ARTICLE IN PRESS

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 12491261

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Seismic performance of three-dimensional frame structures with underground stories

H. El Ganainy, M.H. El Naggar
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5B9

a r t i c l e in fo
Article history: Received 27 September 2008 Accepted 18 February 2009 Keywords: Soilstructure interaction (SSI) Performance-based design (PBD) Seismic design of buildings Underground stories Uniform hazard spectrum (UHS) Ground response analysis

abstract
This paper investigates the seismic performance of moment-resisting frame steel buildings with multiple underground stories resting on shallow foundations. A parametric study that involved evaluating the nonlinear seismic response of ve, ten and fteen story moment-resisting frame steel buildings resting on exible ground surface, and buildings having one, three and ve underground stories was performed. The buildings were assumed to be founded on shallow foundations. Two site conditions were considered: soil class C and soil class E, corresponding to rm and soft soil deposits, respectively. Vancouver seismic hazard has been considered for this study. Synthetic earthquake records compatible with Vancouver uniform hazard spectrum (UHS), as specied by the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) 2005, have been used as input motion. It was found that soilstructure interaction (SSI) can greatly affect the seismic performance of buildings in terms of the seismic storey shear and moment demand, and the deformations of their structural components. Although most building codes postulate that SSI effects generally decrease the force demand on buildings, but increase the deformation demand, it was found that, for some of the cases considered, SSI effects increased both the force and deformation demand on the buildings. The SSI effects generally depend on the stiffness of the foundation and the number of underground stories. SSI effects are signicant for soft soil conditions and negligible for stiff soil conditions. It was also found that SSI effects are signicant for buildings resting on exible ground surface with no underground stories, and gradually decrease with the increase of the number of underground stories. & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The current state-of-practice for seismic design of buildings with multiple underground stories involves approximate approaches that primarily differ according to the designers judgment and experience. This is a consequence of lack of relevant recommendations in building codes. Most building codes treat low and medium rise regular buildings with multi-level underground stories with the same recommendations used for buildings with surface foundations. In general, buildings with multiple underground stories are designed by cropping the superstructure and analyzing it as a xed base structure founded on the ground surface. On the other hand, the substructure is designed for the seismic base shear and moment demand resulting from the superstructure in addition to the seismic earth pressure acting on the basement walls, due to the oscillating mass of side soil. Even though this two step

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 519 661 4219; fax: +1 519 6613942.

E-mail addresses: helganai@uwo.ca (H. El Ganainy), helnaggar@eng.uwo.ca (M.H. El Naggar). 0267-7261/$ - see front matter & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2009.02.003

approach is common in practice, it might differ in details depending on the procedure used in the seismic analysis of the building. It is important to incorporate the underground stories, basement walls, foundation soil and side soil explicitly in the mathematical model of the structure to be able to assess the effect of the underground part of the building adequately on its seismic performance. This is also essential since the current trend of using performance-based design approaches in lieu of traditional force-based design approaches in the seismic design of buildings dictate that soilstructure interaction (SSI) analysis becomes an integral part of methods used in the seismic evaluation of buildings. Perhaps the most popular approach in modeling the nonlinear response of the foundation soil and side soil is the Beam-on-a-Nonlinear Winkler Foundation (BNWF) approach due to its merit of simplicity in dening the parameters involved in the model. The main objective of this paper is to better understand the seismic performance of three-dimensional (3D) frame structures with multiple underground stories. To achieve this objective, nonlinear direct integration timehistory analyses for 3D momentresisting frame steel structures with above-ground stories ranging

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1250 H. El Ganainy, M.H. El Naggar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 12491261

from ve to fteen stories, and underground stories ranging from zero (i.e. no basement) to ve underground stories were performed. The nonlinear structural analysis program Perform-3D [1] was chosen for this research since it is dedicated mainly for the performance assessment of 3D structures in the context of performance-based design (PBD). Its material library contains a wide variety of structural components formulated to account for both geometric and material nonlinearity in structures.

