Along with considering SSI effects, this may lead to no-intervention
decision for strengthening the existing uniformly infilled frame structures.
Table 5.3: Fundamental mode period of retrofitted uniformly infilled frame structure
Period (Sec) G = 0.1 G
max
G = G
max
Ramberg-OsgoodFixed-base
Single Panel
Fully Retrofit 1.11 s 0.44 s 0.44 s 0.28 s
Double Panel
Full Retrofit 1.1 s 0.42 s 0.42 s 0.25 s

Figure 5.12: Envelope of total and relative maximum displacements of uniformly infilled panel (single
Fully Retorfitted
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
-0.18 -0.08 0.02 0.12
S
t
o
r
e
y
= 1.616 Without SSI
Fully Retorfitted
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
-0.18 -0.08 0.02 0.12
S
t
o
r
e
y
= 1.616 Without SSI
Paritially Retrofitted
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
-0.18 -0.08 0.02 0.12
S
t
o
r
e
y
= 1.616 Without SSI
Paritially Retrofitted
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
-0.18 -0.08 0.02 0.12
S
t
o
r
e
y
= 1.616 Without SSI
83

Figure 5.13: Envelope of total and relative maximum displacements of uniformly infilled panel (double
As was suggested by Chu (Chu, 2002), and from above results, it can be concluded that the
properties of superstructure affects the soil-structure system more than soil properties. But it
should be noted that if water table is high in foundation soil and P- effects have been
assumed in analysis, detrimental influences of SSI and liquefaction can lead to destructive
results (Niigata, 1964).

Fully Retrofitted
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
-0.16 -0.06 0.04 0.14
Envelope Max FloorTotal Disp. (m)
S
t
o
r
e
y
Fully Retrofitted
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
-0.16 -0.06 0.04 0.14
S
t
o
r
e
y
F u l lyR e tro f itte d
-4
6
-0 .1 6 -0 .1 1 -0 .0 6 -0 .0 1 0 .0 4 0 .0 9 0 .1 4
E n v e lo p e M a xF l o o r R e la tiv e D isp . (m )
G = 0.1Gmax G = Gmax = 1.616 Without SSI
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
-0.16 -0.06 0.04 0.14
S
t
o
r
e
y
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
-0.16 -0.06 0.04 0.14
S
t
o
r
e
y
Chapter 6. References
84

