Parametric study on dynamic soil structure interaction analysis.pptx

For this purpose, a parametric study is carried out for a project using full and
separate model. Firstly, linear 3D site response analyses are performed and calibrated against 1D results by varying the
model lateral dimensions. Rayleigh damping is applied in linear analysis. In 3D model, the reflection of waves arriving
at the boundaries is prevented by using consistent boundaries at the lateral boundaries and the base of the soil domain.
Secondly, 3D model results are verified by performing nonlinear site response analysis. Ramberg-Osgood material
model is used to represent nonlinear soil behavior. The material parameters are calibrated in terms of shear strength and
maximum damping against test results which are frequently used in literature

1. Parametric study on dynamic soil structure interaction analysis Dr. Mehmet Ömer TİMURAĞAOĞLUConsultancy

2. OUTLINE INTRODUCTION OBJECTIVE OF STUDY Selection of analysis Method Selection of earthquake ground motion Calibration of 3D model Calibration of soil Model Parameters GENERATION OF 3D MODEL EVALUATION OF RESULTS CONCLUSION

3. Soil structure interaction (SSI) gained much attention with the development in computer technology and computer programs capable of analyzing such large models . The first step of SSI is site response analysis (Wolf 1985). In such an analysis, the propagation of stress waves from the bedrock to the ground surface in the absence of superstructure loads is investigated, and the response of the soil at any depth above the bedrock can be determined INTRODUCTION

4. INTRODUCTION A comparative study is conducted to calibrate / select the dimensions of the soil domain for dynamic SSI. Studies carried out in two stages consist of linear and non-linear analyses . In linear analys e s , Rayleigh damping is added to the soil domain together with the linear behavior of the soil. In non-linear analyses , on the other hand, the calibration of material parameters was carried out through studies accepted in the literature. In the 3D model, non-reflective boundary elements are used to prevent reflections from the boundaries. The results are evaluated by comparing 1D and 3D acceleration response spectra.

5. This study investigates the verification of 3D model dimensions for dynamic soil structure interaction analysis throughout linear and non-linear site response analyses . As large model requires much time in dynamic analysis, a full and a separate 3D model is generated to compare the results. OBJECTIVE OF STUDY

6. Selection of analysis method S DS =1.064 H=97.4m BKS=3

7. Selection of analysis method

8. Since the Building Usage Class is BKS=3 and the Short Period Design Spectral Acceleration Coefficient is S DS =1.064 at the DD-2 earthquake ground motion level, DTS=1. Since there are buildings higher than 70m in the project, BYS = 1 . As a result of the experiments carried out as stated in the geotechnical report, the local soil class was determined as ZD since the ground shear wave velocity varied between 180 and 360 m/s in the first 30 m. Selection of analysis method TBSC 2018 METHOD I

9. Records will be determined according to the bedrock (Vs=760 m/s) or Vs of the underlying soil layer and will be used as input. Probabilistic earthquake hazard analyses were carried out for the project site. At the end of the study, earthquake records compatible with the seismotectonic characteristics of the region were selected by using the target spectra based on the design, and these records were scaled according to TB SC 18 Clause 2.5.2.1 . DD-1 earthquake ground motion and Vs=760 m/s Selection of earthquake records

10. Selection of earthquake records

11. Selection of earthquake records

12. Soil data and Determining idealized soil layers 38 boreholes were drilled at different depths and at different time intervals for soil and foundation investigation. The units passed through each of these drilling wells were determined. In the soil description, sandy silty clay with little gravel and gravelly silty sand units with little clay are generally seen. Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Pressuremeter Test (MPT) were performed as field tests.

13. Geotechnical data Soil data and Determining idealized soil layers

14. Claystone is approximately at 150m depth Soil data and Determining idealized soil layers

15. Geophysical data Soil data and Determining idealized soil layers Masw, Remi açılımı, açıklama

16. 200m D block Full Model D block 177m 160m Foundation dimensions Bx =177m By =160m 200-300m 200-300m GENERATION of 3D MODEL B block A block D block Large Model 300-1000m 300-1000m

17. Encastre + Compliant Base(CB) Free Field Element dimension in horizontal Element dimension in vertical Structure     200m 200m 1-directional Linear analysis Damping = %10   DEEPSOIL + MIDAS GTS NX   200m GENERATION of 3D MODEL

18. RSN3748_CAPEMEND_FFS270 deprem kaydının ivme-zaman ilişkisi Determining Model Dimensions

19. Edge Center Determining Model Dimensions 7* By 7* Bx Bx By TBSC 2018 Madde 16C.2.2.1 Engineering bedrock depth >= L ve 3B Horizontal distance of transmitting boundaries to the building

20. Calibration of Soil Material Model Parameters Ramberg-Osgood (1943)           Ueng ve Chen (1992)

21. Calibration of Soil Material Model Parameters

22. Evaluation of Results 400m 400m D block Full Model D block A block B block 200m 200m 177m 160m 35m 40m Center Edge Center Edge

23. The results indicate that increasing the lateral dimensions is meaningless when artificial boundaries are used as there is no significant change in response spectrum at the ground level after a specific point / dimension . A good match is obtained for linear and nonlinear results between 1D and 3D SRA. It can be said that such a calibration process is an effective solution method in the absence of experimental test results . CONCLUSION

24. Thanks for YOUR PATIENCE…