Bulletin of Earthquake Science and Engineering

Bulletin of Earthquake Science and Engineering

Evaluating the Effect of Uncertainty of Soil Parameters in the Modeling of Soil-Structure Interaction on the Collapse Responses of the Structure

Document Type : Research Article

Authors
Mansour Aghababaei 1
Esmaeel Izadi Zaman Abadi 2
Mohammad Amin Bayari 3
1 M.Sc. in Structural Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran
3 Ph.D. in Structural Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran
10.48303/bese.2023.563145.1099
Abstract
In current research, structure collapse of fourstore concrete bending frame on sand soil was considered with noting uncertainty of soil parameters. The structure was lumped using plastic hinge and soil and structure interaction was modeled using BNWF method. First, structure was reviewed with or without soil and structure interaction using nonlinear static analyses and incremental dynamic analyses (IDA). Then uncertainty of soil parameters in soil and structure interaction was considered. Cohesion, internal friction angle, unit weight, shear modulus, and soil Poisson ratio was noted with considering probable distribution and considering consistence between these as uncertainty of soil parameters. Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS) method and Choleski decomposition were used to manufacture and simulate dependent random variables and manufacture random variables. After manufacturing 26 structure samples for uncertainty of soil parameters, fragility curve in sample collapse level was compared with base fragility curve. 20 far-field records were used for incremental dynamic analyses and obtaining the fragility curve. Screening method was used to define participation percentage of uncertainty of soil parameters in collapse response and structure natural periods. Then, response surface method was used to predict structure response functions. At ultimate, the result presented that considering soil and structure interaction increases the natural periods of structure first mode. Noting the nonlinear static analyses, considering soil and structure interaction decreases the structure base hardness and shear and increases the roof relative displacement. All statistic percentiles of structure IDA curves are lower than fixed base mode with considering soil and structure interaction and present that soil and structure interaction causes structure to collapse in lower spectral acceleration. Comparison of fragility curve in two cases presented soil and structure interaction increases collapse probable. All fragility curves of samples manufactured in investigating uncertainty of soil parameters effect on structure collapse are higher than fragility curve of the case in which structure is modeled hinged at base. This presents that uncertainty of soil parameters increases structure collapse. Also, sample fragility curves are 10.2% and 8.6% greater than fixed base mode at probable collapse of statistic percentiles 16% and 84%. Comparing statistic features of 26 manufactured sample responses for uncertain soil parameters with the case in which structure is fixed at base presents that all manufactured samples presented an increase in structure first mode periodic time and maximum drift between stores and a decrease in structure collapse capacitance and structure collapse drift is more sensitive to soil parameter changes. After orienting structure responses in 26 manufactured samples for uncertainties based on incremental structure first mode periodic time, structure collapse drift increased, and structure capacitance decreased in an increase on structure periodic time. Soil shear modulus has the highest and soil cohesion has the lowest participation percentage of uncertainty of soil parameters in structure first mode periodic time. Soil internal friction angle and soil shear modulus have the lowest participation percentage of uncertainty of soil parameters in responding to structure collapse drift. Soil shear modulus has the largest and soil cohesion and soil Poisson ratio have the lowest participation percentage of uncertainty of soil parameters in structure collapse capacitance response.
Keywords
Soil Structure Interaction
Uncertainty of Soil
Fragility Curve
Latin Hypercube Sampling
Cholesky Decomposition