6 REFERENCES
Antonopoulos, C. P., and Triantafillou, T. C. (2002). "Analysis of FRP-strengthened
RC beam-column joints." Journal of Composites for Construction, 6(1), 41-51.
ATC-40. (1996). "Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings." SSC 96-01,
California Seismic Saftey Commission, Redwood City.
Bakis, C. E., Bank L. C., Brown, V. L., Cosenza E., Davalos J. F., Lesko J. J.,
Machida A., Rizkalla S. H., and Triantafillou, T. C. (2002). "Fiber-Reinforced
Polymer Composites for Construction-- State-of-the-Art Reveiw." Journal of
Composites for Construction, 6(2), 73-87.
Bertoldi, S. H., Decanini, L. D., and Gavarini, C.
Calvi, G. M., Magenes, G., and Pampanin, S. (2002). "Relevance of beam-column
joint damage and collapse in RC frame assessment." Journal of Earthquake
Engineering, 6(1), p.75-100.
Carr, A. J. (2008). "Nonlinear inelastic program Ruaumoko." New Zealand.
Carr, A. J. (2008). "Soil-structure interaction." Advanced nonlinear seismic structural
analysis notes, Pavia.
Chambers, J. D. (1998). "A distributed spring soil model for dynamic soil-strucutre
intreaction analysis," University of Canterbury, Christchurch.
Christopoulos, C., Filiatrault, A., and Folz, B. (2002). "Seismic Repsponse of Self-
Centering Hysteretic SDOF systems." Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, 31, 1131-1150.
Chu, K. H. (2002). "Soil-structure interaction of masonry infilled frame with openings,"
ME, University of Canterbury, Christchurch.
Clough, R. W., and Penzien, J. (2003). Dynamics of Structures, Computers &
Structures Inc., Berkeley.
Council, B. S. S. (2003). "NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations
for New Buildings." FEMA, Washington D.C.
Crisafulli, F. (1997). "Seismic Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Structures with
Masonry Infills," PhD thesis, University of Canterbury, Christchurch.
Crisafulli, F., Carr, A. J., and Park, R. (2000). "Analytical Modelling of Infilled Frame
Structures - a General Review." Bulletin of the NZ Society for Earthquake
Engineering, 33(1), 30-47.
de Barros, F. C. P., and Luco, J. E. (1995). "Identification of foundation impedance
functions and soil properties from vibration tests of the Hualien containment
model." Journal of soil dynamics and earthquake engineering, 14, 229-248.
85
Federal Emergency Management Agency, F. (1997). "NEHRP guidelines for the
seismic rehabilitation of buildings, FEMA 273; FEMA 274; FEMA (Series) 273;
FEMA (Series) 274." Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington
D.C.
FEMA(450). (2003). "NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for
New Buildings and Other Structures ".
Galal, K., and Naimi, M. (2008). "Effect of soil conditions on the response of
reinforced concrete tall structures to near-fault earthquakes." The Structural
Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 17(3), 541-562.
Galli, M. (2005). "Evaluation of the seismic response of exisiting R.C. frame buildings
with masonry infills," Masters, University of Pavia, Pavia.
Gazetas, G. (1983). "Analysis of machine foundation vibrations: state of the art." Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2(1), 2.
Gazetas, G. (1991). "Formulas and charts for impedances of surface and embedded
foundations." Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 117, 13631381.
Gazetas, G., and Mylonakis, G. "Soil-Structure Interaction Effects on Elastic and
Inealstic Structures." 4th International Conference on Recent Advances in
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, San Diego,
California.
Gergely, J., Pantelides, C. P., and Reaveley, L. D. (2000). "Shear strengthening of
RCT-joints using CFRP composites." Journal of Composites for Construction,
4(2), 56-64.
Ghobarah, A., and Said, A. (2001). "Seismic rehabilitation of beam-column joints
using FRP laminates." Journal of earthquake engineering, 5(1), 113-129.
Johnson, J. (2003). "Soil-Strucutre Interaction." Earthquake Engineering Handbook,
W. Chen and C. Scawthorn, eds., CRC.
Kim, S., and Stewart, J. P. (2003). "Kinematic soil-structure interaction from strong
motion recordings." Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering,
ASCE, 129, 323-335.
Kramer, S. L. (1996). Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall.
Kramer, S. L., and Stewart, J. P. (2004). "Geotechnical aspects of seismic hazards."
Earthquake Engineering From Engineering Seismology to Performance-Based
Engineering, Y. Bozorgnia and V. V. Bertero, eds., CRC press LLC, 941.
Liou, G. S., and Huang, P.-H. (1994). "Effect of flexibility on impedance functions for
circular foundations." Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 120, 14291446.
Lysmer, J. (1965). "Vertical motions of rigid footings," Ph.D, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor.
Magenes, G., and Pampanin, S. "Seismic response of gravity-load design frames
with masonry infills." 13th World Conference on earthquake engineering,
Vancouver.
Pampanin, S., Bolognini, D., and Pavese, A. (2007). "Performance-based seismic
retrofit strategy for existing reinforced concrete frame systems using fiber-
reinforced polymer composites." Journal of Composites for Construction,
11(2), 211-226.
Pampanin, S., Christopoulos, C., and Chen, T. (2006). "Development and validation
of a metallic haunch seismic retrofit solution for existing under-desinged RC
frame buildings." Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 35, 1739-
1766.
86
Pampanin, S., Christopoulos, C., and Priestley, M. J. N. (2002). "Residual
Deformations in the Performance-Based Seismic Assessment of Frame