2. Description of model buildings 2.1. Description of model geometry and structural system The models adopted herein are 4 5 bays moment-resisting frame steel buildings, having a constant bay width of 7.2 m and constant story height of 3.6 m. Fig. 1 shows the plan of the repetitive story of the buildings. The lateral resisting system of the building constituted four perimeter frames along the periphery of the building where the girders were rigidly connected to the columns, except where the girders were connected to the weak side of the columns. Fig. 2 shows the layout of the lateral resisting system of a typical model building. On the other hand, the inner frames work mainly as the gravity load carrying system where girders were pin-connected to the columns. The parametric study involves evaluating the seismic performance of ve, ten and fteen story buildings with three underground stories. The buildings were assumed to be resting on shallow foundations. To further explore the effect of the number of underground stories on the seismic performance of buildings, the ten story building was analyzed for zero (i.e. no basement), one and ve underground stories. The thickness of the reinforced concrete basement walls was assumed 0.25 m considering that they will resist the lateral earth pressure only. Their reinforcement ratio was 0.25%, in accordance with the specications of FEMA 310 [2] document. Although they were not designed to be part of the lateral resisting system of the building, they were included in its structural model since they should affect its seismic response due to their large mass and in-plane bending stiffness. On the other hand, the thickness of the slabs was taken as 0.25 m to be consistent with approximately 1/30 of the slab span

Fig. 1. Plan of the repetitive story of the buildings.

Fig. 2. Lateral resisting system for a typical model building.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
H. El Ganainy, M.H. El Naggar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 12491261 1251

Table 1 Unit weights and distributed loads used in dening the gravity loads acting on the buildings. Unit weights of materials (kN/m3) Unit weight of steel Unit weight of concrete

Table 2 Soil properties assigned for soil class C and soil class E. Soil class C Soil class E 150 18.00 30 20 0.05 0.35

77 25

Equivalent uniformly distributed load (kPa) Nonstructural components Live load

1.1 2.4

Shear wave velocity, Vs (m/s) Dry unit weight, gdry (kN/m3) Angle of internal friction, f1 Wallsoil friction angle, d1 Material damping ratio, e Poisson ratio, n

560 21.00 40 25 0.05 0.35

as specied by FEMA 310 [2] document. The slabs were represented in the structural model of the building using its weight in the gravity load case and as concentrated masses at the center of gravity of each oor for the seismic analysis. In addition, all the nodes lying in the plane of each oor were assigned a rigid diaphragm constraint. However, the slabs were not modeled explicitly and consequently their bending stiffness was neglected. This is consistent with the assumption that the moment-resisting frames form the lateral resisting system of the building. 2.2. Gravity loads The gravity loads assigned to the buildings were the own weight of structural components, including the steel girders and columns and the reinforced concrete slabs and basement walls. It also included the weight of the nonstructural components (e.g. cladding, partitions, oor nishing, etc.) in addition to the live load assigned to the slabs. Since the slabs were not modeled explicitly, their weight and the live load they carry were included in the structural model by distributing its reaction on the supporting girders. Table 1 lists the unit weights and distributed loads used in dening the gravity loads acting on the buildings.

Table 3 Parameter used in calculating the seismic loads on the buildings using the NBCC 2005 equivalent static force procedure considering the Vancouver seismic zone. Elastic design response spectrum parameters (g) Peak ground acceleration (PGA) Sa (0.2) Sa (0.5) Sa (1.0) Sa (2.0)

0.5 1.00 0.68 0.34 0.18

Equivalent static force procedure parameters Importance factor, IE Higher mode factor, Mv Ductility-related force modication factor, Rd Overstrength-related force modication factor, Ro

