INTERNATIONALJOURNALOFCIVILANDSTRUCTURALENGINEERING Volume2,No 2,2011

Copyright2010AllrightsreservedIntegratedPublishingservices

Researcharticle

ISSN0976 4399

1 2 3 PandeyA.D ,PrabhatKumar ,SharadSharma 1AssistantProfessor,DepartmentofEarthquakeEngineering,IITRoorkee,Roorkee, Uttarakhand,India,247667 2Ph.DStudent,ResearchScholar,DepartmentofEarthquakeEngineering,IITRoorkee, Roorkee,Uttarakhand,India,247667 3PostGraduateStudent,DepartmentofCivilEngineering,IITRoorkee,Roorkee, Uttarakhand,India,247667 prabhatkumariitr@gmail.com

Seismicsoilstructureinteractionofbuildingsonhillslopes

ABSTRACT In hilly regions, engineered construction is constrained by local topography resulting in the adoption of either a stepback or stepbacksetback configuration as a structural form for buildings. The adopted form invariably results in a structure which is irregular by virtue of varyingcolumnheightsleadingtotorsionandincreasedshearduringseismicgroundmotion. To capture the real behavior of buildings on hill slope a 3D analysis of the building is required. In the present study, static pushover analysis and Response spectrum analysis (RSA)havebeenconductedonfivebuildingi.e.threestepbackbuildingsandtwostepback setback buildingswith varyingsupportconditions.These buildings have beenanalyzed for different soil conditions (hard, medium and soft soils) idealized by equivalent springs. The response parameters, i.e. total base shear (V), displacement from pushover analysis ( performance point), displacement from RSA ( elastic) and response correction factor (R) have been studied with respect to fixed base analysis to compare the effect of soil springs. In generalitisfoundthatresponsereductionfactordecreaseswithincreasingtimeperiod,butis expectedtobeconstantbeyondacertainvalueoftimeperiod. Keywords: SoilStructure Interaction, Unsymmetrical Buildings, ResponseSpectrum Analysis,PushoverAnalysis,PerformancePoint,ReductionFactor. 1. Introduction The scarcity of plain ground in hilly areas compels construction activity on sloping ground resulting in various important buildings such as reinforced concrete framed hospitals, colleges, hotels and offices resting on hilly slopes. Since, the behavior of buildings during earthquakedependsuponthedistributionofmassandstiffnessinbothhorizontalandvertical planes of the buildings, both of which vary in case of hilly buildings with irregularity and asymmetry due to stepback and step backset back configuration(Kumar and Paul, 1996). Thepresenceofsuchconstructionsinseismicallyproneareasmakesthemexposedtogreater shears and torsion as compared to conventional construction. In order to highlight the differencesinbehavior,whichmayfurtherbeinfluencedbythecharacteristicsofthelocally available foundation material,aparametricstudyhasbeenconductedon fivedifferentstep back and step backset back buildings. Current building codes including IS: 1893 (Part 1): 2002 suggest detailed dynamic analysis of these types of buildings on different soil (hard, mediumandsoftsoil)types.Toassessacceptabilityofthedesignitisimportanttopredictthe force and deformation demands imposed on structures andtheir elements by severe ground motion bymeansofstaticpushoveranalysis.

ReceivedonSeptember, 2011PublishedonNovember2011

535

Seismicsoilstructureinteractionofbuildingsonhillslopes PandeyA.D,PrabhatKumar,SharadSharma

2. ModelingandAnalysis ThefivedifferentbuildingsareanalyzedinSAP2000asshowninFigure1and2.Theslope ofthegroundhasbeentakenas27 degreewithhorizontalwhichisneithertoosteepnortoo flat. The properties of the considered building configurations in the present study are summarizedbelow(Birajdar,2004). Heightofeachfloor:3.5m Plandimensionofeachstoreyblock:75m Floorthickness:0.15 m Wallthickness:230mm Parapetwallthickness:230mm
2 Densityofconcrete:25KN/m

PoissonsRatio:0.2 Damping:0.05 Sizeofcolumn:230mm500mm Sizeofbeams:230mm500mm Sizeofisolatefootingtaken:1m1m The structural material is assumed to be isotropic and homogenous. Joint between the buildingelements(beamandcolumns)hasbeenmodelledbyusing diaphragm asconstraints. Thenonlinearstaticpushoveranalysisanddynamicanalysis(ResponseSpectrumAnalysis) hasbeencarriedoutforrigidbase(fixedbase)andflexiblebaseconditions.Thefoundation (base) flexibility in the analysis is considered by means of replacing the foundation by staticallyequivalentspringswithsixdegreesoffreedom.

