Beyond conventional capacity design: Towards a new design philosophy

Anastasopoulos, I

dc.contributor.author	Anastasopoulos, I	en
dc.date.accessioned	2014-03-01T02:52:34Z
dc.date.available	2014-03-01T02:52:34Z
dc.date.issued	2010	en
dc.identifier.uri	https://dspace.lib.ntua.gr/xmlui/handle/123456789/35943
dc.relation.uri	http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84860241947&partnerID=40&md5=1843d8897cf829ccc0486284f23b72d3	en
dc.subject.other	Capacity design	en
dc.subject.other	Design philosophy	en
dc.subject.other	Finite Element	en
dc.subject.other	Foundation settlement	en
dc.subject.other	Illustrative examples	en
dc.subject.other	New design	en
dc.subject.other	Seismic motions	en
dc.subject.other	Seismic Performance	en
dc.subject.other	Shaking tables	en
dc.subject.other	Structural deformation	en
dc.subject.other	Design	en
dc.subject.other	Ontology	en
dc.subject.other	Seismology	en
dc.subject.other	Soil structure interactions	en
dc.subject.other	Bridges	en
dc.title	Beyond conventional capacity design: Towards a new design philosophy	en
heal.type	conferenceItem	en
heal.publicationDate	2010	en
heal.abstract	The paper illuminates a newseismic design philosophy,which takes advantage of soil ""failure"" to protect the superstructure.A reversal of conventional ""capacity design"" is introduced, through intentional underdesigning of the foundation.A simple but realistic bridge is used as an illustrative example of the effectiveness of the new philosophy. Two alternatives are compared: one in compliance with conventional capacity design, with over-designed foundation so that the plastic ""hinge"" develops in the superstructure ; and one with under-designed foundation, so that the plastic ""hinge"" may occur in the soil. The seismic performance of the two alternatives is investigated through numerical (finite element) and experimental (shaking table) simulation. It is shown that the performance of both alternatives is totally acceptable for moderate seismic motions. For large intensity seismic motions, the performance of the new scheme is shown to be advantageous, not only avoiding collapse but hardly suffering any inelastic structural deformation. Naturally, there is always a price to pay, which is none other than increased foundation settlement and residual rotation. © 2010 Taylor & Francis Group.	en
heal.journalName	Soil-Foundation-Structure Interaction - Selected Papers from the International Workshop on Soil-Foundation-Structure Interaction, SFSI 09	en
dc.identifier.spage	213	en
dc.identifier.epage	220	en