1.0 1.0 5.0 1.5

4. Preliminary analysis of the buildings The ve, ten and fteen story buildings were designed using the structural analysis program ETABS [6] assuming xed base condition at the ground surface. This step provided preliminary sections for the structural members of the buildings, which would be augmented by the underground stories, foundation soil and side soil for further seismic analysis. Although the column sections should increase below the ground level in consideration of the added gravity loads from the underground stories, they were not changed since the seismic performance of the buildings rather than its seismic design is the objective of this study. The steel design feature included in ETABS was utilized to perform the seismic design of the buildings. The seismic loads were calculated using the equivalent static force procedure as specied by the NBCC 2005 for a building in Vancouver. Table 3 lists the parameters used in calculating the seismic loads acting on the buildings. The structural members of the buildings were designed according to the loading cases and guidelines specied by the NBCC 2005, the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) and the Canadian Institute of Steel Construction (CISC). Table 4 lists the preliminary sections for the girders and columns of the buildings as obtained from the ETABS analysis and design stage.

3. Materials strengths and moduli 3.1. Steel and concrete The steel members of the building and the reinforcing steel of the basement walls were assumed to be of the same grade. The steel yield strength was taken as 482,633 kPa, with an elastic modulus of 199,948 MPa. The steel hardens to 689,476 kPa at a strain of 0.1, corresponding to a post-yield strain hardening ratio of 1.1%. The steel Poissons ratio was taken as 0.3. The concrete of 0 the basement walls had f c 82,737 kPa, elastic modulus 37,232 MPa and Poissons ratio 0.25. 3.2. Foundation and side soil The buildings site was assumed to have a 30-m-thick deposit of homogeneous soil underlain by the bedrock. Therefore, the average properties in the top 30 m were used for calculating the foundation and side soil mechanical properties in accordance with the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) 2005 specications. Two scenarios were assumed for the soil deposit used in the current study, namely: soil class C corresponding to very dense soil and soft rock; and soil class E corresponding to soft soil in accordance with the site classication of the NBCC 2005. Table 2 lists the properties assigned for these two soil classes in the current study from the ranges specied by NBCC 2005, Das [3,4] and FEMA 356 [5] document.

5. Intended behavior and performance levels The seismic performance of the model buildings was examined with an emphasis on the effect of underground stories, foundation soil and side soil on the building performance. To achieve this goal the nonlinear structural analysis program Perform-3D [1] is used. 5.1. Intended behavior of structural components The perimeter frames were considered the primary structural component and comprise the lateral resisting system of the buildings. Therefore, the perimeter frames are intended to

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1252 H. El Ganainy, M.H. El Naggar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 12491261

experience inelastic behavior in exure but to remain essentially elastic in axial and shear deformations. The connection panel zones between the girders and columns of the perimeter frames are also considered primary structural components, as they affect the performance level of the building, and are intended to experience inelastic behavior in shear. However, the interior girders and columns that comprise the gravity load carrying system are intended to behave elastically in exure, axial and shear deformations, since they are considered secondary structural components. These designations are in accordance with the guidelines given by ASCE 41 [7] in classifying the structural components of buildings in the context of the PBD principles. The basement walls of the building contribute to its lateral resistance because of their orientation within the structural system. Therefore, they also can be considered as primary structural components and hence are intended to experience nonlinear behavior in in-plane bending. However, they should remain essentially elastic in shear, since shear failure in reinforced concrete is a brittle mode of failure. This renders inelastic shear behavior in structural members an undesired target performance. Finally, the slabs are intended to behave elastically and, as stated before, were not included in the structural model. To achieve these intended behaviors, the perimeter girders and columns and the connection panel zones are modeled using inelastic frame and connection panel zone elements, respectively. They are assigned deformation-controlled forcedeformation actions in bending and shear, respectively, in accordance with ASCE 41 [7] guidelines for structural steel components. The interior girders and columns are assigned force-controlled forcedeformation actions in exure, axial and shear deformations (i.e. the components strengths are assigned to the elastic structural members without dening the associated plastic deformations) as well as axial and shear modes of deformation in perimeter girders and columns. The components strengths can be calculated in accordance with the established principles of mechanics (e.g. Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) specications for structural steel design considering a strength reduction factor equals to unity). Perform-3D calculates the components strength from the geometric properties of members cross section (e.g. section modulus) and the associated mechanical properties of the cross sections material (e.g. yield strength of steel).