InternationalJournalofCivilandStructuralEngineering Volume2Issue 2 2011

536

Seismicsoilstructureinteractionofbuildingsonhillslopes PandeyA.D,PrabhatKumar,SharadSharma

c)4storey4bay

Figure1:Stepbackbuildings(a,b,c)withincreasednumberofstoreyandbaysinY direction

Figure2:StepbackSetbackbuildings(d,e)withincreasednumberofstoreyandbaysinY direction 2.1 ResponseSpectrumAnalysis(DynamicAnalysis) The dynamic analysis of structures is carried out by two methods, Response Spectrum MethodandTimeHistoryMethod.TheResponseSpectrumMethodconsistsofdetermining the response in each mode of vibration and then superimposing the responses in various modestoobtainthetotalresponse.The seismicanalysisofall buildingswascarriedoutby ResponseSpectrumMethodinaccordancewithIS:1893(Part1):2002,includingtheeffect of eccentricity (static and accidental). Damping considered for all modes of vibration was fivepercent.Fordeterminingtheresponseofthebuildingsindifferentdirectionsforground acceleration the response spectrum analysis was conducted in longitudinal and transverse direction. The other parameters used in seismic analysis were, moderate seismic zone (III), 537
InternationalJournalofCivilandStructuralEngineering Volume2Issue 2 2011

Seismicsoilstructureinteractionofbuildingsonhillslopes PandeyA.D,PrabhatKumar,SharadSharma

zone factor 0.16, importance factor 1 and the response reduction factor as 3. Ordinary momentresistantframeforallconfigurationswasassumed. 2.2 PushoverAnalysis The Nonlinear static pushover analysis is a relatively simple solution to the problem of predicting force and deformation demands imposed on structures and their elements by severe ground motion. Nonlinear static methods involve three distinct phases: estimation of capacity, estimation of demand and correlating the two to decide the performance of the buildings. The nonlinear static pushover analysis is a comprehensive methodof evaluating earthquake response of structures explicitly considering nonlinear behavior of structural elements.Thecapacityspectrummethodisadoptedforimplementingpushoveranalysisthat comparesstructuralcapacitywithgroundshakingdemandtodeterminepeakresponseduring an earthquake. The capacity spectrum method estimates peak responses by expressing both structural capacity and ground shaking demand in terms of spectral acceleration and displacement. The capacity spectrum method assumes peak response of the nonlinear structure to be equal to the modal displacement of an equivalent elastic system with an effectiveperiod,Teff basedonsecantstiffness.Theintersectionofcapacitycurveanddemand curve established the performance point. Under incrementally increasing loads some elements may yield sequentially. Consequently, at each event, the structures experiences a stiffnesschangeasshowninFigure3,whereIO,LSandCPstandforimmediateoccupancy, lifesafetyandcollapsepreventionrespectively.

Figure3:LoadDeformationCurve 3. FoundationCharacteristics Dynamicanalysisofthestructureanditsinteractionwiththematerial(foundationsoil)under the structure affects the response of structure. The interaction between foundation and soil depends on the elastic properties of foundation soil and foundation dimensions. The foundation flexibility in the analysis is considered by means of replacing the foundation by statically equivalent springs. Modeling of foundation soil has been done by using spring constantsasshownbelow,accordingtotheequationsgivenby Wolf(1985). 538

InternationalJournalofCivilandStructuralEngineering Volume2Issue 2 2011

Seismicsoilstructureinteractionofbuildingsonhillslopes PandeyA.D,PrabhatKumar,SharadSharma

Springconstant

Equivalentradius

32(1)GRo Kx = Ky = (78)
Kz = 4GRo (1)

Ro =
Ro =

Af

p
Af

Eq.3.1 Eq.3.2

p
4Iyf

3 8GRo KRx = 3(1n ) 3 8GRo KRy = 3(1n ) 3 16GRo KRz = 3

Ro = 4
Ro = 4 Ro = 4

p
p

Eq.3.3

4Ixf 2( Iyf + Ixf)

Eq.3.4

Eq.3.5

Where, G is shear modulus of soil, is the Poissons ratio of soil and Ro is the equivalent radius Af is the area of the footing and Ixf and Iyf are moments of inertia of the footing aboutXandYaxis,respectively.ThevaluesofPoissonsratio()andshearmodulus(G)for three different kinds of soil, hard, medium and soft are taken from Prakash and Barken (Verma, 1989).The elastic properties of foundation soil for hard, medium and soft soil are tabulated in Table 1 and the numerical values of spring constants for different type of foundationsoilforisolatedfootingaresummarizedin Table2. Table1ElasticPropertiesofFoundationSoil Typeofsoil HARD MEDIUM SOFT ShearModulus 2 G(KN/m ) 2700.0 451.1 84.5 ElasticModulus 2 E(KN/m ) 6750.0 1200.0 250.0 PoissonsRatio 0.25 0.33 0.48