Subjects

Akhoondi, M.R., & Behnamfar, F. (2021). Seismic fragility curves of steel structures including soil-structure interaction and variation of soil parameters. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 143, 106-609.
Altoontash, A. (2004). Simulation and Damage Models for Performance Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints. Stanford university.
ATC, S. (1996). Evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings. vol. 1, ATC-40 report. Redwood City (CA): Applied Technology Council.
Bazzurro, P., & Cornell, C.A. (2004). Ground-motion amplification in nonlinear soil sites with uncertain properties. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 94(6), 2090-2109.
Boulanger, R.W., Curras, C.J., Kutter, B.L., Wilson, D.W., & Abghari, A. (1999). Seismic soil-pile-structure interaction experiments and analyses. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 125(9), 750-759.
Committee, A. (2019). ACI 318-19: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary. American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA.
Gajan, S., Hutchinson, T. C., Kutter, B. L., Raychowdhury, P., Ugalde, J. A., & Stewart, J. P. (2008). Numerical models for analysis and performance-based design of shallow foundations subjected to seismic loading. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center Berkeley.
Ghandil, M., & Behnamfar, F. (2017). Ductility demands of MRF structures on soft soils considering soil-structure interaction. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 92, 203-214.
Haghollahi, S., & Behnamfar, F. (2020). Performance Evaluation of Special RC Moment Frames against Collapse Considering Soil-Structure Interaction. International Journal of Geomechanics, 20(2), 04019176. https://doi.org/doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001553.
Harden, C.W. (2005). Numerical modeling of the nonlinear cyclic response of shallow foundations. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
Haselton, C.B. (2006). Assessing seismic collapse safety of modern reinforced concrete moment frame buildings Stanford University.
Ibarra, L.F. (2004). Global Collapse of Frame Structures under Seismic Excitations. Stanford University.
Katrangi, M., Memarpour, M.M., & Yakhchalian, M. (2021). Assessment of the Seismic Performance and the Base Shear Contribution Ratios of the RC Wall-frame Dual System Considering Soil–Structure Interaction. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2021.1871678.
Kiureghian, A.D., & Ditlevsen, O. (2009). Aleatory or epistemic? Does it matter? Structural Safety, 31(2), 105-112.
McKenna, F., Fenves, G.L., & Scott, M.H. (2000). Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation. University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Mekki, M., Elachachi, S., Breysse, D., & Zoutat, M. (2016). Seismic behavior of RC structures including soil-structure interaction and soil variability effects. Engineering Structures, 126, 15-26.
Myers, R.H., Montgomery, D.C., & Anderson-Cook, C.M. (2016). Response surface methodology: process and product optimization using designed experiments. John Wiley & Sons.
Panagiotakos, T.B., & Fardis, M.N. (2001). Deformations of reinforced concrete members at yielding and ultimate. Structural Journal, 98(2), 135-148.
Prestandard, F. (2000). Commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings (FEMA356). Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 7(2).
Rajeev, P., & Tesfamariam, S. (2012). Seismic fragilities of non-ductile reinforced concrete frames with consideration of soil structure interaction. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 40, 78-86.
Rankine, W.J.M. (1857). II. On the stability of loose earth. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London (147), 9-27.
Raychowdhury, P. (2008). Nonlinear Winkler-based shallow foundation model for performance assessment of seismically loaded structures. University of California, San Diego.
Raychowdhury, P. (2009). Effect of soil parameter uncertainty on seismic demand of low-rise steel buildings on dense silty sand. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 29(10), 1367-1378.
Raychowdhury, P., & Jindal, S. (2014). Shallow foundation response variability due to soil and model parameter uncertainty. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 8(3), 237-251.
Shirzadi, M., Behnamfar, F., & Asadi, P. (2020). Effects of soil–structure interaction on inelastic response of torsionally-coupled structures. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 18(4), 1213-1243.
Tang, Y., & Zhang, J. (2011). Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of a slender RC shear wall considering soil–structure interaction effects. Engineering Structures, 33(1), 218-229.
Tung, Y.-K., & Yen, B.-C. (2005). Hydrosystems engineering Uncertainty Analysis.
Tung, Y.-K., Yen, B.C., & Melching, C.S. (2006). Hydrosystems engineering reliability assessment and risk analysis.
Vamvatsikos, D. (2011). Performing incremental dynamic analysis in parallel. Computers & structures, 89(1-2), 170-180.
Vamvatsikos, D., & Cornell, C.A. (2002). The incremental dynamic analysis and its application to performance-based earthquake engineering. Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering.
Venture, S.J., & Committee, G.D. (2000). Recommended seismic design criteria for new steel moment-frame buildings (Vol. 350). Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, DC, USA.

  • Receive Date 08 October 2022
  • Revise Date 05 August 2023
  • Accept Date 02 September 2023