26 views

Uploaded by Jaher Wasim

dfsfe

- Nist Gcr 11-917-15 Gm Selection
- Nist Gcr 11-917-15_report (Atc 83)
- Concrete Slab Collectors
- Tesi_di_dottorato_Manuela_Brescia_IS GOOD_Rotation Capacity Steel Members for Seismic Design
- Pushover seismic analysis of quasi-static tested confined masonry buildings through simplified model.pdf
- Exercice data and assissting material.pdf
- Siesmic Design Guide
- New Method for the Design of Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frames With Damage Control
- Pushover Analysis of Diagrid Structure
- pushover.pdf
- Seismic Performance of Buckling Restrained Braced Frames in a Chilean Building
- Material Modelling in the Seismic Response Analysis for the Design of Rc Framed Structures
- Confinement Design
- Performance Based Seismic Analy
- Asymetric Buildings
- Finite Element Exercise
- 14_05-01-0140
- bp6b
- FHWA-NJ-2005-002.pdf
- 2003 - Jalayer - Direct Probabilistc Seismic Analysis-Implementing Non-linear Dynamic Assessments

You are on page 1of 13

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

underground stories

H. El Ganainy, M.H. El Naggar

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5B9

a r t i c l e in fo abstract

Article history: This paper investigates the seismic performance of moment-resisting frame steel buildings with

Received 27 September 2008 multiple underground stories resting on shallow foundations. A parametric study that involved

Accepted 18 February 2009 evaluating the nonlinear seismic response of ﬁve, ten and ﬁfteen story moment-resisting frame steel

buildings resting on ﬂexible ground surface, and buildings having one, three and ﬁve underground

Keywords: stories was performed. The buildings were assumed to be founded on shallow foundations. Two site

Soil–structure interaction (SSI) conditions were considered: soil class C and soil class E, corresponding to ﬁrm and soft soil deposits,

Performance-based design (PBD) respectively. Vancouver seismic hazard has been considered for this study. Synthetic earthquake records

Seismic design of buildings compatible with Vancouver uniform hazard spectrum (UHS), as speciﬁed by the National Building Code

Underground stories

of Canada (NBCC) 2005, have been used as input motion. It was found that soil–structure interaction

Uniform hazard spectrum (UHS)

(SSI) can greatly affect the seismic performance of buildings in terms of the seismic storey shear and

Ground response analysis

moment demand, and the deformations of their structural components. Although most building codes

postulate that SSI effects generally decrease the force demand on buildings, but increase the

deformation demand, it was found that, for some of the cases considered, SSI effects increased both

the force and deformation demand on the buildings. The SSI effects generally depend on the stiffness of

the foundation and the number of underground stories. SSI effects are signiﬁcant for soft soil conditions

and negligible for stiff soil conditions. It was also found that SSI effects are signiﬁcant for buildings

resting on ﬂexible ground surface with no underground stories, and gradually decrease with the

increase of the number of underground stories.

& 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

depending on the procedure used in the seismic analysis of the

The current state-of-practice for seismic design of buildings building.

with multiple underground stories involves approximate ap- It is important to incorporate the underground stories, base-

proaches that primarily differ according to the designer’s judg- ment walls, foundation soil and side soil explicitly in the

ment and experience. This is a consequence of lack of relevant mathematical model of the structure to be able to assess the

recommendations in building codes. Most building codes treat effect of the underground part of the building adequately on its

low and medium rise regular buildings with multi-level under- seismic performance. This is also essential since the current trend

ground stories with the same recommendations used for build- of using performance-based design approaches in lieu of tradi-

ings with surface foundations. tional force-based design approaches in the seismic design of

In general, buildings with multiple underground stories are buildings dictate that soil–structure interaction (SSI) analysis

designed by cropping the superstructure and analyzing it as a becomes an integral part of methods used in the seismic

ﬁxed base structure founded on the ground surface. On the other evaluation of buildings. Perhaps the most popular approach in

hand, the substructure is designed for the seismic base shear and modeling the nonlinear response of the foundation soil and side

moment demand resulting from the superstructure in addition to soil is the Beam-on-a-Nonlinear Winkler Foundation (BNWF)

the seismic earth pressure acting on the basement walls, due to approach due to its merit of simplicity in deﬁning the parameters

the oscillating mass of side soil. Even though this two step involved in the model.

The main objective of this paper is to better understand the

seismic performance of three-dimensional (3D) frame structures

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 519 661 4219; fax: +1 519 6613942. with multiple underground stories. To achieve this objective,

E-mail addresses: helganai@uwo.ca (H. El Ganainy), helnaggar@eng.uwo.ca nonlinear direct integration time–history analyses for 3D moment-

(M.H. El Naggar). resisting frame steel structures with above-ground stories ranging

0267-7261/$ - see front matter & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2009.02.003

ARTICLE IN PRESS

1250 H. El Ganainy, M.H. El Naggar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 1249–1261

from ﬁve to ﬁfteen stories, and underground stories ranging from 2. Description of model buildings

zero (i.e. no basement) to ﬁve underground stories were

performed. The nonlinear structural analysis program 2.1. Description of model geometry and structural system

Perform-3D [1] was chosen for this research since it is dedicated

mainly for the performance assessment of 3D structures in the The models adopted herein are 4 5 bays moment-resisting

context of performance-based design (PBD). Its material library frame steel buildings, having a constant bay width of 7.2 m and

contains a wide variety of structural components formulated constant story height of 3.6 m. Fig. 1 shows the plan of the

to account for both geometric and material nonlinearity in repetitive story of the buildings. The lateral resisting system of the

structures. building constituted four perimeter frames along the periphery of

the building where the girders were rigidly connected to the

columns, except where the girders were connected to the weak

side of the columns. Fig. 2 shows the layout of the lateral resisting

system of a typical model building. On the other hand, the inner

frames work mainly as the gravity load carrying system where

girders were pin-connected to the columns.

The parametric study involves evaluating the seismic perfor-

mance of ﬁve, ten and ﬁfteen story buildings with three under-

ground stories. The buildings were assumed to be resting on

shallow foundations. To further explore the effect of the number

of underground stories on the seismic performance of buildings,

the ten story building was analyzed for zero (i.e. no basement),

one and ﬁve underground stories.

The thickness of the reinforced concrete basement walls was

assumed 0.25 m considering that they will resist the lateral earth

pressure only. Their reinforcement ratio was 0.25%, in accordance

with the speciﬁcations of FEMA 310 [2] document. Although they

were not designed to be part of the lateral resisting system of the

building, they were included in its structural model since they

should affect its seismic response due to their large mass and

in-plane bending stiffness.