Table2:SpringConstantsforIsolatedFooting Typeof soil HARD MEDIUM SOFT Kx (KN/m) 7309.4 1251.1 251.0 Ky (KN/m) 7309.4 1251.1 251.0 Kz (KN/m) 8121.6 1518.9 366.6 KRx (KN/rad) 1777.8 334.1 80.3 KRy (KN/rad) 1777.8 334.1 80.3 KRz (KN/rad) 2666.7 444.5 83.5

4. ResultandDiscussion In SAP 2000, a nonlinear behaviour is assumed to occur within frame elements at concentratedpointsorplastichinges.Thedefaulttypesincludeanuncoupledmomenthinges, an uncoupled axial hinge, an uncoupled shear hinge and a coupled axial force and biaxial bending moment hinge, as PMM, PM and M. The default hinge properties designated are typically based on FEMA273/356 or ACT40 criteria, these default properties are section dependent.DefaultPMM hingestoeachendofthe momentframecolumnsanddefaultM3 hinges to each end of the moment frame beams were assigned as described in ATC40 for
InternationalJournalofCivilandStructuralEngineering Volume2Issue 2 2011

539

Seismicsoilstructureinteractionofbuildingsonhillslopes PandeyA.D,PrabhatKumar,SharadSharma

pushover analysis. The developmentof the pushover curve includes the evaluation of force distributionalongtheheightofthestructure.Inthestaticpushoveranalysis,loadcaseswere definedforthegravityloadandothertwocasesaredefinedforthelateralloaddistributionin XandYdirection.Theloadapplicationisdefinedtobedisplacementcontrolwhiledefining theloadcasesforthepushoveranalysis.Inthepresentanalysistheformationofhingesinthe buildings shows almost similar pattern for different types of foundation media. In X direction,thehingeformationstartswithbeamsfromtheendofshortestcolumnframe.Inthe beginningofthehingeformation,firstfewhingesaredevelopedintheshortestcolumnsinY direction.Theformationofhingesstartedfromtheshortestcolumnsandthenreachedtothe last longest frame. The hinges in the shortest columns exhibit rotations corresponding to immediateoccupancy level andessentiallyreachingthecollapseprevention level forallthe types of support condition. Sometimes the hinges in these columns reached the collapse prevention level directly after the immediate occupancy level and jumping the life safety zone. The data obtained from pushover analysis is tabulated in Table 3 and Table 4. The sequence of formation and hinge patterns of stepback and set backstep back buildings are shownin Figure4,5,6and7.

Figure4:SequenceofformationandHingepatternsofframeA,B,C,DandE (StepBackBuilding4Storey4Bay)

InternationalJournalofCivilandStructuralEngineering Volume2Issue 2 2011

540

Seismicsoilstructureinteractionofbuildingsonhillslopes PandeyA.D,PrabhatKumar,SharadSharma

Figure5:SequenceofformationandHingepatternsofshortestcolumnframee (StepBackBuilding4Storey4Bay)

Figure6: SequenceofformationandHingepatternsofframeA,B,C,DandE (SetBackStepBackBuilding4Storey4Bay)

InternationalJournalofCivilandStructuralEngineering Volume2Issue 2 2011

541

Seismicsoilstructureinteractionofbuildingsonhillslopes PandeyA.D,PrabhatKumar,SharadSharma

Figure7:SequenceofformationandHingepatternsofshortestcolumnframee (SetBackStepBackBuilding4Storey4Bay)

Table3:ResultsofPushoveranalysisforStepBackBuildings Building Valuesof VPP &PP configuration (KN&mm) Vx Vy x y Vx Vy x y Vx Vy x y Fixed Support 961.70 528.30 15.00 28.00 2225.70 1032.80 17.00 35.00 2673.40 1312.30 28.00 49.00 SoilStructureInteraction HardSoil MediumSoil SoftSoil 689.30 428.60 174.09 388.80 * 215.00 52.00 129.00 211.00 60.00 * 388.00 1453.20 916.90 * * 565.10 * 64.00 181.00 * * 137.00 * 1860.14 1101.30 * 1101.50 777.10 * 96.00 258.00 * 97.00 165.00 *

2storey 2Bay

3Storey 3Bay

4Storey 4Bay

Table4:ResultsofPushoverAnalysisforStepBackSetBackBuildings SoilStructureInteraction HardSoil MediumSoil SoftSoil

