Soil Structure

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
Volume 2, No 2, 2011

Copyright 2010 All rights reserved Integrated Publishing services
Research article ISSN 0976 4399

Received on September, 2011 Published on November 2011 544
Seismic soil-structure interaction of buildings on hill slopes
Pandey A.D
1
, Prabhat Kumar
2
, Sharad Sharma
3

1- Assistant Professor, Department of Earthquake Engineering, IIT Roorkee, Roorkee,
Uttarakhand, India, 247667
2- Ph.D Student, Research Scholar, Department of Earthquake Engineering, IIT Roorkee,
Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India, 247667
3- Post-Graduate Student, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Roorkee, Roorkee,
Uttarakhand, India, 247667
prabhatkumariitr@gmail.com
doi:10.6088/ijcser.00202010132

ABSTRACT
In hilly regions, engineered construction is constrained by local topography resulting in the
adoption of either a step-back or step-back-set-back configuration as a structural form for
buildings. The adopted form invariably results in a structure which is irregular by virtue of
varying column heights leading to torsion and increased shear during seismic ground motion.
To capture the real behavior of buildings on hill slope a 3-D analysis of the building is
required. In the present study, static pushover analysis and Response spectrum analysis
(RSA) have been conducted on five building i.e. three step back buildings and two step back-
set back buildings with varying support conditions. These buildings have been analyzed for
different soil conditions (hard, medium and soft soils) idealized by equivalent springs. The
response parameters, i.e. total base shear (V), displacement from pushover analysis (
performance point
), displacement from RSA (
elastic
) and response correction factor (R) have
been studied with respect to fixed base analysis to compare the effect of soil springs. In
general it is found that response reduction factor decreases with increasing time period, but is
expected to be constant beyond a certain value of time period.

Keywords: Soil-Structure Interaction, Unsymmetrical Buildings, Response-Spectrum
Analysis, Pushover Analysis, Performance Point, Reduction Factor.

1. Introduction
The scarcity of plain ground in hilly areas compels construction activity on sloping ground
resulting in various important buildings such as reinforced concrete framed hospitals,
colleges, hotels and offices resting on hilly slopes. Since, the behavior of buildings during
earthquake depends upon the distribution of mass and stiffness in both horizontal and vertical
planes of the buildings, both of which vary in case of hilly buildings with irregularity and
asymmetry due to step-back and step back-set back configuration (Kumar and Paul, 1996).
The presence of such constructions in seismically prone areas makes them exposed to greater
shears and torsion as compared to conventional construction. In order to highlight the
differences in behavior, which may further be influenced by the characteristics of the locally
available foundation material, a parametric study has been conducted on five different step-
back and step back-set back buildings. Current building codes including IS: 1893 (Part 1):
2002 suggest detailed dynamic analysis of these types of buildings on different soil (hard,
medium and soft soil) types. To assess acceptability of the design it is important to predict the
force and deformation demands imposed on structures and their elements by severe ground
motion by means of static pushover analysis.

Pandey A.D, Prabhat Kumar, Sharad Sharma

International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering
Volume 2 Issue 2 2011
545
2. Modeling and Analysis
The five different buildings are analyzed in SAP2000 as shown in Figure 1 and 2. The slope
of the ground has been taken as 27

degree with horizontal which is neither too steep nor too
flat. The properties of the considered building configurations in the present study are
summarized below (Birajdar, 2004).

Height of each floor: 3.5 m
Plan dimension of each storey block: 75m
Floor thickness: 0.15 m
Wall thickness: 230 mm
Parapet wall thickness: 230 mm
Density of concrete: 25 KN/m
2
Poissons Ratio: 0.2
Damping: 0.05
Size of column: 230mm500mm
Size of beams: 230mm500mm
Size of isolate footing taken: 1 m 1 m

The structural material is assumed to be isotropic and homogenous. Joint between the
building elements (beam and columns) has been modelled by using diaphragm as constraints.
The non-linear static pushover analysis and dynamic analysis (Response Spectrum Analysis)
has been carried out for rigid base (fixed base) and flexible base conditions. The foundation
(base) flexibility in the analysis is considered by means of replacing the foundation by
statically equivalent springs with six degrees of freedom.