On the other hand, the thickness of the slabs was taken as

Fig. 1. Plan of the repetitive story of the buildings. 0.25 m to be consistent with approximately 1/30 of the slab span

ARTICLE IN PRESS

H. El Ganainy, M.H. El Naggar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 1249–1261 1251

Table 1 Table 2

Unit weights and distributed loads used in deﬁning the gravity loads acting on the Soil properties assigned for soil class C and soil class E.

buildings.

Soil class C Soil class E

Unit weights of materials (kN/m3)

Unit weight of steel 77 Shear wave velocity, Vs (m/s) 560 150

Unit weight of concrete 25 Dry unit weight, gdry (kN/m3) 21.00 18.00

Angle of internal friction, f1 40 30

Wall–soil friction angle, d1 25 20

Equivalent uniformly distributed load (kPa) Material damping ratio, e 0.05 0.05

Nonstructural components 1.1 Poisson ratio, n 0.35 0.35

Live load 2.4

represented in the structural model of the building using its Parameter used in calculating the seismic loads on the buildings using the NBCC

2005 equivalent static force procedure considering the Vancouver seismic zone.

weight in the gravity load case and as concentrated masses at the

center of gravity of each ﬂoor for the seismic analysis. In addition, Elastic design response spectrum parameters (g)

all the nodes lying in the plane of each ﬂoor were assigned a rigid Peak ground acceleration (PGA) 0.5

diaphragm constraint. However, the slabs were not modeled Sa (0.2) 1.00

Sa (0.5) 0.68

explicitly and consequently their bending stiffness was neglected.

Sa (1.0) 0.34

This is consistent with the assumption that the moment-resisting Sa (2.0) 0.18

frames form the lateral resisting system of the building.

Equivalent static force procedure parameters

Importance factor, IE 1.0

2.2. Gravity loads

Higher mode factor, Mv 1.0

Ductility-related force modiﬁcation factor, Rd 5.0

The gravity loads assigned to the buildings were the own Overstrength-related force modiﬁcation factor, Ro 1.5

weight of structural components, including the steel girders and

columns and the reinforced concrete slabs and basement walls.

It also included the weight of the nonstructural components

(e.g. cladding, partitions, ﬂoor ﬁnishing, etc.) in addition to the 4. Preliminary analysis of the buildings

live load assigned to the slabs.

Since the slabs were not modeled explicitly, their weight and The ﬁve, ten and ﬁfteen story buildings were designed using

the live load they carry were included in the structural model by the structural analysis program ETABS [6] assuming ﬁxed base

distributing its reaction on the supporting girders. Table 1 lists the condition at the ground surface. This step provided preliminary

unit weights and distributed loads used in deﬁning the gravity sections for the structural members of the buildings, which would

loads acting on the buildings. be augmented by the underground stories, foundation soil and

side soil for further seismic analysis. Although the column

sections should increase below the ground level in consideration

3. Materials strengths and moduli of the added gravity loads from the underground stories, they

were not changed since the seismic performance of the buildings

3.1. Steel and concrete rather than its seismic design is the objective of this study.

The steel design feature included in ETABS was utilized to

The steel members of the building and the reinforcing steel of perform the seismic design of the buildings. The seismic loads

the basement walls were assumed to be of the same grade. The were calculated using the equivalent static force procedure as

steel yield strength was taken as 482,633 kPa, with an elastic speciﬁed by the NBCC 2005 for a building in Vancouver. Table 3

modulus of 199,948 MPa. The steel hardens to 689,476 kPa at a lists the parameters used in calculating the seismic loads acting

strain of 0.1, corresponding to a post-yield strain hardening ratio on the buildings. The structural members of the buildings were

of 1.1%. The steel Poisson’s ratio was taken as 0.3. The concrete of designed according to the loading cases and guidelines speciﬁed

0

the basement walls had f c ¼ 82,737 kPa, elastic modulus ¼ 37,232 by the NBCC 2005, the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) and

MPa and Poisson’s ratio ¼ 0.25. the Canadian Institute of Steel Construction (CISC). Table 4 lists

the preliminary sections for the girders and columns of the

buildings as obtained from the ETABS analysis and design stage.

3.2. Foundation and side soil

The buildings site was assumed to have a 30-m-thick deposit of 5. Intended behavior and performance levels

homogeneous soil underlain by the bedrock. Therefore, the

average properties in the top 30 m were used for calculating the The seismic performance of the model buildings was examined

foundation and side soil mechanical properties in accordance with with an emphasis on the effect of underground stories, foundation

the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) 2005 speciﬁcations. soil and side soil on the building performance. To achieve this goal

Two scenarios were assumed for the soil deposit used in the the nonlinear structural analysis program Perform-3D [1] is used.

current study, namely: soil class C corresponding to ‘‘very dense

soil and soft rock’’; and soil class E corresponding to ‘‘soft soil’’ in 5.1. Intended behavior of structural components

accordance with the site classiﬁcation of the NBCC 2005. Table 2

lists the properties assigned for these two soil classes in the The perimeter frames were considered the primary structural

current study from the ranges speciﬁed by NBCC 2005, Das [3,4] component and comprise the lateral resisting system of the

and FEMA 356 [5] document. buildings. Therefore, the perimeter frames are intended to

ARTICLE IN PRESS

1252 H. El Ganainy, M.H. El Naggar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 1249–1261

experience inelastic behavior in ﬂexure but to remain essentially On the other hand, the basement walls are modeled using

elastic in axial and shear deformations. The connection panel inelastic ﬁber wall elements that could experience nonlinear

zones between the girders and columns of the perimeter frames behavior in in-plane bending, including: concrete ﬁbers cracking

are also considered primary structural components, as they affect and crushing; and steel ﬁbers yielding. However, they were

the performance level of the building, and are intended to assigned an elastic shear material to behave essentially elastic in

experience inelastic behavior in shear. However, the interior shear.

girders and columns that comprise the gravity load carrying

system are intended to behave elastically in ﬂexure, axial and

shear deformations, since they are considered secondary structur- 5.2. Deﬁnition of performance levels

al components. These designations are in accordance with the

guidelines given by ASCE 41 [7] in classifying the structural To assess the performance of buildings, ASCE 41 [7] deﬁnes the

components of buildings in the context of the PBD principles. acceptance criteria of the structural components of the building in

The basement walls of the building contribute to its lateral terms of strength demand capacity ratios or deformation demand

resistance because of their orientation within the structural capacity ratios, depending on the force–deformation actions of the

system. Therefore, they also can be considered as primary structural components whether they are force-controlled or

structural components and hence are intended to experience deformation-controlled, respectively.

nonlinear behavior in in-plane bending. However, they should Perform-3D automatically calculates the strength and defor-

remain essentially elastic in shear, since shear failure in reinforced mation demand on the structural components of the building

concrete is a brittle mode of failure. This renders inelastic shear throughout the analysis steps. However, ASCE 41 [7] gives

behavior in structural members an undesired target performance. deformation capacities for the inelastic components correspond-