On the other hand, the basement walls are modeled using inelastic ber wall elements that could experience nonlinear behavior in in-plane bending, including: concrete bers cracking and crushing; and steel bers yielding. However, they were assigned an elastic shear material to behave essentially elastic in shear.

5.2. Denition of performance levels To assess the performance of buildings, ASCE 41 [7] denes the acceptance criteria of the structural components of the building in terms of strength demand capacity ratios or deformation demand capacity ratios, depending on the forcedeformation actions of the structural components whether they are force-controlled or deformation-controlled, respectively. Perform-3D automatically calculates the strength and deformation demand on the structural components of the building throughout the analysis steps. However, ASCE 41 [7] gives deformation capacities for the inelastic components corresponding to the three target performance levels for structural components, namely: immediate occupancy (IO), life safety (LS) and collapse prevention (CP). It denes the deformation capacities as multiple of the yield deformations of the components. Table 5 gives the deformation capacities of the inelastic structural components encounter in the model buildings corresponding to the IO, LS and CP performance levels and in accordance with ASCE 41 [7] specications. Deformation capacities for perimeter girders and columns are expressed as multiples of the chord rotation (yy) at yield. The deformation capacities for the connection panel zones (assuming an improved WUF-bolted web connection for the moment connections between girders and columns) are expressed as functions of the girders depth (d). It should be noted that these deformation capacities are plastic rotations and angular shear deformations, which dictates adding the yield deformations to them in order to get the total deformation capacities. ASCE 41 [7] species that the strength capacity of structural components should be assigned different values corresponding to the considered performance level. In the current study, components that have force-controlled forcedeformation actions are required to remain elastic. Therefore, for the performance levels IO, LS and CP, the strength capacities were taken equal to the nominal capacities of the components. To reduce the volume of analysis output results, Perform-3D groups demand capacity ratios of similar components together to distill the results down to few Limit States that can be easily used in assessing the performance of buildings. Each limit state groups similar demand capacity ratios (e.g. end rotation of perimeter girders) at a certain performance level (e.g. LS performance level). It then calculates the maximum demand capacity ratio, within each time step, for all the components in the limit state. Perform-3D denes this maximum demand capacity ratio as the Usage Ratio of the limit state at this time step. The

Table 4 Preliminary sections for girders and columns of the model buildings as obtained from ETABS. 5 story building Perimeter girders EW interior girders NS interior girders Perimeter columns Interior columns W 27 146 W 18 106 W 24 104 W 14 90 W 14 90 10 story building W 27 94 W 18 97 W 24 104 W 14 145 W 14 132 15 story building W 27 146 W 18 106 W 24 104 W 14 233 W 14 193

Table 5 Deformation capacities for inelastic structural components of buildings corresponding to IO, LS and CP performance levels. Immediate occupancy Plastic rotation angle (radians) Perimeter girders Perimeter columns Life safety Collapse prevention

1yy 1yy

6yy 6yy

8yy 8yy

Angular plastic shear deformation (radians) Connection panel zones

0.010.00015d

0.01390.0002d

0.0210.0003d

ARTICLE IN PRESS
H. El Ganainy, M.H. El Naggar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 12491261 1253

performance of the building can be thus assessed by ensuring that the usage ratios of the target performance level of the components have not exceeded unity throughout the seismic event.