546

c) 4storey-4bay

Figure 1: Step back buildings (a, b, c) with increased number of storey and bays in Y-
direction

Figure 2: Step back-Set back buildings (d, e) with increased number of storey and bays in Y-
direction

2.1 Response Spectrum Analysis (Dynamic Analysis)
The dynamic analysis of structures is carried out by two methods, Response Spectrum
Method and Time History Method. The Response Spectrum Method consists of determining
the response in each mode of vibration and then superimposing the responses in various
modes to obtain the total response. The seismic analysis of all buildings was carried out by
Response Spectrum Method in accordance with IS: 1893 (Part 1): 2002, including the effect
of eccentricity (static and accidental). Damping considered for all modes of vibration was
five percent. For determining the response of the buildings in different directions for ground
acceleration the response spectrum analysis was conducted in longitudinal and transverse
direction. The other parameters used in seismic analysis were, moderate seismic zone (III),

547
zone factor 0.16, importance factor 1 and the response reduction factor as 3. Ordinary
moment resistant frame for all configurations was assumed.

2.2 Pushover Analysis
The Nonlinear static pushover analysis is a relatively simple solution to the problem of
predicting force and deformation demands imposed on structures and their elements by
severe ground motion. Nonlinear static methods involve three distinct phases: estimation of
capacity, estimation of demand and correlating the two to decide the performance of the
buildings. The non-linear static pushover analysis is a comprehensive method of evaluating
earthquake response of structures explicitly considering non-linear behavior of structural
elements. The capacity spectrum method is adopted for implementing pushover analysis that
compares structural capacity with ground shaking demand to determine peak response during
an earthquake. The capacity spectrum method estimates peak responses by expressing both
structural capacity and ground shaking demand in terms of spectral acceleration and
displacement. The capacity spectrum method assumes peak response of the non-linear
structure to be equal to the modal displacement of an equivalent elastic system with an
effective period, T
eff
based on secant stiffness. The intersection of capacity curve and demand
curve established the performance point. Under incrementally increasing loads some
elements may yield sequentially. Consequently, at each event, the structures experiences a
stiffness change as shown in Figure 3, where IO, LS and CP stand for immediate occupancy,
life safety and collapse prevention respectively.

Figure 3: Load-Deformation Curve

3. Foundation Characteristics
Dynamic analysis of the structure and its interaction with the material (foundation soil) under
the structure affects the response of structure. The interaction between foundation and soil
depends on the elastic properties of foundation soil and foundation dimensions. The
foundation flexibility in the analysis is considered by means of replacing the foundation by
statically equivalent springs. Modeling of foundation soil has been done by using spring
constants as shown below, according to the equations given by Wolf (1985).


548
Spring constant Equivalent radius
32(1-)GRo
(7-8)
Kx Ky

Af
Ro
Eq. 3.1
4GRo
(1-)
Kz

Af
Ro
Eq. 3.2
3
8GRo
3(1- )
KRx

4
4Iyf
Ro
Eq. 3.3
3
8GRo
3(1- )
KRy

4
4Ixf
Ro
Eq.3.4

3
16GRo
3
KRz

4
2( ) Iyf Ixf
Ro
Eq.3.5

Where, G is shear modulus of soil, is the Poissons ratio of soil and Ro is the equivalent
radius; Af is the area of the footing and Ixf and Iyf are moments of inertia of the footing
about X and Y axis, respectively. The values of Poissons ratio () and shear modulus (G) for
three different kinds of soil, hard, medium and soft are taken from Prakash and Barken
(Verma, 1989). The elastic properties of foundation soil for hard, medium and soft soil are
tabulated in Table 1 and the numerical values of spring constants for different type of
foundation soil for isolated footing are summarized in Table 2.