Finally, the slabs are intended to behave elastically and, as stated ing to the three target performance levels for structural compo-

before, were not included in the structural model. nents, namely: immediate occupancy (IO), life safety (LS)

To achieve these intended behaviors, the perimeter girders and and collapse prevention (CP). It deﬁnes the deformation

columns and the connection panel zones are modeled using capacities as multiple of the yield deformations of the compo-

inelastic frame and connection panel zone elements, respectively. nents. Table 5 gives the deformation capacities of the inelastic

They are assigned deformation-controlled force–deformation structural components encounter in the model buildings corre-

actions in bending and shear, respectively, in accordance with sponding to the IO, LS and CP performance levels and in

ASCE 41 [7] guidelines for structural steel components. The accordance with ASCE 41 [7] speciﬁcations. Deformation capa-

interior girders and columns are assigned force-controlled cities for perimeter girders and columns are expressed as multi-

force–deformation actions in ﬂexure, axial and shear deforma- ples of the chord rotation (yy) at yield. The deformation capacities

tions (i.e. the components’ strengths are assigned to the elastic for the connection panel zones (assuming an improved

structural members without deﬁning the associated plastic WUF-bolted web connection for the moment connections

deformations) as well as axial and shear modes of deformation between girders and columns) are expressed as functions of the

in perimeter girders and columns. The components’ strengths can girders’ depth (d). It should be noted that these deformation

be calculated in accordance with the established principles of capacities are plastic rotations and angular shear deformations,

mechanics (e.g. Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) which dictates adding the yield deformations to them in order to

speciﬁcations for structural steel design considering a strength get the total deformation capacities.

reduction factor equals to unity). Perform-3D calculates the ASCE 41 [7] speciﬁes that the strength capacity of structural

components’ strength from the geometric properties of members’ components should be assigned different values corresponding to

cross section (e.g. section modulus) and the associated mechan- the considered performance level. In the current study, compo-

ical properties of the cross section’s material (e.g. yield strength of nents that have force-controlled force–deformation actions are

steel). required to remain elastic. Therefore, for the performance levels

IO, LS and CP, the strength capacities were taken equal to the

nominal capacities of the components.

Table 4 To reduce the volume of analysis output results, Perform-3D

Preliminary sections for girders and columns of the model buildings as obtained groups demand capacity ratios of similar components together to

from ETABS. distill the results down to few ‘‘Limit States’’ that can be easily

used in assessing the performance of buildings. Each limit state

5 story building 10 story building 15 story building

groups similar demand capacity ratios (e.g. end rotation of

Perimeter girders W 27 146 W 27 94 W 27 146 perimeter girders) at a certain performance level (e.g. LS

E–W interior girders W 18 106 W 18 97 W 18 106 performance level). It then calculates the maximum demand

N–S interior girders W 24 104 W 24 104 W 24 104 capacity ratio, within each time step, for all the components in the

Perimeter columns W 14 90 W 14 145 W 14 233

Interior columns W 14 90 W 14 132 W 14 193

limit state. Perform-3D deﬁnes this maximum demand capacity

ratio as the ‘‘Usage Ratio’’ of the limit state at this time step. The

Table 5

Deformation capacities for inelastic structural components of buildings corresponding to IO, LS and CP performance levels.

Perimeter girders 1yy 6yy 8yy

Perimeter columns 1yy 6yy 8yy

Connection panel zones 0.01–0.00015d 0.0139–0.0002d 0.021–0.0003d

ARTICLE IN PRESS

H. El Ganainy, M.H. El Naggar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 1249–1261 1253

the usage ratios of the target performance level of the components Shallow foundations’ properties used with the model buildings.

have not exceeded unity throughout the seismic event.

Soil class C Soil class E

Perimeter footings

Plan dimensions (m) 1.7 1.7 3.1 3.1

6. Foundation system Depth of foundation (m) 1.5 2.0

Ultimate bearing capacity, qu (kPa) 4206.63 1235.54

The foundation system of the buildings comprises shallow Soil passive resistance along footing front face (kPa) 20.00 15.00

Foundation vertical stiffness, kv (kN/m3) 18,48,932.57 57,725.55

spread footings. For the ease of modeling, it was assumed that

Foundation horizontal stiffness, KH (kN/m) 7,255,630.5 6,99,894.48

they are square in plan, and concentric with the supported

columns. Two footing models were considered for each building:

Interior footings

one for the interior columns and one for the perimeter columns,

Plan dimensions (m) 2.1 2.1 4.0 4.0

due to the substantial difference between the vertical load acting Depth of foundation (m) 1.5 2.0

on them. The strip footings beneath the basement walls and the Ultimate bearing capacity, qu (kPa) 4594.07 1359.5

semelles and straps connecting the footings were neglected in this Soil passive resistance along footing front face (kPa) 20.00 15.00

study. Foundation vertical stiffness, kv (kN/m3) 13,99,578.64 41,870.41

Foundation horizontal stiffness, KH (kN/m) 8,015,932.36 801,808.65

The side soil is assumed to be homogeneous throughout the

embedment depth of the building. It is assumed that it possesses

the same mechanical and physical properties of the foundation

soil.

The foundation and side soil were assumed to experience shear modulus, G ¼ 0.8Go, was used in calculating the

nonlinear behavior under seismic shaking. Therefore, they were vertical and horizontal stiffness of the footings. Table 6 lists

modeled using the Beam-on-a-Nonlinear Winkler Foundation the shallow foundations’ properties used with the model

approach that is capable of simulating the important aspects of buildings.

the nonlinear behavior of the foundation and side soil. El Ganainy [9] has shown that based on the BNWF approach,

the cyclic rocking, vertical and horizontal responses of shallow

6.1. Shallow foundations foundations can be modeled effectively using an assemblage of a

curvature hinge (or a moment–rotation hinge), shear hinge

The model buildings encountered in this study involved a wide connected in series with an elastic frame member attached to

range of footing vertical dead loads corresponding to different the bottom end of ground story columns. El Ganainy [9] has

scenarios considered. In addition, two soil classes were considered derived three bounding surfaces to couple the responses of these

in this study: soil class C corresponding to ‘‘very dense soil and hinges to be able to model the complete 3D response of shallow

soft rock’’ and soil class E corresponding to ‘‘soft soil’’. This wide foundations. To account for the ‘‘Soil Squeeze Out’’ phenomenon

range of variable parameters makes the task of sizing the footings [9] observed in the cyclic rocking response of shallow foundation,

cumbersome. Using a constant value for the vertical bearing El Ganainy [9] has shown that assigning an appropriate energy

capacity safety factor would result in a wide range of footing plan degradation factor to the curvature hinge would result in

dimensions, and consequently different foundations’ bearing adjusting the material damping from the cyclic moment–rotation

capacities and stiffness. This would complicate the comparison response of the footings and yield hysteretic moment–rotation

of the seismic performance of consistent buildings (e.g. ten story loops consistent with the S-shape loops observed from experi-

buildings with zero, one, three and ﬁve underground stories). mental results.

