Professional Documents
Culture Documents
To cite this article: M. Moghaddasi , J. G. Chase , M. Cubrinovski , S. Pampanin & A. Carr (2012)
Sensitivity Analysis for Soil-Structure Interaction Phenomenon Using Stochastic Approach, Journal of
Earthquake Engineering, 16:7, 1055-1075, DOI: 10.1080/13632469.2012.677570
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2012.677570
1. Introduction
It has been clearly demonstrated in the accompanying article [Moghaddasi et al., 2012] that
the structural response of a soil-structure system to seismic forces is strongly affected by the
impact of uncertainty in soil and structural parameters accompanied with the inherent randomness of the ground motion. For the single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) model assumed,
it has also been shown that soil-structure interaction (SSI) effects cannot be always safely
ignored, given the likelihood of having amplification in the structural response due to foundation flexibility. Thus, at least for critical scenarios, SSI effects have to be taken into
account in the seismic design procedure.
However, significant complexities and variation in the structural response make the
identification of the critical scenarios a challenging task. A considerable step towards
identification of these critical scenarios is to: (1) define the correlation between different parameters and the observed variation in response modification factors; and (2) to
comprehensively characterize and quantify the scenarios causing either reduction or amplification in the structural response. Thus, those scenarios causing the greatest likelihood of
exceeding demand can be more precisely defined.
1055
1056
M. Moghaddasi et al.
In this context, Veletsos and Nair [1975] and Bielak [1975] showed that the difference
between seismically induced linear response of a fixed-base and a flexible-base system is
strongly affected by structural aspect ratio, soil Poisons ratio, soil hysteretic damping ratio,
a dimensionless parameter expressing the relative stiffness of foundation and structure,
and a dimensionless parameter representing soil-to-structure mass. Following this study, a
more comprehensive investigation was carried out by Ciampoli and Pinto [1995]. They concluded that structural response of a nonlinear system does not show any systematic dependencies on the parameters regulating SSI phenomena, and it is statistically reduced due to
foundation flexibility. Later on, Stewart et al. [1999a,b] used a comprehensive database of
recorded data, and concluded that ratio of structure-to-soil stiffness has the greatest influence on the structural response of a soil-structure system to seismic forces. In addition,
it has been established that structural aspect ratio, foundation embedment, and foundation
flexibility are the other parameters with significant effect on inertial interaction. Finally,
based on the framework of dimensional analysis, Zhang and Tang [2009] showed that SSI
effects are highly dependent on the structure-to-pulse frequency, foundation-to-structure
stiffness ratio, and foundation damping ratio. They also presented certain limits for these
controlling parameters to distinguish whether or not SSI effects were significant.
Given the existing controversy in the previous findings and the assumed limitations
in the analysis performed, it is believed that the most rational way to identify critical SSI
scenarios is to make use of a probabilistic approach. With this in mind, the results of a
comprehensive probabilistic simulation explained in detail in the accompanying paper are
summarized in this article, and then used to: (1) define the correlation and dependency
between structural response modification factors and model parameters; (2) identify the
key parameters having a significant effect on the structural response; (3) present the trend
of variation of SSI effects due to change of these parameters; and finally (4) quantify the
critical range of variation of the parameters of consequence that causes detrimental SSI
scenarios (i.e., scenarios with amplified structural response).
This probabilistic analysis is a critically important step towards understanding and
reliably characterizing the complex SSI problem. It should also be noted that the presented
outcomes are limited to a SDOF system, and that the scenarios presented do not consider
the extreme conditions, such as those imposed by liquefiable soils or near-fault effects on
the ground motion. However, the cases covered represent a significant majority of typical
design cases and scenarios.
1057
as well as covering a specific period range in the design spectrum. The period range of
T FB = 0.2, 0.3 . . . 1.8 s was considered to: (1) represent fixed-base (FB) structures with
total height of 330 m and (2) satisfy the period-height relationship adopted in the New
Zealand Standard [NZS1170.5, 2004] for seismic design of structures. For each period considered TFB , 1,000 corresponding soil-foundation-structure (SFS) models were generated
by assembling the randomly defined parameters for the SFS system and using commonly
accepted relationships between various model parameters. The number 1,000 was chosen
with the intention to: (1) give the best fit statistical distribution for the randomly selected
parameters and (2) increase the confidence level of the Monte-Carlo simulation compared
to the exact solution [Fishman, 1996]. All the nonlinear time-history simulations were
carried out using the finite element program Ruaumoko 2D [Carr, 2009].