1471.80 830.00 61.00 62.00 2654.00 1398.00 75.00 76.00 797.85 * 154.00 * 1600.20 * 204.00 * * * * * * * * *

Building Valuesof VPP &PP configuration (KN&mm) 3Storey 3Bay 4Storey 4Bay
Vx Vy x y Vx Vy x y

Fixed Support
2035.80 1094.00 15.00 28.00 3988.40 1746.00 18.00 34.00

(pp) PerformancePoint,Visthetotalbaseshear,isthedisplacement,*Resultnotavailable. 542

InternationalJournalofCivilandStructuralEngineering Volume2Issue 2 2011

Seismicsoilstructureinteractionofbuildingsonhillslopes PandeyA.D,PrabhatKumar,SharadSharma

The above two tables clearly show that the total base shear in Xdirection for all the consideredbuildingmodelswerehigherthanthebaseshearinYdirectionexceptforsoftsoil for which sufficient amount of results have not emerged. Further the displacements in X directionwerelessthanthedisplacementsinYdirection.Since,thebuildingsinXdirection arestiffer,hencetheyshowedlesserdisplacementsandattractsgreatershearforcesespecially in the shorter columns, while in Ydirection the buildings are less stiff due to which higher displacements and less shear forces were obtained. The results exhibit the typical expected behavior for soilstructure interaction. As the foundation moves from the fixed support to hardsoil,mediumsoilthensoftsoilsupport,theshearforcesgoondecreasinginbothXand Ydirection,whilethedisplacementgoesonincreasing. The displacements from pushover analysis ( performance point ( pp)) and response spectrum analysis( elastic)havebeentabulatedinTable5and6forStepbackandStepbackSetback buildings. The tables clearly shows that for Step BackSet Back buildings the value of displacementattheperformancepoint, ppisalwaysgreaterthan elastic,i.e.,( pp/ elastic > 1)inbothXandYdirectionforalltypeofsupport.WhileinStepbackbuildingsthisratiois validperfectly inXdirectionbutforYdirectionthisrelation is validuptoonlytwostorey andtwobay forhardsoil supportafterthatthisratiobecomes lessthanone.Thecorrection factor R has been calculated by dividing the displacement at performance point (inelastic displacement) by the elastic displacement multiplying by the response reduction factor R whosevalueis3forOrdinarymomentresistingframe(OMRF)asperIS1893:2002. R'=(pp/R*elastic) TherelationshipbetweenTandRhasbeenshownin Figures8,9, 10and 11. Table5:Displacementsfrompushoveranalysisandresponsespectrumanalysis (stepbackbuildings) elastic pp '=R*elastic Building R'=(pp/') (mm) (mm) (mm) configuration Xdir Ydir Xdir Ydir Xdir. Ydir Xdir Ydir 3.36 15 28 13.68 10.98 1.10 2.56 2Storey2bay 4.56 17 35 15.78 60.78 1.08 0.59 3Storey3bay 5.26 20.26 28 49 42.60 105.54 0.66 0.47 4Storey4bay 14.20 35.18 52 60 55.74 124.23 0.93 0.48 2Storey2bay 18.58 41.41 * 64 72.42 203.13 * 0.32 3Storey3bay 24.14 67.71 97 139.74 312.30 0.69 0.30 4Storey4bay 46.58 104.10 96 * 216.45 392.40 0.60 * 2Storey2bay 72.15 130.84 129 137 245.40 488.40 0.74 0.28 3Storey3bay 81.80 162.80 181 165 443.70 711 0.58 0.23 4Storey4bay 147.9 237.80 258 388 760.5 1233.0 0.28 0.315 2Storey2bay 253.5 411.02 211 * * * * * * 3Storey3bay 334.0 627.76 * * * * * * 4Storey4bay 610.1 891.82 *Result not available, (pp) performance point, elastic is the displacement in response spectrum analysis,Ristheresponsereductionfactor Soft Mediu Hard Fixed Support soil msoil soil base

InternationalJournalofCivilandStructuralEngineering Volume2Issue 2 2011

543

Seismicsoilstructureinteractionofbuildingsonhillslopes PandeyA.D,PrabhatKumar,SharadSharma

Soft MediumHardFixed Support soil soil soil base

Table6:Displacementsfrompushoveranalysisandresponsespectrumanalysis (stepbacksetbackbuildings) elastic pp '=R*elastic R'=(pp/') Building (mm) (mm) (mm)

configuration

3Storey3bay 4Storey4bay 3Storey3bay 4Storey4bay

Xdir 4.86 5.37 20.69 25.77

Ydir Xdir Ydir Xdir Ydir Xdir 14.81 15 28 14.58 44.43 1.03 19.39 18 34 16.11 58.17 1.12 42.39 61 62 62.07 127.17 1.00 65.35 75 76 77.31 196.05 0.97 111.1 154 * 207.6 333.30 0.75