Table 1 Elastic Properties of Foundation Soil

Type of soil
Shear Modulus
G (KN/m
2
)
Elastic Modulus
E (KN/m
2
)
Poissons Ratio

HARD 2700.0 6750.0 0.25
MEDIUM 451.1 1200.0 0.33
SOFT 84.5 250.0 0.48

Table 2: Spring Constants for Isolated Footing

Type of
soil
K
x

(KN/m)
K
y

(KN/m)
K
z

(KN/m)
K
Rx
(KN/rad)
K
Ry

(KN/rad)
K
Rz

(KN/rad)
HARD 7309.4 7309.4 8121.6 1777.8 1777.8 2666.7
MEDIUM 1251.1 1251.1 1518.9 334.1 334.1 444.5
SOFT 251.0 251.0 366.6 80.3 80.3 83.5

4. Result and Discussion

In SAP 2000, a non-linear behaviour is assumed to occur within frame elements at
concentrated points or plastic-hinges. The default types include an uncoupled moment hinges,
an uncoupled axial hinge, an uncoupled shear hinge and a coupled axial force and biaxial
bending moment hinge, as PMM, PM and M. The default hinge properties designated are
typically based on FEMA-273/356 or ACT-40 criteria, these default properties are section
dependent. Default PMM hinges to each end of the moment frame columns and default M3
hinges to each end of the moment frame beams were assigned as described in ATC-40 for

549
pushover analysis. The development of the pushover curve includes the evaluation of force
distribution along the height of the structure. In the static pushover analysis, load cases were
defined for the gravity load and other two cases are defined for the lateral load distribution in
X and Y direction. The load application is defined to be displacement control while defining
the load cases for the pushover analysis. In the present analysis the formation of hinges in the
buildings shows almost similar pattern for different types of foundation media. In X-
direction, the hinge formation starts with beams from the end of shortest column frame. In the
beginning of the hinge formation, first few hinges are developed in the shortest columns in Y-
direction. The formation of hinges started from the shortest columns and then reached to the
last longest frame. The hinges in the shortest columns exhibit rotations corresponding to
immediate occupancy level and essentially reaching the collapse prevention level for all the
types of support condition. Sometimes the hinges in these columns reached the collapse
prevention level directly after the immediate occupancy level and jumping the life safety
zone. The data obtained from pushover analysis is tabulated in Table 3 and Table 4. The
sequence of formation and hinge patterns of step-back and set back-step back buildings are
shown in Figure 4, 5, 6 and 7.

Figure 4: Sequence of formation and Hinge patterns of frame A, B, C, D and E
(Step-Back Building-4-Storey-4-Bay)


550

Figure 5: Sequence of formation and Hinge patterns of shortest column frame e
(Step-Back Building-4-Storey-4-Bay)

Figure 6: Sequence of formation and Hinge patterns of frame A, B, C, D and E
(Set-Back-Step-Back Building-4-Storey-4-Bay)


551

Figure 7: Sequence of formation and Hinge patterns of shortest column frame e
(Set-Back-Step-Back Building-4-Storey-4-Bay)

Table 3: Results of Pushover analysis for Step Back Buildings
Building
configuration
Values of V
PP
&
PP

(KN & mm)
Fixed
Support
Soil-Structure Interaction
Hard Soil Medium Soil Soft Soil
2 storey-
2Bay
Vx 961.70 689.30 428.60 174.09
Vy 528.30 388.80 * 215.00
x 15.00 52.00 129.00 211.00
y 28.00 60.00 * 388.00
3 Storey-
3Bay
Vx 2225.70 1453.20 916.90 *
Vy 1032.80 * 565.10 *
x 17.00 64.00 181.00 *
y 35.00 * 137.00 *
4Storey-
4Bay
Vx 2673.40 1860.14 1101.30 *
Vy 1312.30 1101.50 777.10 *
x 28.00 96.00 258.00 *
y 49.00 97.00 165.00 *

Table 4: Results of Pushover Analysis for Step Back-Set Back Buildings

Building
configuration
Values of V
PP
&
PP

(KN & mm)
Fixed
Support
Soil-Structure Interaction
Hard Soil Medium Soil Soft Soil
3 Storey-
3Bay
Vx 2035.80 1471.80 797.85 *
Vy 1094.00 830.00 * *
x 15.00 61.00 154.00 *
y 28.00 62.00 * *
4Storey-
4Bay
Vx 3988.40 2654.00 1600.20 *
Vy 1746.00 1398.00 * *
x 18.00 75.00 204.00 *
y 34.00 76.00 * *
(pp)- Performance Point, V is the total base shear, is the displacement, *Result not available.