2.2. Dynamic Soil-Foundation-Structure Model
The soil-foundation-structure (SFS) system investigated in this study is constituted from
a rheological soil-foundation element and a structure (Fig. 1), following the substructure
technique. The structure is modelled as a yielding SDOF system with a stiffness-degrading
force-deformation hysteresis rule as Takeda (bilinear envelope with strain hardening and
stiffness degradation) assuming a 5% post-yield stiffness and unloading and reloading
parameters of = 0.3 and = 0.2, respectively. This SDOF representation is an approximate model of a multi-story building vibrating in its fundamental natural mode. The
considered SDOF structure is assumed to have the same period and viscous damping coefficient as that of the corresponding FB system and is characterized by its mass ms , lateral
stiffness ks , coefficient of relative viscous damping cs , and effective height he .
The soil-foundation element was modelled by a lumped-parameter model representing
a rigid circular footing resting on the soil surface and having a perfect attachment to the soil.
Moreover, the foundation was assumed to have no mass or mass moment of inertia about
the horizontal axis. For evaluating the dynamic soil impedances incorporating soil nonlinearity, the frequency-independent coefficients of a rheological Cone model [Wolf, 1994]
were modified using the conventional equivalent linear method [Seed and Idriss, 1970].
1058
M. Moghaddasi et al.
To avoid more complication in time-domain analysis, soil material damping was assumed
to be viscous instead of hysteretic. In the model presented, the horizontal degree of freedom and the rocking degree of freedom are considered as representatives of translational
and rocking motions of foundation, respectively, and the effects of vertical and torsional
motions are ignored.
1059
soil parameters: (1) soil mass density ; (2) Poisons ratio ; (3) initial soil shear
wave velocity (Vs )0 ; and (4) shear wave velocity degradation ratio (Vs )sec /(Vs )0
structural parameters: (1) structural effective height he ; (2) foundation radius r;
(3) structural mass ms ; and (4) structural aspect ratio he /r
soil-structure system parameters: (1) ms /r2 ; (2) ms / r2 he ; (3) = (Vs )sec TFB /he ;
and (4) = (Vs )hsece TFB (he /r)0.25 .
Note that the combined model parameters selected are based on the previous studies in
literature, such as Ciampoli and Pinto [1995], Stewart et al. [1999a], and Wolf [1994],
which introduce the regulating parameters in SSI phenomenon. In this context, he /r represents the structural aspect ratio. This parameter is not a complete parameter in terms
of describing both soil and structural characteristics. However, it is a geometric parameter of immediate engineering and design significance, as well as easily and robustly
determined. Furthermore, ms /r2 and are measures of structure-to-soil mass ratio, and
is a representative of structure-to-soil stiffness ratio. Finally, the combined effect of
and he /r is captured in , a parameter suggested by Ciampoli and Pinto [1995] to
be the best suited in measuring the limit condition where SSI effects are not worth to
consider.
In the following, the possibility of having either a linear or nonlinear correlation is
analyzed and discussed. For presentation purpose, structural response modification factors
are denoted as: (us )SSI /(us )FB , drSSI /drFB , (utot )SSI /(utot )FB , and (as )SSI /(as )FB , representing
modification in structural distortion, structural drift, total displacement, and structural
acceleration due to SSI effects, respectively.