Ydir 0.63 0.59 0.49 0.4 *

3Storey3bay 69.20

* 267.0 479.40 0.77 * 4Storey4bay 89.00 159.8 204 * * 852.3 * * * 3Storey3bay 284.1 417.3 * * 1188 * * * 4Storey4bay 396.2 602.7 *Result not available, (pp) performance point, elastic is the displacement in response spectrum analysis,Ristheresponsereductionfactor Fortheadoptedbuildingconfiguration,asthevalueoftimeperiodTincreasethevalueof correction factor R decreases. In the present study due to availability of limited data, the extrapolationofcorrectionfactorRbeyondtherangeofTshownonplotisquitedifficult. Consistency ingeneraltrendofdecreasingvalueofRwiththeincreasingvalueofT has been noted.Pushoveranalysis fortypeof irregularityconsideredrequires modification.The correction is considered on the basis of the observation of relation between elastic and inelasticdisplacementforregularsymmetricframeforwhichthevalueofcorrectionfactoris 0.7.Duetoirregularity,itisexpectedthatthisvaluewilldecreaseforirregularframewhich isconfirmedbythevariationin Figure8to11.

Figure8:PlotbetweenTandRStepbackbuildinginXdirection

InternationalJournalofCivilandStructuralEngineering Volume2Issue 2 2011

544

Seismicsoilstructureinteractionofbuildingsonhillslopes PandeyA.D,PrabhatKumar,SharadSharma

Figure9:PlotbetweenTandRStepbackbuildinginYdirection

Figure10:PlotbetweenTandRStepbackSetbackbuildinginXdirection

Figure11:PlotbetweenTandRStepbackSetbackbuildinginYdirection

InternationalJournalofCivilandStructuralEngineering Volume2Issue 2 2011

545

Seismicsoilstructureinteractionofbuildingsonhillslopes PandeyA.D,PrabhatKumar,SharadSharma

5. Conclusions In Step backSet back buildings, the value of the displacement at performance point, pp is always greater than elastic displacement for all types of support. However, in Step back buildingsthisisvalidperfectlyinXdirectionbutforYdirectionthisisvaliduptoonlytwo storeys and two bays for hard soil. Forthe adopted building configurations, as the value of timeperiodTincreasethevalueofcorrectionfactorRdecreases.Pushoveranalysisfortype ofirregularityconsideredrequiresmodification. 6. Acknowledgements TheauthorsareindebtedtoHead,DepartmentofEarthquakeEngineering,IndianInstituteof Technology, Roorkee for providing facilities to carry outthe researchwork reported inthis paperwork.Thesecond authoracknowledgeswiththankstheresearch fellowshipreceived fromtheMinistryofHumanResourceDevelopment(GovernmentofIndia)toallowperusing thePh.D. References 1. ATC40,(1996),SeismicevaluationandRetrofitofConcreteBuildings,Volume1. 2. Birajdar, B.G, and S.S. Nalawade, (2004), Seismic Analysis of Buildings Resting on th Sloping Ground, Proceedings of 13 World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver,B.C.,Canada,Paperno.1472. 3. Verma, R.K., (1989), Earthquake Response Spectrum Analysis of Buildings on Hill Slopes,M.EDissertation,DepartmentofEarthquakeEngineering,UniversityofRoorkee. 4. IS: 1893 (Part 1): 2002, Criteria of Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Fifth Revision,BISNewDelhi. 5. Barros,R.C,andR.Almeida,(2005),Pushoveranalysisofasymmetricthreedimensional buildingframes,Journal of CivilEngineeringandManagement,11(1),pp312. 6. Kumar, S, (1996), Seismic Analysis of Stepback and Setback Buildings, PhD Thesis, UniversityofRoorkee,India. 7. Pachuau, L.Z., (1992), Seismic Response of RC Framed Building on HillSlopes, M.E Dissertation,DepartmentofEarthquakeEngineering,UniversityofRoorkee. 8. Dutta,S.C.,K.Bhattacharya,andR.Roy,(2004),ResponseofLowRiseBuildingsunder Seismic Ground Excitation Incorporating SoilStructure Interaction, Soil Dynamics and EarthquakeEngineering,24(12),pp893914. 9. Wolf, J. P, (1985), Dynamic SoilStructure Interaction. PrenticeHall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs,NewJersey.

InternationalJournalofCivilandStructuralEngineering Volume2Issue 2 2011

546