Therefore, a variable vertical bearing capacity safety factor was This modeling approach was adopted herein in modeling the

used when sizing the foundations, since it is neither the seismic shallow foundations of the model buildings encounter in this

design of the footings that is being investigated in this research study. Bilinear approximations for the moment–rotation relation

nor the evaluation of the code recommendations for the seismic and the horizontal force–shear displacement relation were

design of shallow foundations is to be done. assigned to the curvature and shear hinges, respectively [9].

For each soil class, two model footings were used: perimeter The geometric and mechanical properties of the curvature hinge,

columns footings and interior columns footings. These footings shear hinge and the elastic frame member were calculated,

were sized so that the vertical bearing capacity safety factor utilizing the mechanical properties of the speciﬁed soil classes,

ranged from 7.0 for ﬁve story buildings to 2.0 for ﬁfteen story using the procedure outlined in El Ganainy [9].

buildings. The bearing capacities of the foundations are calculated To account for the soil squeeze out phenomenon, energy

using Terzaghi’s standard bearing capacity formula for square degradation factors were assigned to the curvature hinges at

footings. The soil passive resistance along the front face of the 0.55 and 0.8 for soil classes C and E, respectively. These values

footing is taken according to the presumptive values recom- provided good ﬁt with the experimental results obtained from

mended by FEMA 356 [5] document for different soil types. TRISEE experiment for the high density (HD) and low density (LD)

However, the side friction along the footing side–soil interface is tests, respectively [9], noting that soil classes C and E are

neglected. approximately consistent with the relative densities of 85% and

The vertical and horizontal elastic stiffness of the foundations 45% of the HD and LD tests [9]. Hence, the corresponding energy

is calculated using the frequency-independent formulas given degradation factors values were used herein.

by FEMA 356 [5] document. To account for the cyclic nature A P–MB–ML bounding surface was assigned for the curvature

of the seismic load on the footings, the unload–reload stiffness of hinge to account for the interaction between the vertical and

the footing was used in lieu of the initial elastic stiffness. rocking responses of the footing [9]. El-Tawil and Deierlein’s

Allotey and El Naggar [8] recommend using an effective shear bounding surface [10,11], which is built-in Perform-3D, was used

modulus of 0.8 of the elastic shear modulus of the soil in in this regard. The ﬁtting exponent m that controls the shape of

calculating the vertical stiffness of the foundation. Therefore, the P–M bounding surface was assigned a value of 2 and the

the elastic shear modulus, Go, of the soil was calculated from exponent n that controls the shape of the bounding surface in the

its shear wave velocity and mass density, then an effective MB–ML plane was assigned a value of 1.8 [9].

ARTICLE IN PRESS

1254 H. El Ganainy, M.H. El Naggar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 1249–1261

A VB–VL bounding surface was assigned for the shear hinge to structures. For ﬂexible structures, such as moment-resisting

account for the interaction between the horizontal responses frame structures, the effect of the radiation damping would be

of the footing along its width and length. The elliptical equation of minimal and can be neglected.

this bounding surface is built-in Perform-3D and was used in this

regard [9]. Finally, the radiation damping through the foundation In the current study, the elastic stiffness and nonlinear behavior

soil was neglected. This is considered an acceptable approxima- of side soil were modeled. However, the oscillating mass of the

tion, since the hysteretic damping is more important in the case of side soil and the radiation damping effects were neglected.

seismic loading. Currently, there are no nonlinear bar elements in Perform-3D

capable of modeling the nonlinear backbone curve of the side soil

6.2. Side soil as shown in Fig. 3. Therefore, approximating assumptions were

introduced in order to make use of the available nonlinear bar

The effect of side soil on the seismic performance of buildings elements in Perform-3D to model the nonlinear response of the

with underground stories can be grouped into three aspects: side soil adequately.

The approximation done herein can be better understood if the

(1) Side soil serves as a ﬂexible support to the building in lateral lateral pressure–lateral deﬂection relation of the side soil is

deformation. In the static case, it acts on the basement walls represented into two distinct parts as follows (with reference to

with a lateral pressure corresponding to the active earth Fig. 4):

pressure. Under seismic shaking, as the building oscillates

back and forth towards and away from the side soil, it (1) Under static loading condition, the side soil acts on the

responds like horizontal elastic springs. As the intensity of the basement walls with a static pressure corresponding to the

seismic shaking increases, the side soil could experience a active earth pressure.

nonlinear behavior, in which it cannot provide a lateral (2) As the building oscillates, the side soil acts like horizontal

pressure on the basement walls more than its passive nonlinear springs, where their ultimate compression capa-

resistance, Pp, while the building is swaying towards the cities are PpPa. However, they possess no tension capacity.

backﬁll. Also, it cannot provide a lateral pressure less than its

active resistance, Pa, while the building is swaying away from It should be noted that the soil considered in this study is

the backﬁll. In some types of soils, especially cohesive soil, cohesionless and should not experience gapping (i.e. the mini-

gapping could occur between the basement walls and the mum earth pressure cannot drop below the active value). Thus,

backﬁll as a result of the building oscillation. In this case, the this approach is considered to be adequate in representing the

lateral pressure of the backﬁll on the basement walls drops to backbone curve for the lateral pressure–lateral deﬂection relation

zero. This nonlinear behavior can result in hysteretic for- of the side soil.

ce–deformation actions in the side soil where the resulting Briaud and Kim [12] have recommended a set of static Py

hysteretic damping provides an additional source for dissipat- curves for sand and clay to be used within a beam–column

ing the earthquake energy. Fig. 3 shows the backbone curve method for the design of tieback walls. They validated the curves

for the hysteretic lateral pressure–lateral deﬂection relation of by comparing their predictions with the measured behavior of

the side soil. four-full scale tieback walls in sand and in clay. The Py curves

(2) Under severe seismic shaking, where the backﬁll experiences recommended by Briaud and Kim [12] for sand are used herein in

nonlinear response, the wedge of the soil behind the base- modeling the backbone curve of the hysteretic lateral pressur-

ment walls could fail and begin oscillating with the building, e–lateral deﬂection relation of the side soil.

either in-phase or out-of-phase. This oscillating mass of soil The active, Pa, and passive, Pp, earth pressures and the

could affect the seismic response of the building by altering its corresponding wall deﬂections ya and ya, respectively, are

effective oscillating mass. However, this oscillating soil mass calculated for sand as follows:

could be neglected in comparison to the mass of the structural

components and basement walls of the building, without Pa ¼ K a gZ cosðdÞ (1)

affecting the seismic response of the building signiﬁcantly.