Table 6 Shallow foundations properties used with the model buildings. Soil class C Perimeter footings Plan dimensions (m) Depth of foundation (m) Ultimate bearing capacity, qu (kPa) Soil passive resistance along footing front face (kPa) Foundation vertical stiffness, kv (kN/m3) Foundation horizontal stiffness, KH (kN/m) 1.7 1.7 1.5 4206.63 20.00 18,48,932.57 7,255,630.5 Soil class E 3.1 3.1 2.0 1235.54 15.00 57,725.55 6,99,894.48

6. Foundation system The foundation system of the buildings comprises shallow spread footings. For the ease of modeling, it was assumed that they are square in plan, and concentric with the supported columns. Two footing models were considered for each building: one for the interior columns and one for the perimeter columns, due to the substantial difference between the vertical load acting on them. The strip footings beneath the basement walls and the semelles and straps connecting the footings were neglected in this study. The side soil is assumed to be homogeneous throughout the embedment depth of the building. It is assumed that it possesses the same mechanical and physical properties of the foundation soil. The foundation and side soil were assumed to experience nonlinear behavior under seismic shaking. Therefore, they were modeled using the Beam-on-a-Nonlinear Winkler Foundation approach that is capable of simulating the important aspects of the nonlinear behavior of the foundation and side soil. 6.1. Shallow foundations The model buildings encountered in this study involved a wide range of footing vertical dead loads corresponding to different scenarios considered. In addition, two soil classes were considered in this study: soil class C corresponding to very dense soil and soft rock and soil class E corresponding to soft soil. This wide range of variable parameters makes the task of sizing the footings cumbersome. Using a constant value for the vertical bearing capacity safety factor would result in a wide range of footing plan dimensions, and consequently different foundations bearing capacities and stiffness. This would complicate the comparison of the seismic performance of consistent buildings (e.g. ten story buildings with zero, one, three and ve underground stories). Therefore, a variable vertical bearing capacity safety factor was used when sizing the foundations, since it is neither the seismic design of the footings that is being investigated in this research nor the evaluation of the code recommendations for the seismic design of shallow foundations is to be done. For each soil class, two model footings were used: perimeter columns footings and interior columns footings. These footings were sized so that the vertical bearing capacity safety factor ranged from 7.0 for ve story buildings to 2.0 for fteen story buildings. The bearing capacities of the foundations are calculated using Terzaghis standard bearing capacity formula for square footings. The soil passive resistance along the front face of the footing is taken according to the presumptive values recommended by FEMA 356 [5] document for different soil types. However, the side friction along the footing sidesoil interface is neglected. The vertical and horizontal elastic stiffness of the foundations is calculated using the frequency-independent formulas given by FEMA 356 [5] document. To account for the cyclic nature of the seismic load on the footings, the unloadreload stiffness of the footing was used in lieu of the initial elastic stiffness. Allotey and El Naggar [8] recommend using an effective shear modulus of 0.8 of the elastic shear modulus of the soil in calculating the vertical stiffness of the foundation. Therefore, the elastic shear modulus, Go, of the soil was calculated from its shear wave velocity and mass density, then an effective

Interior footings Plan dimensions (m) Depth of foundation (m) Ultimate bearing capacity, qu (kPa) Soil passive resistance along footing front face (kPa) Foundation vertical stiffness, kv (kN/m3) Foundation horizontal stiffness, KH (kN/m)