552
The above two tables clearly show that the total base shear in X-direction for all the
considered building models were higher than the base shear in Y-direction except for soft soil
for which sufficient amount of results have not emerged. Further the displacements in X-
direction were less than the displacements in Y-direction. Since, the buildings in X-direction
are stiffer, hence they showed lesser displacements and attracts greater shear forces especially
in the shorter columns, while in Y-direction the buildings are less stiff due to which higher
displacements and less shear forces were obtained. The results exhibit the typical expected
behavior for soil-structure interaction. As the foundation moves from the fixed support to
hard soil, medium soil then soft soil support, the shear forces go on decreasing in both X and
Y direction, while the displacement goes on increasing.

The displacements from pushover analysis (
performance point
(
pp
)) and response spectrum
analysis (
elastic
) have been tabulated in Table 5 and 6 for Step-back and Step back-Set back
buildings. The tables clearly shows that for Step Back-Set Back buildings the value of
displacement at the performance point,
pp
is always greater than
elastic
, i.e., (
pp
/
elastic
>
1) in both X and Y direction for all type of support. While in Step back buildings this ratio is
valid perfectly in X-direction but for Y-direction this relation is valid up to only two storey
and two bay for hard soil support after that this ratio becomes less than one. The correction
factor R has been calculated by dividing the displacement at performance point (inelastic
displacement) by the elastic displacement multiplying by the response reduction factor R
whose value is 3 for Ordinary moment-resisting frame (OMRF) as per IS 1893: 2002.

R'= (
pp
/ R*
elastic
)

The relationship between T and R has been shown in Figures 8, 9, 10 and 11.

Table 5: Displacements from pushover analysis and response spectrum analysis
(step-back buildings)
S
u
p
p
o
r
t

Building
configuration

elastic
(mm)

pp
(mm)
'= R*
elastic

(mm)
R'=(
pp
/')
X-dir Y-dir X-dir Y-dir X-dir. Y-dir X-dir Y-dir
F
i
x
e
d

b
a
s
e

2Storey-2bay 4.56 3.36 15 28 13.68 10.98 1.10 2.56
3Storey-3bay 5.26 20.26 17 35 15.78 60.78 1.08 0.59
4Storey-4bay 14.20 35.18 28 49 42.60 105.54 0.66 0.47
H
a
r
d

s
o
i
l

2Storey-2bay 18.58 41.41 52 60 55.74 124.23 0.93 0.48
3Storey-3bay 24.14 67.71 * 64 72.42 203.13 * 0.32
4Storey-4bay 46.58 104.10 96 97 139.74 312.30 0.69 0.30
M
e
d
i
u
m

s
o
i
l

2Storey-2bay 72.15 130.84 129 * 216.45 392.40 0.60 *
3Storey-3bay 81.80 162.80 181 137 245.40 488.40 0.74 0.28
4Storey-4bay 147.9 237.80 258 165 443.70 711 0.58 0.23
S
o
f
t

s
o
i
l

2Storey-2bay 253.5 411.02 211 388 760.5 1233.0 0.28 0.315
3Storey-3bay 334.0 627.76 * * * * * *
4Storey-4bay 610.1 891.82 * * * * * *
*Result not available, (pp) - performance point,
elastic
is the displacement in response
spectrum analysis, R is the response reduction factor


553
Table 6: Displacements from pushover analysis and response spectrum analysis
(step back-set back buildings)
S
u
p
p
o
r
t