E[(X X )(Y Y )]
COV(X, Y)
=
X Y
X Y
(1)
1060
M. Moghaddasi et al.
(Vs)0
(Vs)sec /(Vs)0
TK
(Vs)0
(Vs)sec /(Vs)0
TK
0.5
FB
s FB
0.5
SSI
s SSI
0
0.5
0.5
1
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
(a)
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
0.2
(Vs)0
0.8
1
1.2
TFB (s)
(Vs)0
1.4
1.6
1.8
(Vs)sec /(Vs)0
1
TK
TK
0.5
0.5
s FB
tot FB
0.6
(Vs)sec /(Vs)0
0.4
(b)
TFB (s)
s SSI
tot SSI
0
0.5
0.5
1
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
(c)
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
(d)
TFB (s)
1
1.2
TFB (s)
1.4
1.6
1.8
ms
he
he/r
/(u ) ,Y]
TK
/dr ,Y]
0.5
[dr
he/r
0.5
FB
s FB
SSI
s SSI
[(u )
ms
TK
0.5
0.5
1
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
(a)
1.2
1.4
1.6
ms
he/r
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
he
ms
he/r
/(a ) ,Y]
0.5
[(a )
TK
0.5
0.5
s FB
tot FB
0.6
TFB (s)
TK
/(u ) ,Y]
0.4
(b)
TFB (s)
he
0.2
1.8
s SSI
tot SSI
[(u )
0.5
0.2
(c)
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
TFB (s)
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
0.2
(d)
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
TFB (s)
ms/r^3
0.5
0.5
0
0.5
1
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
0.2
1.8
0.4
0.6
0.8
ms/r^3
1.2
ms/r^3
1.4
1.6
1.8
1
TK
TK
0.5
s FB
0.5
0
s SSI
tot FB
1
TFB (s)
TFB (s)
tot SSI
FB
SSI
s SSI
s FB
0.5
TK
TK
ms/r^3
1
1061
0.5
1
0
0.5
1
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
TFB (s)
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
TFB (s)
1062
M. Moghaddasi et al.
that have a more pronounced linear relationship with (us )SSI /(us )FB and (as )SSI /(as )FB .
In addition, the correlation between and (us )SSI /(us )FB or (as )SSI /(as )FB is more likely
to be linear compared to that for , as the corresponding Pearson correlation coefficients are closer to 1. It is also noted that the evaluated Pearson correlation coefficients,
representing the dependency of structural response modification factors to and , are
independent from the periods considered. Parameters and also show a small linear
correlation with drSSI /drFB and (utot )SSI /(utot )FB when stiff structures (TFB 0.6 s) are
considered.
1063
1064
M. Moghaddasi et al.
1065
1.5
SSI
TK
1.5
FB
5th Prct.
50th Prct.
75th Prct.
95th Prct.
dr /dr
s SSI
(u ) /(u )
s FB
TK
0.5
1
0.5
0
100
(a)
200
300
400
100
(b)
(Vs)0 (m/s)
400
300
400
TK
s FB
1.5
(a ) /(a )
s SSI
tot FB
tot SSI
300
0.5
0
1.5
1
0.5
0
100
(c)
200
(Vs)0 (m/s)
TK
(u ) /(u )
the response modification factors and (Vs )0 , (Vs )sec /(Vs )0 , and are not changing, but
are almost the same for all considered fundamental structural periods. Thus, the variation of structural response modification factors due to change in the model parameters of
consequence is independent of the TFB values.
To carry out this quantification, the existing dependency of the response modification factors to the parameters considered were presented for the 5th , 50th , 75th , and 95th
percentiles representing different levels of likelihood. The distance between the 5th and
95th percentile boundary lines shows the possible variation in the response. The larger the
distance, the higher the variation. The line assigned to the 50th percentile values shows
the central trend of the response, and the boundary lines assigned to the 75th , and 95th
percentiles are seen as the response trend at the higher levels of probability.
200
(Vs)0 (m/s)
300
400
100
(d)
200
(Vs)0 (m/s)
FIGURE 9 The effects of soil shear wave velocity on structural response modification
factors.
M. Moghaddasi et al.
As (Vs )0 increases, the variation in the response modification factors reduces significantly, such that the response modification factors approaches to 1.0. This trend is because
an increase in (Vs )0 corresponds to the stiffer foundation condition. Consequently, SFS systems are forced to a more similar behavior to that of the corresponding fixed-base systems.
