Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239357967
CITATIONS
READS
41
157
2 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
M.Hesahm El Naggar
The University of Western Ontarioprofessor a
209 PUBLICATIONS 1,579 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Abstract
Analytical equations for the moment rotation response of a rigid foundation on a Winkler soil model are presented. An equation is derived
for the uplift-yield condition and is combined with equations for uplift- and yield-only conditions to enable the definition of the entire static
moment rotation response. The results obtained from the developed model show that the inverse of the factor of safety, x; has a significant
effect on the moment rotation curve. The value of x 0:5 not only determines whether uplift or yield occurs first but also defines the
condition of the maximum moment rotation response of the footing. A Winkler model is developed based on the derived equations and is
used to analyze the TRISEE experiments. The computed moment rotation response agrees well with the experimental results when the
subgrade modulus is estimated using the unload reload stiffness from static plate load deformation tests. A comparison with the
recommended NEHRP guidelines based on the FEMA 273/274 documents shows that the choice of value of the effective shear modulus
significantly affected the comparison.
q 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Subgrade modulus; Foundation uplift; Soil yield; Momentrotation; Unloadreload stiffness; Winkler model; Bearing capacity; Backbone curve;
Seismic
1. Introduction
The foundation rocking behavior could greatly contribute to the response of the supported structure to seismic
loading, and in some cases it may become the governing
factor when choosing a retrofitting scheme [1]. In the past,
seismic provisions in most codes accounted approximately
for the effects of foundation behavior on the structural
response (usually referred to as soil structure interaction
(SSI) effects) by adjusting the fundamental period and
damping ratio of the structure. The implementation of the
performance-based seismic design approach requires simple
and efficient cyclic load deformation models for different
structural elements [2]. Thus, the simplified approaches
used in older codes to model SSI effects are not appropriate,
and it is necessary to develop foundation models that can
capture the most important characteristics of the foundation
cyclic load deformation behavior. Therefore, new seismic
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 1-519-661-4219; fax: 1-519-661-3942.
E-mail address: naggar@uwo.ca (M. H. El Naggar).
0267-7261/03/$ - see front matter q 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0267-7261(03)00034-4
368
has been extended to dynamic SSI applications by introducing the Beam-on-Nonlinear Winkler Foundation (BNWF)
models [9]. Filiatrault et al. [10] and Chaallal and Ghlamallah
[11] have used Winkler models to account for foundation
flexibility in their numerical analyses to study the effects of
SSI on both the linear and nonlinear responses of various
structures. A schematic for a rigid foundation on a Winkler
soil is shown in Fig. 1.
Bartlett [12] introduced a Winkler approach to model the
cyclic response of footings on clay. It was noted from the
results that foundation uplift occurs before soil yielding
when the static factor of safety (FS) is , 2. However, he
studied the response using a numerical approach and did not
provide any general equations to predict the response under
different footing conditions. The FEMA 273/274 guidelines
[3] for modeling foundations are based mainly on results of
Bartlett [12], which are depicted schematically in Fig. 2.
The figure shows the moment expressions for the two
extreme conditions for the soil underneath the foundation:
the ideal condition of an uplifted rigid footing supported on
elastic soil at only one corner; and the condition in which the
uplifted footing is supported by a fully developed plastic
block as a result of soil yielding. The moment expressions
corresponding to these two extreme conditions are easily
estimated from simple statics.
The backbone curve of the pseudo-static cyclic moment
rotation response forms an important part of the cyclic
response of a footing, and thus, has to be accurately modeled
when analyzing the seismic response of the supported
structure. Analytical solutions for the moment rotation
response of foundations are difficult to derive because of the
complex nonlinear foundation behavior. Therefore, either a
numerical technique is used for the analysis or simplifying
assumptions are introduced. Siddharthan et al. [13] presented
d0 d1x d2x
1a
369
This is
qx qp 2 k v u x 2
B
2
1b
k v B3 u
12
PB
6
and
u2l
2P
k v B2
M2u
B2
q 2 qp
6 u
and
u2u
2
q 2 qp
kv B u
4a
2qu
2P
2
k v B k v B2
4b
qu B2 PB
2
6
6
and
u2u
6a
370
6b
2P2
3qu
u3l
and
q2u
2Pkv
PB
2P2
2
2
3qu
10b
11
and
q2u B
12kv M2u
M3u
9b
24M2u
M3u M2u 3 2
q u B2
13a
u3u
9a
371
12
14
15a
qx qu kv uBj 2 x
15b
16
k v u B2
1 2 h j2
2
17a
q u B2
k u B3
1 2 h j2 21 2 2h 4j
jj 2 1 v
2
12
17b
Eq. (12) shows that similar to the initial uplift condition, the
moment is inversely proportional to the square root of the
rotation. Assuming that progressive soil yield without
footing uplift continues until the ultimate condition is
reached (i.e. footing failure at which j 1), from Eq. (11),
M 3M2u : However, uplift would generally occur before
the condition of j 1 is reached. The onset of footing uplift
after initiation of soil yield can be obtained from Eqs. (10a),
13b
"
or
5PB
2P2
q B2
2
2 u
6
3qu
6
PB
P2
q3u
2
2
2
2qu
24kv u2
18
u!1
PB
P2
2
2
2qu
19
372
kv B
qu
20a
P
qu B
20b
MqB
M
qu B2
20c
For x # 12
8
cu
>
>
>
>
12
>
>
>
s!