Building
configuration

elastic
(mm)

pp
(mm)
'= R*
elastic

(mm)
R'=( pp/')
X-dir Y-dir X-dir Y-dir X-dir Y-dir X-dir Y-dir
F
i
x
e
d

b
a
s
e

3Storey-3bay 4.86 14.81 15 28 14.58 44.43 1.03 0.63
4Storey-4bay 5.37 19.39 18 34 16.11 58.17 1.12 0.59
H
a
r
d

s
o
i
l

3Storey-3bay 20.69 42.39 61 62 62.07 127.17 1.00 0.49
4Storey-4bay 25.77 65.35 75 76 77.31 196.05 0.97 0.4
M
e
d
i
u
m

s
o
i
l

3Storey-3bay 69.20 111.1 154 * 207.6 333.30 0.75 *
4Storey-4bay 89.00 159.8 204 * 267.0 479.40 0.77 *
S
o
f
t

s
o
i
l

3Storey-3bay 284.1 417.3 * * 852.3 * * *
4Storey-4bay 396.2 602.7 * * 1188 * * *
*Result not available, (pp) - performance point,
elastic
is the displacement in response
spectrum analysis, R is the response reduction factor

For the adopted building configuration, as the value of time period T increase the value of
correction factor R decreases. In the present study due to availability of limited data, the
extrapolation of correction factor R beyond the range of T shown on plot is quite difficult.
Consistency in general trend of decreasing value of R with the increasing value of T has
been noted. Pushover analysis for type of irregularity considered requires modification. The
correction is considered on the basis of the observation of relation between elastic and
inelastic displacement for regular symmetric frame for which the value of correction factor is
0.7. Due to irregularity, it is expected that this value will decrease for irregular frame which
is confirmed by the variation in Figure 8 to 11.

Figure 8: Plot between T and R Step back building in X-direction

554

Figure 9: Plot between T and R Step back building in Y-direction

Figure 10: Plot between T and R Step back-Set back building in X-direction

Figure 11: Plot between T and R Step back-Set back building in Y-direction


555
5. Conclusions
In Step back-Set back buildings, the value of the displacement at performance point,
pp
is
always greater than elastic displacement for all types of support. However, in Step back
buildings this is valid perfectly in X-direction but for Y-direction this is valid up to only two
storeys and two bays for hard soil. For the adopted building configurations, as the value of
time period T increase the value of correction factor R decreases. Pushover analysis for type
of irregularity considered requires modification.

6. Acknowledgements
The authors are indebted to Head, Department of Earthquake Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology, Roorkee for providing facilities to carry out the research work reported in this
paper work. The second author acknowledges with thanks the research fellowship received
from the Ministry of Human Resource Development (Government of India) to allow perusing
the Ph.D.

References

1. ATC 40, (1996), Seismic evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, Volume1.
2. Birajdar, B.G, and S.S. Nalawade, (2004), Seismic Analysis of Buildings Resting on
Sloping Ground, Proceedings of 13
th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Vancouver, B.C., Canada, Paper no. 1472.
3. Verma, R.K., (1989), Earthquake Response Spectrum Analysis of Buildings on Hill
Slopes, M.E Dissertation, Department of Earthquake Engineering, University of Roorkee.
4. IS: 1893 (Part 1): 2002, Criteria of Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Fifth
Revision, BIS New Delhi.
5. Barros, R. C, and R. Almeida, (2005), Pushover analysis of asymmetric three dimensional
building frames, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 11 (1) , pp 3-12.
6. Kumar, S, (1996), Seismic Analysis of Step-back and Set-back Buildings, PhD Thesis,
University of Roorkee, India.
7. Pachuau, L.Z., (1992), Seismic Response of RC Framed Building on Hill-Slopes, M.E
Dissertation, Department of Earthquake Engineering, University of Roorkee.
8. Dutta, S.C., K. Bhattacharya, and R. Roy, (2004), Response of Low Rise Buildings under
Seismic Ground Excitation Incorporating Soil-Structure Interaction, Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, 24 (12), pp 893-914.
9. Wolf, J. P, (1985), Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey.

Soil Structure

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Soil Structure

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Você também pode gostar