(3) Side soil dissipates the earthquake energy through radiation Pp ¼ K p gZ cosðdÞ (2)

damping. This additional damping can affect the seismic

response of the building, since it increases its effective ya ¼ 1:3 mm (3)

damping ratio. However, this effect would be most signiﬁcant

for stiff structures, such as shear wall and braced frame yp ¼ 13 mm (4)

Fig. 3. Backbone curve of the hysteretic lateral pressure–lateral deﬂection relation for the side soil.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

H. El Ganainy, M.H. El Naggar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 1249–1261 1255

Fig. 4. Approximate representation of the lateral pressure–lateral deﬂection relation for the side soil.

2

NBCC 2005, were used.

cos ðfÞ

Ka ¼ h pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ i2

cosðdÞ 1 þ sinðf þ dÞ sinðfÞ= cosðdÞ

Kp ¼ h pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ i2

cosðdÞ 1 sinðf þ dÞ sinðfÞ= cosðdÞ earthquake records

g is the unit weight of the soil, Z is the depth at which the lateral The NBCC 2005 has introduced uniform hazard spectra that

earth pressure is calculated, f is the angle of internal friction of have a constant probability of exceedance of 2% in 50 years as a

the soil, and d is the wall–soil friction angle. function of spectral period. These spectra are based on a

Using Eqs. (1)–(4) and the soil properties for site class C and probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for different zones across

site class E listed in Table 2, the backbone curves for the hysteretic Canada [13]. The UHS eliminate the need to use standard spectral

lateral pressure–lateral deﬂection relation of the side soil were shapes scaled to the peak ground acceleration, thus providing a

calculated at selected depths. more site-speciﬁc description of the earthquake spectrum and

The backbone curve for the side soil can be adequately ensuring a uniform hazard level to be achieved for all spectral

modeled using the horizontal nonlinear springs and static active periods [13].

earth pressure distributed over the basement walls’ area. Thus, The UHS can be considered as a composite of all earthquake

nonlinear inelastic horizontal bar elements distributed horizon- events that contribute most strongly to the hazard at the speciﬁed

tally and vertically over the surface area of the basement walls probability level. In general, the dominant contributor to the

were used to model the nonlinear behavior of the side soil. The short-period ground-motion hazard comes from small-to-moder-

bar elements were equally spaced vertically at 1.2 m and ate earthquakes at close distances, whereas larger earthquakes at

horizontally at 7.2 m (i.e. the bar elements were distributed along greater distance contribute most strongly to the long-period

the underground perimeter columns, so that one bar is located at ground-motion hazard [14].

each story level and two intermediate bars are equally spaced The artiﬁcial ground-motion time histories compatible

within each story). The backbone curve for each bar element was with the 2% in 50 year UHS of the NBCC 2005 for the

calculated using its corresponding depth. The minimum active Vancouver area suggested by Atkinson and Beresnev [14] were

earth pressure acting on the basement walls was represented by used as input motion. They proposed an event of M6.5 at a

static concentrated loads acting at the bar elements’ locations. distance of 30 km to represent the short-period hazard and an

These loads were calculated as the value of the active earth event of M7.2 at a distance of 70 km to represent the long-period

pressure at the bar level multiplied by the horizontal and vertical hazard. In addition, an earthquake of M8.5 for the Cascadia event

spacing of the bar elements. scaled by a factor of 2.2 is used to simulate a great earthquake on

the Cascadia subduction zone. Therefore, three earthquake

records are required to cover the entire hazard represented by

7. Earthquake loads the NBCC 2005 UHS for the Vancouver area. Figs. 5–7 show the

three artiﬁcial acceleration records used in the dynamic analysis

The model buildings are assumed to be located in the of the buildings. Each building was analyzed for each of these

Vancouver area. Thus, earthquake records compatible with the three records.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

1256 H. El Ganainy, M.H. El Naggar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 1249–1261

Fig. 7. Acceleration record for M8.5 Cascadia event scaled by a factor of 2.2.

7.2. Ground response analysis motions at the considered foundation levels. In general, the

results show attenuation for the three bedrock motions, which is

The UHS given by the NBCC 2005 are deﬁned with reference to most pronounced for M6.5 at a distance of 30 km event.

site class C that is deﬁned as ‘‘very dense soil and soft rock’’. Thus,

the compatible records can be considered bedrock motions.

In general, the characteristics of the bedrock motion can be 8. Nonlinear dynamic analysis

ampliﬁed or attenuated while propagating from the bedrock

towards the ground surface. This alteration depends mainly on the Nonlinear dynamic analyses were performed to assess the

frequency content of the bedrock motion and the properties of the seismic performance of the model buildings. A series of nonlinear

soil deposit. Firm soil deposits, such as site class C, will probably direct integration time–history analyses were conducted using the

not alter the characteristics of the bedrock motion since they can nonlinear structural analysis software Perform-3D [1].

be considered part of the bedrock. Therefore, all buildings founded The seismic responses of ﬁve, ten and ﬁfteen story buildings

on site class C can be analyzed for the bedrock motions shown in with underground stories ranging from zero (i.e. founded on the

Figs. 5–7, whether they are surface building or have multiple ground surface) to ﬁve underground stories were investigated.

underground stories. The response of the buildings was evaluated in terms of: (1) the

On the other hand, a soft soil deposit as site class E would magnitudes and distribution of the envelope of the story shear

probably alter the characteristics of the bedrock motion, by and moment demand on the buildings throughout each seismic

ampliﬁcation or attenuation. Thus, the ground motions shown in event; (2) the maximum usage ratio of the limit states deﬁning

Figs. 5–7 were propagated within a 30-m-thick deposit of soil site the performance level of the primary structural components of

class E (Table 2), performing nonlinear free-ﬁeld site response the building. The performance of the following structural

analyses using the one-dimensional (1D) site response analysis components has been investigated: (1) perimeter columns’ end

program DEEPSOIL [15]. The G/Gmax modulus reduction curve and rotation; (2) perimeter girders’ end rotation; (3) connection panel

the equivalent damping ratio versus shear strain relationship for zones’ shear deformation, in terms of three performance levels,

sand given by Seed and Idriss [16] were assigned to the soil namely: immediate occupancy, life safety and collapse prevention,

deposit [17]. as speciﬁed by the ASCE 41 [7] standard.