In Fig. 9, it is also shown that, at the median values, only (us )SSI /(us )FB is strongly
affected by the variation of (Vs )0 . In this context, when smaller values of (Vs )0 are
considered, smaller values of (us )SSI /(us )FB or higher reduction in us are expected.
However, if higher levels of probability are considered, different interpretations appear.
For (us )SSI /(us )FB and (as )SSI /(as )FB , the 75th and 95th percentiles do not show a significant
dependency on the change of (Vs )0 . It thus indicates that the maximum expected modification in us and as is independent from (Vs )0 . In other words, the maximum modification
in us and as may occur for any values of (Vs )0 . However, different probabilities have to be
considered.
When modification in dr and utot at the 75th and 95th percentiles is considered, an
increase in (Vs )0 tends to sharply decrease the response modification factors. This observation indicates that foundation imposed structural response is significantly reduced due to
the increase of (Vs )0 and, thus, the likelihood of having a large amplification in dr and utot
decreases sharply.
4.2. Dependency on Shear Wave Velocity Degradation Ratio
The effects of (Vs )sec /(Vs )0 on the structural response modification factors are shown in
Fig. 10. The trends and conclusions are very similar to those indicated for (Vs )0 , noting
smaller degradation ratio corresponds to the scenarios with smaller shear wave velocity
or softer soil conditions. Clearly, wider variation in the structural response modification
factors are expected when higher degradation in shear wave velocity occurs, i.e., when
smaller values of (Vs )sec /(Vs )0 are considered. This trend is justified as higher levels of
2
2
TK
5th Prct.
50th Prct.
75th Prct.
95th Prct.
1.5
1
1.5
drSSI/drFB
(us)SSI/(us)FB
TK
0.5
1
0.5
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
(a)
0.4
0.5
(Vs)sec /(Vs)0
0.6
0.1
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.5
(Vs)sec /(Vs)0
0.6
0.7
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
(Vs)sec /(Vs)0
0.6
0.7
2
TK
TK
(as)SSI/(as)FB
1.5
1
0.5
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.1
(c)
0.2
(b)
(utot)SSI/(utot)FB
1066
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
(Vs)sec /(Vs)0
0.6
0.1
0.7
(d)
FIGURE 10 The effects of shear wave velocity degradation ratio on structural response
modification factors.
1067
2
TK
5th Prct.
50th Prct.
75th Prct.
95th Prct.
1.5
1
1.5
drSSI/drFB
(us)SSI/(us)FB
TK
0.5
1
0.5
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
(a)
10
15
20
25
30
35
20
25
30
35
2
TK
TK
(as)SSI/(as)FB
1.5
1
0.5
0
1.5
1
0.5
0
(c)
(b)
2
(utot)SSI/(utot)FB
degradation will result in the more flexible foundations, as well as more added damping to
the system. Consequently, the response of the SFS system gets more dissimilar to that of
the corresponding fixed-base condition.
In this context, similar to that has been presented for (Vs )0 , a large reduction or amplification in dr and utot may occur, while only a large reduction or a very small amplification
is expected for us and as . Obviously, the reduction is due to the large amount of damping added to the system, and the amplification is due to the large foundation motion
imposed. In addition, at the median values, only (us )SSI /(us )FB is sensitive to the variation of
(Vs )sec /(Vs )0 , while at the 75th and 95th percentiles, only drSSI /drFB and (utot )SSI /(utot )FB are
significantly influenced by (Vs )sec /(Vs )0 . It has also been noted that the maximum expected
modification in us and as is independent from (Vs )sec /(Vs )0 .
10
15
20
25
30
35
(d)
10
15
FIGURE 11 The effects of = (Vs )sec TFB /he . on structural response modification factors.
1068
M. Moghaddasi et al.
2
TK
5th Prct.
50th Prct.
75th Prct.
95th Prct.
1.5
1
1.5
drSSI/drFB
(us)SSI/(us)FB
TK
0.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.5
1.5
(a)
1.5
1.5
2
TK
TK
(as)SSI/(as)FB
1.5
1
0.5
0
1.5
1
0.5
0
(c)
0.5
(b)
(utot)SSI/(utot)FB
Smaller may also be related to the scenarios with greater structural stiffness or
greater structural height, i.e. smaller TFB or greater he . In both cases, foundation motion
is dominant and, thus, larger variation in SSI effects can be expected. After all, it should be
noted that it is the combined effect of soil stiffness, structural period and structural height
that could result in the trends observed due to the variation of .