2.1 2.1 1.5 4594.07 20.00 13,99,578.64 8,015,932.36

4.0 4.0 2.0 1359.5 15.00 41,870.41 801,808.65

shear modulus, G 0.8Go, was used in calculating the vertical and horizontal stiffness of the footings. Table 6 lists the shallow foundations properties used with the model buildings. El Ganainy [9] has shown that based on the BNWF approach, the cyclic rocking, vertical and horizontal responses of shallow foundations can be modeled effectively using an assemblage of a curvature hinge (or a momentrotation hinge), shear hinge connected in series with an elastic frame member attached to the bottom end of ground story columns. El Ganainy [9] has derived three bounding surfaces to couple the responses of these hinges to be able to model the complete 3D response of shallow foundations. To account for the Soil Squeeze Out phenomenon [9] observed in the cyclic rocking response of shallow foundation, El Ganainy [9] has shown that assigning an appropriate energy degradation factor to the curvature hinge would result in adjusting the material damping from the cyclic momentrotation response of the footings and yield hysteretic momentrotation loops consistent with the S-shape loops observed from experimental results. This modeling approach was adopted herein in modeling the shallow foundations of the model buildings encounter in this study. Bilinear approximations for the momentrotation relation and the horizontal forceshear displacement relation were assigned to the curvature and shear hinges, respectively [9]. The geometric and mechanical properties of the curvature hinge, shear hinge and the elastic frame member were calculated, utilizing the mechanical properties of the specied soil classes, using the procedure outlined in El Ganainy [9]. To account for the soil squeeze out phenomenon, energy degradation factors were assigned to the curvature hinges at 0.55 and 0.8 for soil classes C and E, respectively. These values provided good t with the experimental results obtained from TRISEE experiment for the high density (HD) and low density (LD) tests, respectively [9], noting that soil classes C and E are approximately consistent with the relative densities of 85% and 45% of the HD and LD tests [9]. Hence, the corresponding energy degradation factors values were used herein. A PMBML bounding surface was assigned for the curvature hinge to account for the interaction between the vertical and rocking responses of the footing [9]. El-Tawil and Deierleins bounding surface [10,11], which is built-in Perform-3D, was used in this regard. The tting exponent m that controls the shape of the PM bounding surface was assigned a value of 2 and the exponent n that controls the shape of the bounding surface in the MBML plane was assigned a value of 1.8 [9].

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1254 H. El Ganainy, M.H. El Naggar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 12491261

A VBVL bounding surface was assigned for the shear hinge to account for the interaction between the horizontal responses of the footing along its width and length. The elliptical equation of this bounding surface is built-in Perform-3D and was used in this regard [9]. Finally, the radiation damping through the foundation soil was neglected. This is considered an acceptable approximation, since the hysteretic damping is more important in the case of seismic loading. 6.2. Side soil The effect of side soil on the seismic performance of buildings with underground stories can be grouped into three aspects: (1) Side soil serves as a exible support to the building in lateral deformation. In the static case, it acts on the basement walls with a lateral pressure corresponding to the active earth pressure. Under seismic shaking, as the building oscillates back and forth towards and away from the side soil, it responds like horizontal elastic springs. As the intensity of the seismic shaking increases, the side soil could experience a nonlinear behavior, in which it cannot provide a lateral pressure on the basement walls more than its passive resistance, Pp, while the building is swaying towards the backll. Also, it cannot provide a lateral pressure less than its active resistance, Pa, while the building is swaying away from the backll. In some types of soils, especially cohesive soil, gapping could occur between the basement walls and the backll as a result of the building oscillation. In this case, the lateral pressure of the backll on the basement walls drops to zero. This nonlinear behavior can result in hysteretic forcedeformation actions in the side soil where the resulting hysteretic damping provides an additional source for dissipating the earthquake energy. Fig. 3 shows the backbone curve for the hysteretic lateral pressurelateral deection relation of the side soil. (2) Under severe seismic shaking, where the backll experiences nonlinear response, the wedge of the soil behind the basement walls could fail and begin oscillating with the building, either in-phase or out-of-phase. This oscillating mass of soil could affect the seismic response of the building by altering its effective oscillating mass. However, this oscillating soil mass could be neglected in comparison to the mass of the structural components and basement walls of the building, without affecting the seismic response of the building signicantly. (3) Side soil dissipates the earthquake energy through radiation damping. This additional damping can affect the seismic response of the building, since it increases its effective damping ratio. However, this effect would be most signicant for stiff structures, such as shear wall and braced frame