Three ground response analyses were conducted, one for each

of the three ground motions as input bedrock motion and the

response of the soil deposit was evaluated. The ground motion 8.1. Nonlinear direct integration time–history analysis

was calculated at four foundation levels corresponding to

buildings having ﬁve, three and one underground stories and Perform-3D utilizes step-by-step integration through time

at the ground surface for buildings with surface foundations. using the constant average acceleration (CAA) method (also

Figs. 8–10 show the results of the ground response analyses in known as the trapezoidal rule or the Newmark b ¼ 14 method) to

terms of the acceleration time histories of the three bedrock calculate the seismic response of buildings.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

H. El Ganainy, M.H. El Naggar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 1249–1261 1257

ARTICLE IN PRESS

1258 H. El Ganainy, M.H. El Naggar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 1249–1261

Fig. 10. Ground response analysis results for M8.5 Cascadia event scaled by a factor of 2.2.

The input ground motions resulting from the ground response Rayleigh damping could overestimate the viscous damping in

analyses and the corresponding bedrock motions were used in nonlinear structures [18]. Using the modal damping could

the analysis of the buildings. The earthquake direction was set alleviate this defect.

to the W–E direction for all buildings. The ground motions were In the modal damping approach, the damping matrix is

given in 0.01 s time steps. Therefore, the integration time step for calculated for linear analysis using the elastic mode shapes and

the analysis was taken 0.01 s in order to accurately capture the periods of the structure utilizing the speciﬁed damping ratio. This

input ground motions. Also, it is sufﬁciently small to capture damping matrix is kept constant throughout the analysis steps.

the structure response, since it is considerably smaller than For nonlinear analysis, the deformed shape for the nonlinear

1

the recommended practical value of 12 of the structure period [18] structure generally contains contributions from the elastic mode

that ranges around 3.0 s for all model buildings encountered in shapes. However, the effective periods of vibration for these

this study. shapes are not the linear periods. Consequently, the mode shapes

There are two sources of damping in nonlinear structures: (1) are still damped, but since the effective period may have changed

for a structure that is essentially elastic, the earthquake energy is after yielding of structural components (probably increased)

dissipated through viscous damping; (2) after the structure yields, while the damping matrix is unchanged, the amount of damping,

hysteretic damping resulting from the inelastic behavior of the expressed as a proportion of critical damping, generally changes

structural components would add to the total dissipated energy. [18]. A shortcoming of using modal damping in nonlinear analysis

Modeling the structural elements of the building using inelastic is that only the calculated elastic mode shapes are damped.

components inherently accounts for this source of damping [18]. However, the higher modes are undamped.

To simulate viscous damping in buildings, either the modal To provide reasonable damping values, avoiding the pitfalls of

damping or Rayleigh damping can be used. both methods, a combination of modal damping and a small value

Rayleigh damping calculates the damping matrix of the of the Beta-K Rayleigh damping (with no Alpha-M damping) could

structure using a combination of the mass matrix and the initial be used. This is to insure that the Beta-K part will serve in

elastic stiffness matrix of the structure, multiplied by scaling damping the higher modes of vibration, and the modal damping

factors, a and b, for the mass and stiffness matrices, respectively. serves in damping the lower modes (i.e. elastic modes). For the

The Rayleigh damping is widely used in linear structural analysis. current study, the damping ratio was assigned to the model

However, it can lead to unrealistic large damping values in buildings as a combination of 3% modal damping in addition to

nonlinear analysis. The Rayleigh damping matrix is calculated 0.1% Beta-K Rayleigh damping, and six modes of vibration were

once at the beginning of the analysis using the initial elastic calculated for the buildings.

stiffness matrix of the structure and is used throughout the The analyses involved a gravity load case followed by a series

analysis. However, as the intensity of the seismic shaking of independent dynamic analyses, each having the gravity load

increases and the structure experiences nonlinear behavior in case as the preceding case. The self weight of the structure and the

the form of plastic hinging, the structure would soften and its active earth pressure acting on the basement walls were applied

stiffness would decrease and become much less than the elastic in the gravity load case. The p–d effects were considered for all the

value used initially in calculating the damping matrix. Hence, the vertical components of the building. The elastic frame members

ARTICLE IN PRESS

H. El Ganainy, M.H. El Naggar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 1249–1261 1259

foundations’ response were not assigned p–d effects to eliminate

any additional artiﬁcial moments on the footings that could result

from the self weight of the structure.

parametric study, only some representative results are presented

here. The complete set of results can be found in El Ganainy [9].

The results are presented in the form of graphs comparing

response quantities for each of the ﬁve, ten and ﬁfteen story

buildings with these conditions: ﬁxed base, ﬂexible foundation

(i.e. zero underground stories) and having one, three or ﬁve

underground stories. The response quantities presented include:

(1) the envelope of the story shear and moment demand on the

buildings throughout the earthquake events; (2) the maximum

usage ratio of the limit states deﬁning the performance level of

the structural components of the building.

Fig. 12. Story shear demand on ﬁve story buildings—M8.5 Cascadia event scaled

ﬁve story buildings for the M8.5 Cascadia event scaled by a factor by a factor of 2.2 (soil class E).

of 2.2 for soil classes C and E, respectively, while Figs. 13 and 14

show the envelope of moment demand for the same conditions.

The ﬁgures show that the SSI decreased the base shear and

moment demands on buildings founded on stiff soil, but increased

the base story shear and moment demand on buildings founded

on soft soil conditions. For example, it increased by about 10–25%

of the ﬁxed base buildings values for buildings founded on soil

class E. This shows that the common assumption that SSI has a

favorable effect by decreasing the seismic forces postulated by

almost all the design code does not always hold. The ﬁgures also

show that the behavior of buildings with underground stories is

closer to that of ﬁxed base, i.e., as the number of underground

stories increased, the SSI effects decreased. This could be

attributed to the rigidity of the basement walls together with

the rigid diaphragm action of the underground stories’ slabs

Fig. 13. Story moment demand on ﬁve story buildings—M8.5 Cascadia event

scaled by a factor of 2.2 (soil class C).

box, hence ﬁxing the structure. These ﬁxing effects would

probably increase with the number of the underground stories.

The results for the 10 and 15 story buildings (found in El Ganainy

[9]) show that the SSI effects are less pronounced for buildings

with longer period.

Inspecting the whole set of graphs for the envelope of story

shear and moment demand on the buildings found in El Ganainy

[9], the following observations are made:

Fig. 11. Story shear demand on ﬁve story buildings—M8.5 Cascadia event scaled (1) For buildings with underground stories or ﬂexible foundations

by a factor of 2.2 (soil class C). founded on soil class C, the envelope of the story shear and

ARTICLE IN PRESS

1260 H. El Ganainy, M.H. El Naggar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 1249–1261

Fig. 15. Usage ratio of limit states for ﬁve story buildings—M8.5 Cascadia event

scaled by a factor of 2.2 (soil class C).

Fig. 14. Story moment demand on ﬁve story buildings—M8.5 Cascadia event

scaled by a factor of 2.2 (soil class E).

or in shape of distribution, compared to the ﬁxed base

buildings case. The minimal SSI effect in this case is attributed

to the high soil stiffness and hence minimal change in the

dynamic characteristics of the soil–structure system.

