Earthquakes and Structures

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Response of structure with controlled uplift using footing weight

  • Qin, X. (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. The University of Auckland, Auckland Mail Centre) ;
  • Chouw, N. (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. The University of Auckland, Auckland Mail Centre)
  • Received : 2018.06.10
  • Accepted : 2018.09.13
  • Published : 2018.11.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Allowing structures to uplift in earthquakes can significantly reduce or even avoid the development of plastic hinges within the structure. The permanent deformations in the structure can thus be minimized. However, uplift of footings can cause additional horizontal movements of a structure. With an increase in movement relative to adjacent structures, the probability of pounding between structures increases. This experimental study reveals that the footing mass can be used to control the vertical displacement of footing and thus reduce the horizontal displacements of an upliftable structure. A four storey model structure with plastic hinges and uplift capability was considered. Shake table tests using ten different earthquake records were conducted. Three different footing masses were considered. It is found that the amplitude of footing uplift can be greatly reduced by increasing the mass of the footing. As a result, allowing structural uplift does not necessary increase the horizontal displacement of the structure. The results show that with increasing footing weight, the interaction between structural and footing response can increase the contribution of the higher modes to the structural response. Consequently, the induced vibrations on secondary structure increase.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Supported by : Natural Hazards Research Platform

References

  1. Beck, J.L. and Skinner, R.I. (1973), "The seismic response of a reinforced concrete bridge pier designed to step", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 2, 343-358. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290020405
  2. Buckingham, E. (1914), "Illustrations of the use of dimensional analysis. On physically similar systems", Phys. Rev., 4(4), 354-377.
  3. Chen, Y.H., Liao, W.H., Lee, C.L. and Wang, Y.P. (2006), "Seismic isolation of viaduct piers by means of a rocking mechanism", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 35, 713-736 https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.555
  4. Chopra, A.K. and Yim, S.C.S. (1985), "Simplified earthquake analysis of structure with foundation uplift", ASCE J. Struct. Eng., 111(4), 906-930.
  5. Chouw, N and Hao, H. (2012), "Pounding damage to buildings and bridges in the 22 February Christchurch earthquake", Int. J. Protec. Struct., 3(2), 123-139. https://doi.org/10.1260/2041-4196.3.2.123
  6. Dowdell, D.J. and Hamersley, B.A. (2000), "Lions' gate bridge north approach-seismic retrofit", Behaviour of Steel Structures in Seismic Areas, Proc. of STESSA, 319-326.
  7. Fardis, M.N., Schetakis, A. and Strepelias, E. (2013), "RC buildings retrofitted by converting frame bays into RC walls", Bull. Earthq. Eng., 11(5), 1541-1561. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9435-6
  8. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2000), FEMA 356. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Washington, D.C..
  9. Housner, G.W. (1963), "The behavior of inverted pendulum structures during earthquakes", Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 53(2), 403-417.
  10. Ichinose, T. (1986), "Rocking motion of slender elastic body on rigid floor", Bull. NZ Nat. Soc. Earthq. Eng., 19(1), 18-27.
  11. Kafle, B., Lim, N., Lumantarna, E., Gad, E.F. and Wilson, J. (2015), "Overturning of precast RC columns in conditions of moderate ground shaking", Earthq. Struct., 8(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2015.8.1.001
  12. Kelly, T.E. (2009), "Tentative seismic design guidelines for rocking structures", Bull. NZ Nat. Soc. Earthq. Eng., 42(4), 239-274.
  13. Loo, W., Quenneville, P. and Chouw, N. (2015), "A low damage and ductile rocking timber wall with passive energy dissipation devices", Earthq. Struct., 9(1), 127-143. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2015.9.1.127
  14. NZS1170.5 (2004), Structural Design Actions Part 5: Earthquake Action, Standard New Zealand.
  15. Oyarzo-vera, C., Mcverry, G. and Ingham, J. (2012), "Seismic zonation and default suite of ground-motion records for timehistory analysis in the North Island of New Zealand", Earthq. Spectra, 28(22), 667-688. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.4000016
  16. PEER. PEER Next Generation of Ground-Motion Attenuation Models Data Base, http://peer.berkeley.edu/nga.
  17. Psycharis, I.N. (1991), "Effect of base uplift on dynamic response of SDOF structure", ASCE J. Struct. Eng., 117(3), 733-754. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1991)117:3(733)
  18. Qin, X. and Chouw, N. (2017), "Shake table study on the effect of Mainshock-Aftershock sequences on structures with SFSI", Shock Vib., Article ID 9850915, 12.
  19. Sharpe, R.D. and Skinner, R.I. (1983), "The seismic design of an industrial chimney with rocking base", Bull. NZ Nat. Soc. Earthq. Eng., 16(2), 98-106.

피인용 문헌

  1. A dynamic correction for the seismic analysis of structures vol.4, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-019-0205-4