For scenarios with < 20, if the median values are considered, only (us )SSI /(us )FB and
(as )SSI /(as )FB are affected by the variation of . As a result of this dependency, smaller values of cause higher reduction in the response modification factors. However, if higher
levels of probability are considered, (us )SSI /(us )FB and (as )SSI /(as )FB increase when
increases and approach to 1.0, while drSSI /drFB and (utot )SSI /(utot )FB reduce sharply to 1.0.
0.5
1.5
(d)
he
(h /r)0.25
(Vs )sec TFB e
0.5
1069
In contrast, if the dependency of drSSI /drFB and (utot )SSI /(utot )FB on is considered,
the variation in the response modification factors increases with . This increase results
in a wide degree of variation, with the amount of amplification being greater than that of
reduction. Observing a large amplification in dr and utot , but only a large reduction in us
and as can be due to the significant foundation response occurring as increases. Large
foundation response, consequently, reduces the transmitted displacement (or force) to the
structure, while it increases the structural responses including rigid body motion due to
foundation flexibility.
It should be also noted that scenarios with > 0.5 0.7 are the unusual cases, i.e.
tall and narrow stiff structures located on very soft soils, that are considered as outliers
in the response modification spectrum shown in Moghaddasi et al. [2012]. This fact is
also distinguished in Figs. 7 and 8 as the number of data points presented is significantly
reduced when > 0.5 0.7. It basically means only a small number of models generated
satisfy this condition. Therefore, the results presented for > 0.5 0.7 can be practically
ignored.
M. Moghaddasi et al.
100
80
100
TK
A.L.=1.1
A.L.=1.2
60
40
20
0
50
100
150
200
250
(Vs)0 (m/s)
300
350
Med[P.I.] (%)
Pr[(dr)
20
0
50
100
150
350
40
20
100
150
200
250
(Vs)0 (m/s)
TK
300
350
400
dr /dr >A.L.
SSI
FB
60
40
20
0
50
400
100
150
(d)
200
250
(Vs)0 (m/s)
300
350
400
100
TK
80
60
40
20
0
50
100
150
200
250
(Vs)0 (m/s)
300
350
TK
(u ) /(u ) >A.L.
tot SSI
40
20
100
150
(f)
100
tot FB
60
0
50
400
200
250
(Vs)0 (m/s)
300
350
400
100
TK
80
Med[P.I.] (%)
s SSI
s FB
300
100
(e)
(g)
200
250
(Vs)0 (m/s)
Med[P.I.] (%)
tot SSI
tot FB
(c)
60
40
20
0
50
s FB
60
80
40
80
s SSI
100
TK
60
80
(u ) /(u ) >A.L.
(b)
100
80
TK
0
50
400
SSI
FB
(a)
80
Med[P.I.] (%)
s SSI
s FB
1070
100
150
200
250
(Vs)0 (m/s)
300
350
(h)
(a ) /(a ) >A.L.
s SSI
s FB
60
40
20
0
50
400
TK
100
150
200
250
(Vs)0 (m/s)
300
350
400
FIGURE 13 Risk of detrimental SSI effects based on variation in initial soil shear wave
velocity: (left) probability of amplification in the response; (right) level of increase in the
response.
and 15%10% for as when A.L.=1.1 is considered. Equally, for A.L.=1.2, the values of
median percentage increase are in the range of: 30%25% for us ; 40%30% for dr; 45%
30% for utot ; and 30%20% for as . It should be noted that the values presented for as are
mostly related to the outliers (uncommon soil-structure scenarios) as the probability of
amplification in as is negligible. This point is also valid for the results followed in case of
(Vs )sec /(Vs )0 , and .
