Soil failure can be used for seismic protection of structures

Anastasopoulos, I; Gazetas, G; Loli, M; Apostolou, M; Gerolymos, N

dc.contributor.author	Anastasopoulos, I	en
dc.contributor.author	Gazetas, G	en
dc.contributor.author	Loli, M	en
dc.contributor.author	Apostolou, M	en
dc.contributor.author	Gerolymos, N	en
dc.date.accessioned	2014-03-01T01:34:37Z
dc.date.available	2014-03-01T01:34:37Z
dc.date.issued	2010	en
dc.identifier.issn	1570-761X	en
dc.identifier.uri	https://dspace.lib.ntua.gr/xmlui/handle/123456789/20773
dc.subject	Bearing capacity failure	en
dc.subject	Calibration through experimental data	en
dc.subject	Capacity design	en
dc.subject	Constitutive modelling	en
dc.subject	Dynamic analysis	en
dc.subject	Pushover	en
dc.subject	Seismic performance	en
dc.subject	Uplifting	en
dc.subject.classification	Engineering, Geological	en
dc.subject.classification	Geosciences, Multidisciplinary	en
dc.subject.other	Accelerograms	en
dc.subject.other	Bridge structures	en
dc.subject.other	Capacity design	en
dc.subject.other	Constitutive modelling	en
dc.subject.other	Conventional design	en
dc.subject.other	Design limits	en
dc.subject.other	Ductility capacity	en
dc.subject.other	Earthquake motion	en
dc.subject.other	Experimental data	en
dc.subject.other	New approaches	en
dc.subject.other	New design	en
dc.subject.other	Nonlinear dynamic time-history analysis	en
dc.subject.other	Order of magnitude	en
dc.subject.other	Pushover	en
dc.subject.other	Residual settlement	en
dc.subject.other	Seismic Performance	en
dc.subject.other	Seismic protection	en
dc.subject.other	Soil failure	en
dc.subject.other	Structural deformation	en
dc.subject.other	Bearing capacity	en
dc.subject.other	Bearings (structural)	en
dc.subject.other	Calibration	en
dc.subject.other	Design	en
dc.subject.other	Dynamic analysis	en
dc.subject.other	Earthquakes	en
dc.subject.other	Foundations	en
dc.subject.other	Ontology	en
dc.subject.other	Philosophical aspects	en
dc.subject.other	Quality assurance	en
dc.subject.other	Seismic waves	en
dc.subject.other	Soils	en
dc.subject.other	Welds	en
dc.subject.other	Seismic design	en
dc.subject.other	bearing capacity	en
dc.subject.other	bridge	en
dc.subject.other	calibration	en
dc.subject.other	collapse	en
dc.subject.other	deformation	en
dc.subject.other	deformation mechanism	en
dc.subject.other	ductility	en
dc.subject.other	dynamic analysis	en
dc.subject.other	earthquake intensity	en
dc.subject.other	failure analysis	en
dc.subject.other	foundation	en
dc.subject.other	loading	en
dc.subject.other	numerical model	en
dc.subject.other	reinforcement	en
dc.subject.other	response analysis	en
dc.subject.other	seismic design	en
dc.subject.other	seismic response	en
dc.subject.other	soil-structure interaction	en
dc.subject.other	uplift	en
dc.title	Soil failure can be used for seismic protection of structures	en
heal.type	journalArticle	en
heal.identifier.primary	10.1007/s10518-009-9145-2	en
heal.identifier.secondary	http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10518-009-9145-2	en
heal.language	English	en
heal.publicationDate	2010	en
heal.abstract	A new seismic design philosophy is illuminated, taking advantage of soil ""failure"" to protect the superstructure. Instead of over-designing the foundation to ensure that the loading stemming from the structural inertia can be ""safely"" transmitted onto the soil (as with conventional capacity design), and then reinforce the superstructure to avoid collapse, why not do exactly the opposite by intentionally under-designing the foundation to act as a ""safety valve""? The need for this ""reversal"" stems from the uncertainty in predicting the actual earthquake motion, and the necessity of developing new more rational and economically efficient earthquake protection solutions. A simple but realistic bridge structure is used as an example to illustrate the effectiveness of the new approach. Two alternatives are compared: one complying with conventional capacity design, with over-designed foundation so that plastic ""hinging"" develops in the superstructure; the other following the new design philosophy, with under-designed foundation, ""inviting"" the plastic ""hinge"" into the soil. Static ""pushover"" analyses reveal that the ductility capacity of the new design concept is an order of magnitude larger than of the conventional design: the advantage of ""utilising"" progressive soil failure. The seismic performance of the two alternatives is investigated through nonlinear dynamic time history analyses, using an ensemble of 29 real accelerograms. It is shown that the performance of both alternatives is totally acceptable for moderate intensity earthquakes, not exceeding the design limits. For large intensity earthquakes, exceeding the design limits, the performance of the new design scheme is proven advantageous, not only avoiding collapse but hardly suffering any inelastic structural deformation. It may however experience increased residual settlement and rotation: a price to pay that must be properly assessed in design. © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009.	en
heal.publisher	SPRINGER	en
heal.journalName	Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering	en
dc.identifier.doi	10.1007/s10518-009-9145-2	en
dc.identifier.isi	ISI:000274707000005	en
dc.identifier.volume	8	en
dc.identifier.issue	2	en
dc.identifier.spage	309	en
dc.identifier.epage	326	en