Yapı-Zemin etkileşimi etkisine bağlı olarak çok katlı binalarda göreli kat ötelemesi oranının ve performans seviyesinin belirlenmesi

Öz

Yapı-zemin etkileşimi, çerçeve sistemli yapıların deprem yükü altındaki yerdeğiştirme cevabını önemli ölçüde değiştirmektedir. Bu etki özellikle yumuşak zemin üzerine inşaa edilmiş yapılarda çok daha önemlidir. Dinamik çözümlemede bu etki göz önüne alındığı takdirde; yapının inşaa edildiği zemin türüne bağlı olarak yanal yerdeğiştirmelerinde ve kat ötelemesi talebinde artış meydana gelebilir. Etkileşime bağlı olarak yapının kat ötelemesi talebinde meydana gelen farklılık, aynı zamanda yapının performans seviyesini de değiştirir. Göreli kat ötelemesi oranı, deprem etkisi altında tasarım sürecindeki en önemli yapısal parametrelerden birisidir. Bu sebeple, yapı-zemin etkileşimi etkilerinin yapısal tasarım aşamasında ve performansın belirlenmesinde dikkate alınması oldukça önemlidir. Bu çalışmada, mevcut çok katlı bir yapının kat ötelemesi talebi, yapı-zemin sistemlerinin dinamik çözümlemesi için geliştirilmiş olan sayısal bir yöntem ile elde edilmiştir. Bu yöntemde, çok katlı yapıların deprem dalgaları etkisi altındaki dinamik cevabının çözümlenmesinde üstyapının sayısal modeli için Sonlu Elemanlar Yöntemi; zemin için ise Sınır Elemanlar Yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Kat seviyelerinde hesaplanan yanal yerdeğiştirme değerleri kullanılarak mevcut bir yapıda maksimum göreli kat ötelemesi oranı ve yapısal performans düzeyi belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yapı-Zemin etkileşimi
• Sonlu elemanlar yöntemi
• Deprem dalgası hareketi

Estimation of interstory drift ratio and performance levels for the multistory buildings considering the effect of soil-structure interaction

Abstract

The interaction of soil and structure significantly alters displacement response of the framed structures. This effect is mostly important for the buildings resting on soft soils. Including these effects in the dynamic analysis, the lateral displacements and the drift demand of the building increase depending on the type of the underlying soil. The variation in the drift demand due to the interaction effects also changes the performance level of the structure, as well. Since the interstory drift ratio is one of the most important demand parameter, it is essential to integrate the effects of soil structure interaction within the structural design process and the performance assessment. In this study, the drift demand of an existing multistory building is obtained using an improved technique for dynamic analysis of the soil-structure systems. The technique is based on the analysis of the multistory buildings under the seismic wave propagation employing Finite Element Methods (FE) for the superstructure and Boundary Element Methods (BE) for the underlying soil medium. The lateral displacement response at each story level is used to determine maximum interstory drift ratio of the building and to estimate structural performance level.

Keywords

• Soil-Structure interaction
• Finite elements method
• Seismic wave propagation

Kaynakça

1. [1] Akkar S, Yazgan U, Gülkan P. “Drift estimates in frame buildings subjected to near-fault ground motions”. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 131(7), 1014-1024, 2005.
2. [2] Miranda E, Akkar S. “Generalized interstory drift demand spectrum”, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 132(6), 840-852, 2006.
3. [3] Algan BB. Drift and Damage Considerations in Earthquake Resistant Design of Reinforced Concrete Buildings. PhD Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, USA, 1982.
4. [4] Sozen MA. “Lateral drift of reinforced concrete structures subjected to strong ground motion”. Bulletin of New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, 16(2), 107-122, 1983.
5. [5] Moehle JP. “Seismic drift and its role in design”. Proceedings of 5th US-Japan Workshop on the Improvement of Building Structural Design and Construction Practices, San Diego, USA, 8-10 September 1992.
6. [6] Bozorgnia Y, Bertero VV. “Improved shaking and damage parameters for post-earthquake applications”. Proceedings of the SMIP01 Seminar on Utilization of Strong-Motion Data, Los Angeles, California, USA, 12 September 2001.
7. [7] Iwan WD. “Drift spectrum: Measure of demand for earthquake ground motions” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 123(4), 397-404, 1997.
8. [8] Todorovska MI, Trifunac MD. “Structural health monitoring by detection of abrupt changes in response using wavelets: Application to a 6-story RC building damaged by an earthquake”. Proceedings of 37th Joint Panel Meeting on Wind and Seismic Effects, Tsukuba, Japan, 16-21 May 2005.