1071
M. Moghaddasi et al.
100
100
TK
A.L.=1.1
A.L.=1.2
80
80
Med[P.I.] (%)
1072
60
40
20
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
(a)
0.4
0.5
(Vs)sec /(Vs)0
0.6
Med[P.I.] (%)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
(Vs)sec /(Vs)0
0.6
20
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
(Vs)sec /(Vs)0
TK
0.6
0.7
dr /dr >A.L.
SSI
FB
60
40
20
0
0.1
0.7
0.2
0.3
(d)
0.4
0.5
(Vs)sec /(Vs)0
0.6
0.7
100
100
TK
80
Med[P.I.] (%)
(c)
60
40
20
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
(e)
0.4
0.5
(Vs)sec /(Vs)0
0.6
TK
(u ) /(u ) >A.L.
tot SSI
tot FB
60
40
20
0
0.1
0.7
0.2
0.3
(f)
0.4
0.5
(Vs)sec /(Vs)0
0.6
0.7
100
100
TK
80
Med[P.I.] (%)
40
80
20
60
40
20
0
0.1
s FB
100
TK
40
80
s SSI
(b)
60
80
(u ) /(u ) >A.L.
60
0
0.1
0.7
100
80
TK
0.2
(g)
0.3
0.4
0.5
(Vs)sec /(Vs)0
0.6
(h)
(a ) /(a ) >A.L.
s SSI
s FB
60
40
20
0
0.1
0.7
TK
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
(Vs)sec /(Vs)0
0.6
0.7
FIGURE 14 Risk of detrimental SSI effects based on variation in shear wave velocity
degradation ratio: (left) probability of amplification in the response; (right) level of increase
in the response.
6. Conclusions
A comprehensive statistical evaluation of SSI effects has been conducted using a simplified soil-shallow foundation-structure model with equivalent soil domain and nonlinear
structural behavior following the Takeda type hysteretic model. The key findings can be
summarized as follows:
100
80
A.L.=1.1
A.L.=1.2
40
20
0
10
15
30
60
40
20
35
10
15
20
25
30
35
(b)
100
TK
80
TK
80
Med[P.I.] (%)
25
100
60
40
20
0
drSSI/drFB>A.L.
60
40
20
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
(c)
10
15
100
20
25
30
35
(d)
100
TK
80
TK
80
Med[P.I.] (%)
20
60
40
20
0
(utot)SSI/(utot)FB>A.L.
60
40
20
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
(e)
10
15
100
20
25
30
35
(f)
100
TK
80
TK
80
Med[P.I.] (%)
Pr[(as)SSI/(as)FB>A.L.] (%)
(us)SSI/(us)FB>A.L.
0
5
(a)
TK
80
60
60
40
20
0
(as)SSI/(as)FB>A.L.
60
40
20
0
(g)
1073
100
TK
Med[P.I.] (%)
10
15
20
25
30
35
(h)
10
15
20
25
30
35
FIGURE 15 Risk of detrimental SSI effects based on variation in = (Vs )sec TFB /he : (left)
probability of amplification in the response; (right) level of increase in the response.
1. From all considered soil, structural, and soil-structure system parameters only
he
(he /r)0.25 have a pro(Vs )0 , (Vs )sec /(Vs )0 , = (Vs )sec TFB /he , and = (Vs )sec
TFB
nounced correlation with structural response modification factors due to SSI
effects.
2. An increase in (Vs )0 , (Vs )sec /(Vs )0 and cause a less variation in the resulted
structural response modification factors. In addition, as these parameters increase,
the response modification factors approach 1.0, indicating the behavior of the
soil-structure systems are more similar to the behavior of the corresponding
fixed-base system.
M. Moghaddasi et al.
100
100
TK
80
40
20
0
0.5
1.5
100
TK
TK
80
drSSI/drFB>A.L.
80
Med[P.I.] (%)
20
(b)
100
60
40
20
0
60
40
20
0
0.5
1.5
(c)
0.5
100
1.5
(d)
100
TK
TK
80
(utot)SSI/(utot)FB>A.L.
80
Med[P.I.] (%)
40
1.5
60
40
20
0
60
40
20
0
0.5
1.5
(e)
0.5
1.5
(f)
100
100
TK
TK
80
(as)SSI/(as)FB>A.L.