Structures." Rose School, Pavia.
Panagiotakos, T. B., and Fardis, M. N. (1996). "Seismic Response of Infilled R.C.
Frame Structures
" World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco.
Pender, M. J., Wotherspoon, L. M., and Ingham, J. M. "Approaches to design of
shallow foundations for low-rise framed structures." NZSEE, Taupo, New
Zealand.
Pender, M. J., Wotherspoon, L. M., and Ingham, J. M. "Shallow foundation stiffness:
continuous soil and discrete spring models compared." NZSEE, New Zealand.
Ramberg, W., and Osgood, W. R. (1943). "Description of Stress-Strain Curves by
Three Parameters." 902, National Bureau of Standards, Washington.
Richart, F., and Whiteman, R. (1967). "Comparison of Footing Vibration Tests with
Theory." American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, 93.
Roesset, J. M. (1980). "A review of soil-structure interaction, in Soil-Structure
Interaction: The Status of Current Analysis Methods and Research." U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Com, Washington DC,.
Ruiz-Garcia, J., and Miranda, E. (2006). "Residual displacement ratios for
assessment of existing structures." Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, 35, 315-336.
Shing, P. B., and Mehrabi, A. B. (2002). "Behaviour and Analysis of Masonry Infilled
Frames." Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials, 4, 320-331.
Society, J. (1998). Remedial Measures against Soil Liquefaction From investigsation
and design to implementation, Balkema.
Spieth, H. A., Pampanin, S., and Carr, A. J. (2008). "A multi-spring contact model for
the anlaysis of precast post-tensioned frame systems."
Stewart, J. P., Fenves, G. L., and Seed, R. B. (1999). "Seismic soil-structure
interaction in buildings. I: Analytical methods." Journal of Geotechnical &
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 125(1), 26-37.
Stewart, J. P., Kim, S., Bielak, J., Dobry, R., and Power, M. (2003). "Revisions to soil
structure interaction procedures in NEHRP design provisions." Earthquake
Spectra, 19, 677696.
Stewart, J. P., Seed, R. B., and Fenves, G. L. (1999). "Seismic soil-structure
interaction in buildings. II: Empirical findings." Journal of Geotechnical &
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 128, 3848.
Stokoe, K. H., Darendeli, M. B., Andrus, R. D., and Brown, L. T. (1999). "Dynamic
Soil properties: Laboratory, Field and correlation studies." Earthquake
Geotechnical Engineering, S. Pinto, ed., Balkema, Rotterdam.
Sugano, S. "State-of-the-art in techniques for rehabilitation of buildings." Eleventh
world conference on earthquake engineering.
Sun, J. I., Golesorkhi, R., Seed, H.B. (1988). "Dynamic moduli and damping ratios for
cohesive soils." EERC-88/15, Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
Berkeley.
Svano, G., Madshus, C., and Lango, H. "On the validity of nonlinear spring
idealization of soil structure interaction." European Conference on Structural
Dynamics, Trondheim.
87
Veletsos, A. S., and Nair, V. V. (1975). "Seismic interaction of structures on
hysteretic foundations." Journal of Structural Engineering - ASCE, 101(1),
109-129.
Veletsos, A. S., and Prasad, A. M. (1989). "Seismic interaction of structures and
soils: Stochastic approach." Journal of Structural Engineering - ASCE, 115,
935-956.
Veletsos, A. S., Prasad, A. M., and Wu, W. H. (1997). "Transfer functions for rigid
rectangular foundations." Journal of Earthquake Engineering & Structural
Dyanmics, 26, 5-17.
Veletsos, A. S., and Verbic, B. (1973). "Vibration of viscoelastic foundations." Journal
of Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dyanmics, 2, 87102.
Vucetic, M., Dobry, R. (1991). "Effect of Soil Plasticity on Cyclic Response." Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering, 117(1), 89-107.
Wolf, J. P. (1994). Foundation vibration analysis using simple physical models,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
Wotherspoon, L., Pender, M., and Ingham, J. "Combined Modelling of Structural and
Foundation Systems." 13th World conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
Zhao, X. (1989). "Seismic soil-structure interaction," Ph.D, University of Canterbury,
Christchurch.
Appendix A
A1

APPENDIX A
Pseudo-Acceleration spectrum of 10 ground motion record
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 1 2 3 4 5
S
a
(
g
)
EQ1
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 1 2 3 4 5
S
a
(
g
)
EQ2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 1 2 3 4 5
S
a
(
g
)
EQ3
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 1 2 3 4 5
S
a
(
g
)
EQ4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 1 2 3 4 5
S
a
(
g
)
EQ5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 1 2 3 4 5
S
a
(
g
)
EQ6
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 1 2 3 4 5
S
a
(
g
)
EQ7
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 1 2 3 4 5
S
a
(
g
)
EQ8
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 1 2 3 4 5
Period (s)
S
a
(
g
)
EQ9
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 1 2 3 4 5
Period (s)
S
a
(
g
)
EQ10

Dissertation2008 Arefi

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Dissertation2008 Arefi

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Effects of Soil-Structure Interaction on the Seismic

Response of Existing R.C. Frame Buildings

= Rotational foundation radius

= Reference shear strain

is obtained by the same assumption for moment of inertia of the

K the rocking stiffness of foundation and

Chapter 4. Effects of SSI on the Assessment of Existing RC Frame Structures

Anda mungkin juga menyukai