>
< x
2x
MqB
322
>
cu
6
>
>
>
>
>
>1
1
>
: x 2 x2 2
2
24c2 u2
0#u#
2x
c
2x
1
#u#
c
2cx
u$
21a
1
2cx
and for x # 12
8
cu
212 x
>
>
0#u#
>
>
12
c
>
>
>
s!
>
< 12 x
212 x 212 x
1
MqB
322
#u#
>
6
2c12 x
cu
c
>
>
>
>
>
>
1
1
1
>
:
x 2 x2 2
u$
2
2
2
2c12 x
24c u
21b
Eqs. (21a) and (21b) show that the normalized moment,
MqB ; is a function of only c and x: Figs. 4 and 5 show
the moment rotation response curves for a range of values of
c and x:
Fig. 4 shows the moment rotation curves for x 0:2;
and a range of practical values of c (50 1200). Small
values of c (Fig. 4a) represent foundations supported on
strong soils such as stiff clays and dense sand, where the
soil strength is high compared to its stiffness. Such
foundations will usually have a small width. On the other
hand, large values of c (Fig. 4b) represent foundations of
Fig. 4. Computed momentrotation curves for x 0.2: (a) for small c; (b) large c:
373
374
375
Fig. 7. Loaddeformation results from TRISEE experiments: (a) for HD tests; (b) for LD tests.
376
Soil nonlinearity and creep effects significantly influence the initial stiffness. For example, the experimental
results for the LD specimen showed that the creep
settlement accounted for about 40% of the observed
settlement [18]. The comparison in Fig. 8 of moment
rotation curves (rocking stiffness) calculated using different subgrade moduli with the experimentally determined
curve shows that rocking stiffness is grossly underestimated when the secant subgrade modulus is used in
the calculations. This result shows that care and judgment
are required to select an appropriate subgrade modulus.
2:17 2 e2 0
sm 0:53p0:47
a
1e
22
377
Table 1
Variation of G0 with depth for different assumptions of the mean effective
pressure, sm
Depth G0 overburden applied stress G0 overburden only Difference
(m)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(%)
HD test
0.5
91.0
1
71.5
2.5
55.0
26.0
30.5
41.5
71
57
25
LD test
0.5
43.0
1
37.0
2.5
35.0
20.0
23.0
31.0
53
38
11
378
Table 2
Computed foundation stiffnesses based on the different assumptions for G
HD test
G; taken as equal to
G0 (MPa)
G; from unloadreload
stiffness (MPa)
G; from Phase I experimental
M 2 u stiffness (MPa)a
G; from guideline G reduction
factors (MPa)
Winkler-based on unload
reload stiffness
LD test
G; taken as equal to
G0 (MPa)
G; from unloadreload
stiffness (MPa)
G; from Phase I experimental
M 2 u stiffness (MPa)a
G; from guideline G reduction
factors (MPa)
Winkler-based on unload
reload stiffness
a
b
Uncoupled rocking
stiffness (MN/m)
Uncoupled vertical
stiffness (MN/m)
22.0
252.0
270.0
252.0
16.0
176.0
190.0
176.0
40
627.0
480.0
627.0
101.0
100.0
101.0
23.3
280.0b
10.5
129.5
125.0
129.5
7.0
90.5
88.0
90.5
251.0
192.0
251.0
52.0
50.0
52.0
9.0
16
4.05
8.3
100.0b
379
Fig. 10. Comparison of code bilinear approximation and computed curves based on the rocking and vertical stiffnesses with experimental curves.