80
Med[P.I.] (%)
60
0
1
0.5
(a)
(us)SSI/(us)FB>A.L.
80
60
60
40
20
0
60
40
20
0
(g)
TK
A.L.=1.1
A.L.=1.2
Med[P.I.] (%)
1074
0.5
1.5
(h)
0.5
1.5
FIGURE 16 Risk of detrimental SSI effects based on variation in = (Vs )hsece TFB (he /r)0.25 :
(left) probability of amplification in the response; (right) level of increase in the response.
3. Considering the median values (the 50th percentiles), an increase in (Vs )0 ,
(Vs )sec /(Vs )0 and results in an increase in the structural distortion modification
factors, while modification in dr, utot , and as are only weakly sensitive to the
parameters considered.
4. The likely maximum modification in us and as are independent from the variation
of (Vs )0 , (Vs )sec /(Vs )0 , and . However, if dr or utot is considered, a sharp reduction in the maximum modification factors is observed due to an increase in (Vs )0 ,
(Vs )sec /(Vs )0 , and .
1075
5. When increases, structural distortion modification factors and structural acceleration modification factors reduce very sharply at the median and likely maximum
values. In contrast, the variation in structural drift modification factors and total
displacement modification factors gets more significant as increases. This variation mostly results in amplification in structural drift and total displacement than
reduction.
6. In terms of quantification of the risk, the probability of amplification in the response
is very small for us and is almost negligible for as , whereas the probability of
amplification in dr and utot cannot be simply neglected.
7. An increase in (Vs )0 , (Vs )sec /(Vs )0 , and results in a reduction in the probability of amplification in the structural response modification factors, as well
as a reduction in the values of median percentage increase. Specifically, when
> 20, detrimental SSI effects on the structural response can be practically
ignored.
8. An increase in reduces the probability of amplification in us such that the amplification can be practically ignored when > 1.0. However, the probabilities of
amplification and the corresponding values of median percentage increase for dr or
utot rise when increases.
References
Bielak, J. [1975] Dynamic behaviour of structures with embedded foundations, Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 3(3), 259174.
Carr, A. [2009] Ruaumoko 2D, Nonlinear FEM Computer Program, University of Canterbury,
New Zealand.
Ciampoli, M. and Pinto, P. E. [1995] Effects of soil-structure interaction on inelastic seismic
response of bridge piers, Journal of Structural Engineering 121(5), 806814.
Dowdy, S. and Wearden, S. [1983] Statistics for Research, Wiley, New York.
Fishman, G. S. [1996] Monte Carlo: Concepts, Algorithms, and Applications, Springer, New York.
Moghaddasi, M., Cubrinovski, M., Chase, J. G., Pampanin, S., and Carr, A. [2012] Stochastic quantification of soil-shallow foundation-structure interaction, Journal of Earthquake Engineering
16(6), 820850.
NZS1170.5 [2004] Structural design actions, part 5: earthquake actions, Standards New Zealand,
Wellington, New Zealand.
Seed, H. B. and Idriss, I. M. [1970] Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analysis,
Report No. EERC 70-109, Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, University of California,
Berkeley.
Shome, N., Cornell, C. A., Bazzurro, P., and Carballo, J. E. [1998] Earthquakes, records, and
nonlinear responses, Earthquake Spectra 14(3), 469500.
Stewart, J. P., Fenves, G. L., and Seed, R. B. [1999a] Seismic soil-structure interaction in buildings. I:
analytical methods, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 125(1), 2637.
Stewart, J. P., Seed, R. B., and Fenves, G. L. [1999b] Seismic soil-structure interaction in buildings. II: empirical findings, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 125(1),
3848.
Veletsos, A. S. and Nair, V. D. [1975] Seismic interaction of structures on hysteretic foundations,
Journal of Structural Engineering 101(1), 109129.
Wolf, J. P. [1994] Foundation Vibration Analysis Using Simple Physical Models, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Zhang, J. and Tang, Y. [2009] Dimensional analysis of structures with translating and rocking foundations under near-fault ground motions, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29(10),
13301346.