(2) The effects of the SSI on the seismic loads are pronounced for

buildings founded on soil class E for all seismic events

considered. The envelopes of story shear and moment demand

for buildings with underground stories or ﬂexible foundations

have changed in magnitude compared to the case of buildings

with ﬁxed base condition. The magnitudes of base shear and

moment have mostly increased, especially at the base where

the increase generally ranged from about 10% to 25% of the

ﬁxed base values.

states for ﬁve story buildings for the M8.5 Cascadia event scaled

by a factor of 2.2 for soil classes C and E, respectively. Fig. 15 shows

Fig. 16. Usage ratio of limit states for ﬁve story buildings—M8.5 Cascadia event

that for soil class C, the deformations of the structural compo- scaled by a factor of 2.2 (soil class E).

nents of buildings with ﬂexible foundations or underground

stories are slightly different from those of buildings with ﬁxed

base conditions. On the other hand, Fig. 16 shows that for the soil especially for the connection panel zones’ shear deformations

class E, the deformations of the structural components of performance levels. This observation clearly demonstrates that SSI

buildings with ﬂexible foundations or underground stories are effects on the seismic performance of buildings increase as the

substantially different (larger) from those of buildings with ﬁxed soil stiffness decreases.

base conditions. However, as the number of underground stories

increased, the deformation of the structural components gradu-

ally decreased approaching the ﬁxed buildings values. Similar 10. Summary and conclusions

observations can be made from the rest of ﬁgures found in El

Ganainy [9], for ten and ﬁfteen story buildings and different The seismic performance of buildings with multiple under-

seismic events. In general, the SSI effects are less pronounced as ground stories was investigated. Five, ten and ﬁfteen story 3D

the period of the building increased. Comparing the deformations moment-resisting frame steel buildings with underground stories

of the structural components of buildings founded on soil class E ranging from zero to ﬁve underground stories have been

to that of the corresponding buildings founded on soil class C, it is examined. The buildings were assumed to be founded on shallow

noted that the deformation level generally increases for the soil foundations. Two site conditions were considered: soil class C and

class E case. The increase ranges from about 50% to about 300% soil class E, corresponding to ﬁrm and soft soil deposits,

ARTICLE IN PRESS

H. El Ganainy, M.H. El Naggar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 1249–1261 1261

respectively. Vancouver seismic area has been considered for this case for buildings founded on soil class E. This would in turn

study. Synthetic earthquake records compatible with the Vancou- increase the lateral deﬂection of the whole building. Thus, SSI can

ver UHS, as speciﬁed by the NBCC 2005, have been used as input have a detrimental effect on the performance of buildings.

motion. For buildings founded on site class C, the bedrock motions

have been utilized in the seismic analyses of the buildings.

However, for buildings founded on site class E, ground response References

analyses have been performed to evaluate the characteristics of

the ground motion within the soil proﬁle at each of the desired [1] Computers and Structures Inc. (CSI). Perform-3D—A computer program for

nonlinear analysis and performance assessment of 3D structures. 2007: 4.0.3.

foundation levels for the considered buildings. [2] American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). FEMA 310-handbook for the

The building foundations were modeled using an assemblage seismic evaluation of buildings: a prestandard. Washington, DC: Federal

of a curvature hinge, shear hinge connected in series with an Emergency Management Agency; 1998.

[3] Das BM. Principles of foundation engineering. Toronto, Ontario, Canada:

elastic frame member attached to the bottom end of the ground Thomson; 2007.

story columns. El Ganainy [9] has shown that this approach can be [4] Das BM. Fundamentals of geotechnical engineering. Paciﬁc Grove, CA: Brooks/

used in modeling the 3D cyclic rocking, vertical and horizontal Cole; 1999.

[5] American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). FEMA 356—Prestandard and

responses of shallow foundations effectively. The behavior of the commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Washington, DC:

side soil has been modeled using an approximate method: Federal Emergency Management Agency; 2000.

nonlinear bar elements were used to model its ﬂexibility and [6] Computers and Structures Inc. (CSI). ETABS—an integrated building design

software; 2008 9.2.0.

ultimate horizontal capacity and static earth pressure was applied

[7] American Society of Civil Engineers. ASCE 41—seismic rehabilitation of

to the basement walls in order to simulate the effect of the initial existing buildings. American Society of Civil Engineers; 2006; ASCE/SEI 41-06.

active earth pressure prior to the seismic event. [8] Allotey N, El Naggar MH. Analytical moment–rotation curves for rigid

foundations based on a Winkler model. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng

The dynamic analysis was conducted using the nonlinear

2003;23:367–81.

structural analysis software Perform-3D. The results indicate that [9] El Ganainy HM. Seismic performance of buildings with multiple underground

the SSI can considerably affect the seismic response of surface stories. M.E.Sc. thesis, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada

buildings as well as buildings with underground stories founded 2008.

[10] El-Tawil S, Deierlein GG. Nonlinear analysis of mixed steel–concrete frames. I:

on soft soil conditions. In general, the results showed that SSI element formulation. J Struct Eng 2001;127:647–55.

effects are important for buildings founded on soft ground [11] El-Tawil S, Deierlein GG. Nonlinear analysis of mixed steel–concrete frames.

conditions. However, for ﬁrm ground conditions its effects can II: implementation and veriﬁcation. J Struct Eng 2001;127:656–65.

[12] Briaud J, Kim N. Beam–column method for tieback walls. J Geotech

be neglected. Geoenviron Eng 1998;124:67–79.

The results showed that the SSI effects increased the base shear [13] Adams J, Atkinson G. Development of seismic hazard maps for the proposed

and moment demand on buildings founded on soft soil. This is 2005 edition of the national building code of Canada. Can J Civ Eng 2003;30:

255–71.

contrary to the common assumption that SSI effect on seismic [14] Atkinson GM, Beresnev IA. Compatible ground-motion time histories for new

forces is always favorable, postulated by almost all the design national seismic hazard maps. Can J Civ Eng 1998;25:305–18.

codes. It is clearly demonstrated that the base shear and moment [15] Hashash Y, Park D, Tsai CC. DEEPSOIL—a computer program for one-

dimensional site response analysis. University of Illinois at Urbana-Cham-

demand on short-period buildings could increase by up to 25% of

paign; 2005: 2.6.

the ﬁxed base buildings values. [16] Seed HB, Idriss IM. Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response

The deformations of the structural components of the build- analysis. Berkeley, California: Earthquake Engineering Research Center,

ings have also been affected by the SSI. The deformations of University of California; 1970: UCB/EERC-70/10.