9. [9] Nguyen QV, Fatahi B, Hokmabadi AS. “The effects of foundation size on the seismic performance of buildings considering the soil-foundation-structure interaction”. Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 58(6), 1045-1075, 2016.
10. [10] Liang J, Han B, Todorovska MI, Trifunac MD. “2D dynamic structure-soil-structure interaction for twin buildings in layered half-space I: Incident SH-waves”. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 102, 172-194, 2017.
11. [11] Liang J, Han B, Todorovska MI, Trifunac MD. “2D dynamic structure-soil-structure interaction for twin buildings in layered half-space II: Incident SV-waves”. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 113, 356-390, 2018.
12. [12] Lymser J, Udaka T, Tsai CF, Seed HB. “FLUSH - A Computer Program for Approximate 3D Analysis of Soil-Structure Interaction”. University of California, Berkeley, California, USA, Report, EERC75-30, 1975.
13. [13] Velestos AS, Meek JW. “Dynamic behaviour of building-foundation systems”. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 3(2), 121-138, 1975.
14. [14] Dominiguez J. “Response of Embedded Foundations to Travelling Waves”. Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA, Report, R78-24, 1978.
15. [15] Karabalis DL, Beskos DE. “Dynamic response of 3-D rigid surface foundations by time domain boundary element method”. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 12, 73-93, 1984.
16. [16] Kausel E, Roesset J. “Stiffness matrices for layered soils”. Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, 71(6), 1743-1761, 1981.
17. [17] Luco J, Apsel R. “On the Green’s functions for a layered half-space” Part I”. Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, 73(4), 909-929, 1983.
18. [18] Estorff OV, Kausel E. “Coupling of boundary and finite elements for soil-structure interaction problems”. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 18, 1065-1075, 1989.
19. [19] Dendrou B. “A Methodology for the Dynamic Analysis of Bridge/Abutment/Backfill Systems Subjected to Traveling Seismic Waves”. National Science Foundation, California, USA, Report, CEE-8007518, 1983.
20. [20] Cavalieri F, Correia AA, Crowley H, Pinho R. “Dynamic soil-structure interaction models for fragility characterisation of buildings with shallow foundations”. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.106004.
21. [21] Varghese R, Boominathan A, Banerjee S. “Stiffness and load sharing characteristics of piled raft foundations subjected to dynamic loads”. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106117.
22. [22] Soyluk K, Sicacik EA. “Soil-Structure interaction analysis of cable-stayed bridges for spatially varying ground motion components”. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 35, 80-90, 2012.
23. [23] Ozsoy OEA, Dynamic Soil Structure Interaction under Wave Propagation via an Improved Coupled Finite Element-Boundary Element Methodology. PhD Thesis, Istanbul Technical University, İstanbul, Turkey, 2011.
24. [24] ANSYS Inc. “ANSYS Structural Release 14.5, References and Solver Notes”. http://www.ansys.com (04.06.2013).
25. [25] Mathworks Inc. “MATLAB R2013” http://www.mathworks.de (13.02.2013).
26. [26] Ewing WM, Jardetsky WS, Press F. Elastic Waves in Layered Media. 1st ed. New York, USA, McGraw-Hill, 1957.
27. [27] Lamb H. “On the propagation of tremors over the surface of an elastic solid”. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 203, 1-42, 1904.
28. [28] Aki K, Richards PG. Quantitative Seismology, Theory and Methods, 1st ed. San Francisco, USA, W.H. Freeman and Co. 1980.
29. [29] Federal Emergency Management Agency. “NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures”. Washington, DC, USA, FEMA450, 2004.
30. [30] Wolf JP. Dynamic Soil‐Structure Interaction, 1st ed. New Jersey, USA, Prentice‐Hall, 1985.
31. [31] Jennings PC, Bielak J. “Dynamics of building-soil interaction”. Bulletin of Seismology Society of America, 63(1), 9-48, 1973.
32. [32] Luco JE. “Impedance functions for a rigid foundation on a layered medium”. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 31, 204-217, 1974.
33. [33] Velestos AS, Meek JW. “Dynamic behaviour of buildingfoundation systems”. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 3(2), 121-138, 1975.
34. [34] Purdue University. “A Curated Depository of Data on the Kocaeli-Gölcük and Düzce-Bolu Earthquakes of 1999”. http://www.anatolianquake.org/ (14.11.2013).
35. [35] Federal Emergency Management Agency. “Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings”. Washington, DC, USA, FEMA356, 2000.
36. [36] Wong HL, Luco JE. “Effects of soil-structure interaction on the seismic response of structures subjected to active control”. Proceedings of the 10th Conference of Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain, 19-24 July 1992.
37. [37] Zafarkhah E, Dehkordi MR. “Evaluation and numerical simulation of soil type effects on seismic soil-structure interaction response of RC structures”. Journal of Vibroengineering, 19(7), 5208-5230, 2017.
38. [38] Tabatabaiefar, HR, Massumi A. “A simplified method to determine seismic responses of reinforced concrete moment resisting building frames under influence of soil - structure interaction”. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 30(11), 1259-1267, 2010.
39. [39] Assimaki D, Kausel E, Gazetas G. “Soil-dependent topographic effects: A case study from the 1999 Athens earthquake”. Earthquake Spectra, 21(4), 929-966, 2005.
40. [40] Nazari A, Baziar MH, Shahnazari H. “Seismic Effects of Two-Dimensional Semi-Sine Shaped Hills on Ground Motion Response”. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 15, 1159-1170, 2010.
41. [41] Jafarzadeh F, Shahrabi MM, Jahromi HF. “On the role of topographic amplification in seismic slope instabilities”. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 7(2), 163-170, 2015.
42. [42] Bouckovalas GD, Papadimitriou AG. “Numerical evaluation of slope topography effects on seismic ground motion”. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 25, 547-558, 2005.