380
8. Conclusions
The moment rotation response of rigid spread footings
has been investigated. A solution for the uplift-yield
foundation condition has been derived. The developed
solution, along with the solutions for uplift- and yield-only
conditions enables the full definition of the entire static
moment rotation response. The developed model was used
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by financial support from
the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction at the
University of Western Ontario to the senior author and a
graduate scholarship to the first author from the National
Science and Engineering Research Center (NSERC). The
authors would also like to thank Dr P. Negro of the
European Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA) for
making available the test results of the TRISEE
experiments.
References
[1] Comartin CD, Keaton JR, Grant PW, Martin GR, Power MS.
Transitions in seismic analysis and design procedures for buildings
and their foundations. Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop on the
Improvement of Structural Design and Construction Practice in the
US and Japan, Applied Technology Council Report, ATC 15-5,
Victoria, BC; 1996.
[2] Ghobarah A. Performance-based design in earthquake engineering:
state of development. Engng Struct 2001;23(8):87884.
[3] Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC). FEMA 273/274, NEHRP
guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings; Iguidelines,
IIcommentary, Washington, DC; 1997.
[4] Applied Technology Council, The seismic evaluation and retrofit of
concrete buildings. ATC 40, Vols. I and II. Palo Alto, CA: Redwood;
1996.
[5] Meek JW. Dynamic response of tipping core buildings. Earthquake
Engng Struct Dyn 1978;6(4):4534.
[6] Karabalis DL, Beskos DE. Dynamic response of 3-D rigid surface
foundations by time domain boundary element method. Earthquake
Engng Struct Dyn 1984;12(1):7393.
381
[23] Ismael NF. Allowable pressure from loading tests on Kuwaiti soils.
Can Geotech J 1985;22(2):1517.
[24] Puzrin AM, Shiran A. Effects of constitutive relationship on seismic
response of soils. Part I. Constitutive modeling of cyclic behavior of
soils. Soil Dyn Earthquake Engng 2000;19(5):30518.
[25] Bolton MD, Wilson JMR. Discussion: an experimental and theoretical
comparison between static and dynamic torsional soil tests.
Geotechnique 1990;40(4):662 4.
[26] Lo Priesti DCF, Pallara O, Cavallaro A, Maugeri M. Nonlinear
stressstrain relations of soils for cyclic loading. Proceedings of XI
European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paris; 1998.
Amsterdam: Balkema (Abstract volume CD-ROM, 187).
[27] Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC). FEMA 302/303, NEHRP
recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings
and other structures; Iguidelines, IIcommentary, Washington,
DC; 1997.
[28] Gazetas G. Foundation vibrations. In: Fang HY, editor. Foundation
engineering handbook. New York: Van Nostrand, Reinhold; 1991. p.
55393.
[29] Vesic AS. Bearing capacity of shallow foundations. In: Winterkorn
HF, Fang HY, editors. Foundation engineering handbook. New York:
Van Nostrand, Reinhold; 1975. p. 12147.
[30] Hoque E, Tatsuoka F, Sato T, Kohata Y. Inherent and stress-induced
anisotropy in small strain stiffness of granular materials. Proceedings
of the First International Conference of Earthquake Geotechnical
Engineering, Tokyo, Japan, vol. 1; 1995. p. 277 82.
[31] Lo Presti DCF, Pallara O, Lancellota R, Armandi M, Maniscalco R.
Monotonic and cyclic loading behavior of two sands at small-strains.
Geotech Test J 1993;16(4):40924.
[32] Shibuya S, Tatsuoka F, Teachavorasinskun S, Kong XJ, Abe F, Kim
YS, Park CS. Elastic deformation properties of geomaterials. Soil
Found 1992;32(3):2646.
[33] Tatsuoka F, Teachavoransinskun S, Park CS. Discussion: An
experimental and theoretical comparison between static and dynamic
torsional soil tests. Geotechnique 1990;40(4):65962.
[34] Alarcon-Guzman A, Chameau JL, Leonards GA, Frost JD. Shear
modulus and cyclic undrained behavior of sands. Soil Found 1989;
29(4):105 19.
[35] Elsabee F, Morray JP. Dynamic behavior of embedded foundations.
Report No. R77-33, Massachusetts: Department of Civil Engineering,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 1977.
[36] Roesset JM. A review of soilstructure interaction. In: Johnson JJ,
editor. Soil structure interaction: the status of current analysis
methods and research. Report No. NUREG/CR-1780, Washington,
DC: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 1980.
[37] Stewart JP, Kim S. Empirical verification of soilstructure interaction
provisions in building codes. Dakoulas P, Yegian M, Holtz RD,
editors. Geotechnical Special Publication No. 75 1998;125969.