[17] Hashash Y, Park D, Tsai CC. DEEPSOIL—tutorial and user manual. University of

buildings with ﬂexible bases have shown a considerable increase Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; 2005; 2.6.

that ranged from 50% to about 300% compared to the ﬁxed base [18] Computers and Structures Inc. (CSI). Perform-3D—user manuals. 2007: 4.0.3.

- Nist Gcr 11-917-15 Gm SelectionUploaded bySAColorado
- Nist Gcr 11-917-15_report (Atc 83)Uploaded byrhonald2000
- Concrete Slab CollectorsUploaded byCharugalla Jeevan Phani Sreeram
- Tesi_di_dottorato_Manuela_Brescia_IS GOOD_Rotation Capacity Steel Members for Seismic DesignUploaded bysecanet10
- Pushover seismic analysis of quasi-static tested confined masonry buildings through simplified model.pdfUploaded byAravind Bhashyam
- Exercice data and assissting material.pdfUploaded bySwamy Mani
- Siesmic Design GuideUploaded bygugi
- New Method for the Design of Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frames With Damage ControlUploaded byhamed_kouhestani
- Pushover Analysis of Diagrid StructureUploaded byStructure department
- pushover.pdfUploaded byHitesh Atri
- Seismic Performance of Buckling Restrained Braced Frames in a Chilean BuildingUploaded bycontrerasc_sebastian988
- Material Modelling in the Seismic Response Analysis for the Design of Rc Framed StructuresUploaded byGeorge Cristian Iordache
- Confinement DesignUploaded byJAcc COncepcion
- Performance Based Seismic AnalyUploaded byShamim Ahsan Zubery
- Asymetric BuildingsUploaded byocerasela
- Finite Element ExerciseUploaded bylessons85
- 14_05-01-0140Uploaded byJCS
- bp6bUploaded byrmm99rmm99
- FHWA-NJ-2005-002.pdfUploaded bySafwat El Rouby
- 2003 - Jalayer - Direct Probabilistc Seismic Analysis-Implementing Non-linear Dynamic AssessmentsUploaded byDeviprasad B S
- Muzon Baritan Bridge Feb22Uploaded byMichael Bautista Baylon
- Plan CivseismUploaded byAnh Minh
- IJEIT1412201308_53(1)Uploaded byBalaji Nallaval Chinnaswamy
- bp3aUploaded byrmm99rmm99
- The Structural Design of Tall BuildingsUploaded byahemadam
- Modelacion No Lineal de Losa de Fundacion Con Asentamiento Diferencial Para Edificios AltosUploaded bycontrerasc_sebastian988
- ufc_3_310_04_2013_c1Uploaded byRaleigh Gesulga Labarrete
- 13_1351 DEVELOPMENT OF FRAGILITY AND RELIABILITY CURVESUploaded byhamadani
- Seismic response of transformerUploaded byEnriqueGD
- 13_218Uploaded bygutian259

- 00 Cover Page ModelUploaded byJaher Wasim
- Electrical FloorUploaded byJaher Wasim
- Proposed Beam LayoutUploaded byJaher Wasim
- Charmin AUploaded byJaher Wasim
- UGWR SectionUploaded byJaher Wasim
- 1Uploaded byJaher Wasim
- Residence FileUploaded byJaher Wasim
- Grade Beam Retrofit-ModelUploaded byJaher Wasim
- BMD Excercise 1Uploaded byJaher Wasim
- 2013_05_26_22_27_30schedule_of_rates_2010Uploaded byJaher Wasim
- CapUploaded byJaher Wasim
- Archi Spec_Const Issue-2Uploaded byJaher Wasim
- UGWR PlanUploaded byJaher Wasim
- Stair Code BdUploaded byJaher Wasim
- HelicalUploaded byJaher Wasim
- Mukaichi - Large and deep cast-in-place reinforced concrete piles using shaft grout.pdfUploaded byAlhad Panwalkar
- design for raft pilesUploaded bylinamohdzhor4815
- bangladesh Concrete CodeUploaded byXaid Ibrahim
- bangladesh Concrete CodeUploaded byXaid Ibrahim
- i know himUploaded byJaher Wasim
- jadupaiUploaded byJaher Wasim
- new mailUploaded byJaher Wasim
- Micro Piles for Structural DesignUploaded byPedro Cedeño
- American_App_Examples_2007_CompleteUploaded bySarzu Mulmi
- HydrologyUploaded byJaher Wasim
- 2013_05_26_22_27_30schedule_of_rates_2010Uploaded byJaher Wasim
- 4A_Recent_Innovations_Cable-Stayed_Br_Dsgn&Const_M_Lengyel_P_Montemerlo.pdfUploaded byBorna Dasović
- Instruction (Do Not Print)Uploaded byJaher Wasim
- Cover Page (Drawing 6 of 6)Uploaded byJaher Wasim

- An Elementary Outline of Mechanical ProcessesUploaded byAshari Saputra
- Topic 5Uploaded byZafirahAhmadFauzi
- Proses Pengolahan Bijih EmasUploaded byIyrha Auriliand
- ICRI 310-2R-2013Uploaded byAnjali Anju
- 11.Glove.SelecUploaded byAbhijit More
- CHM144L - Expt. 4 Final ReportUploaded byJohn Paul Tañeda
- Arkema - FDS Fluidiram 780Uploaded byPeligri
- Aci Vn 2011 Topic 1Uploaded byMohammad Shafiq Wakil
- MSDS 280ANUploaded byNur Ali Said
- Study on the Behavior of Pile Cap Model with Various Type Failure of Concrete CapUploaded byGJESR
- Cathodic Protection Training Course.docUploaded byzouheiramara
- Gravity Load Floor SystemUploaded bypancsika20022076
- BS 5628-3 WorkmanshipUploaded byCarolSerban
- Engineering Handbook Spray NozzlesUploaded byWalter Rigamonti
- Gic AdvancesUploaded byrahul sharma
- HAL MT MechanicalUploaded byRavi Kiran Meesala
- 04 BrinesUploaded byilkerkozturk
- Ai, Chen, Rotter and Ooi - A Numerical and Experimental Study of the Base Pressure Distribution Beneath a StockpileUploaded byHarold Conley Macchiavello
- ast_021118EUploaded byRam Asawa
- Rate of Reaction Smk Tunku Ampuan NajihahUploaded byNaguib Zakaria
- Xinxing Technical ManualUploaded byMario Luna
- Myonic Catalogue EnUploaded bypaula09
- materiel for high performance concreteUploaded bysakolkong
- Cullet Safety DatasheetUploaded byTri Febriyani
- Drilling course Introduction to CementingUploaded byEslam Esmaeel
- csir serc.docxUploaded byAnamika Muralidharan
- mql reviewUploaded byAzaath Azu
- Load TransferUploaded byswopnilojha
- Non-conventional Energy Sources_G. D. RaiUploaded byHari Kishan
- CHW Valves TypesUploaded byQaz Zaq