structures. For exible structures, such as moment-resisting frame structures, the effect of the radiation damping would be minimal and can be neglected. In the current study, the elastic stiffness and nonlinear behavior of side soil were modeled. However, the oscillating mass of the side soil and the radiation damping effects were neglected. Currently, there are no nonlinear bar elements in Perform-3D capable of modeling the nonlinear backbone curve of the side soil as shown in Fig. 3. Therefore, approximating assumptions were introduced in order to make use of the available nonlinear bar elements in Perform-3D to model the nonlinear response of the side soil adequately. The approximation done herein can be better understood if the lateral pressurelateral deection relation of the side soil is represented into two distinct parts as follows (with reference to Fig. 4): (1) Under static loading condition, the side soil acts on the basement walls with a static pressure corresponding to the active earth pressure. (2) As the building oscillates, the side soil acts like horizontal nonlinear springs, where their ultimate compression capacities are PpPa. However, they possess no tension capacity. It should be noted that the soil considered in this study is cohesionless and should not experience gapping (i.e. the minimum earth pressure cannot drop below the active value). Thus, this approach is considered to be adequate in representing the backbone curve for the lateral pressurelateral deection relation of the side soil. Briaud and Kim [12] have recommended a set of static Py curves for sand and clay to be used within a beamcolumn method for the design of tieback walls. They validated the curves by comparing their predictions with the measured behavior of four-full scale tieback walls in sand and in clay. The Py curves recommended by Briaud and Kim [12] for sand are used herein in modeling the backbone curve of the hysteretic lateral pressurelateral deection relation of the side soil. The active, Pa, and passive, Pp, earth pressures and the corresponding wall deections ya and ya, respectively, are calculated for sand as follows: Pa K a gZ cosd Pp K p gZ cosd ya 1:3 mm yp 13 mm (1) (2) (3) (4)

Fig. 3. Backbone curve of the hysteretic lateral pressurelateral deection relation for the side soil.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
H. El Ganainy, M.H. El Naggar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 12491261 1255

Fig. 4. Approximate representation of the lateral pressurelateral deection relation for the side soil.

where Ka cos f h p i2 cosd 1 sinf d sinf= cosd cos2 f h p i2 cosd 1 sinf d sinf= cosd
2

design response spectrum of the Vancouver area, specied by the NBCC 2005, were used.

Kp

7.1. Uniform hazard spectra (UHS) and compatible earthquake records The NBCC 2005 has introduced uniform hazard spectra that have a constant probability of exceedance of 2% in 50 years as a function of spectral period. These spectra are based on a probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for different zones across Canada [13]. The UHS eliminate the need to use standard spectral shapes scaled to the peak ground acceleration, thus providing a more site-specic description of the earthquake spectrum and ensuring a uniform hazard level to be achieved for all spectral periods [13]. The UHS can be considered as a composite of all earthquake events that contribute most strongly to the hazard at the specied probability level. In general, the dominant contributor to the short-period ground-motion hazard comes from small-to-moderate earthquakes at close distances, whereas larger earthquakes at greater distance contribute most strongly to the long-period ground-motion hazard [14]. The articial ground-motion time histories compatible with the 2% in 50 year UHS of the NBCC 2005 for the Vancouver area suggested by Atkinson and Beresnev [14] were used as input motion. They proposed an event of M6.5 at a distance of 30 km to represent the short-period hazard and an event of M7.2 at a distance of 70 km to represent the long-period hazard. In addition, an earthquake of M8.5 for the Cascadia event scaled by a factor of 2.2 is used to simulate a great earthquake on the Cascadia subduction zone. Therefore, three earthquake records are required to cover the entire hazard represented by the NBCC 2005 UHS for the Vancouver area. Figs. 57 show the three articial acceleration records used in the dynamic analysis of the buildings. Each building was analyzed for each of these three records.

g is the unit weight of the soil, Z is the depth at which the lateral earth pressure is calculated, f is the angle of internal friction of the soil, and d is the wallsoil friction angle. Using Eqs. (1)(4) and the soil properties for site class C and site class E listed in Table 2, the backbone curves for the hysteretic lateral pressurelateral deection relation of the side soil were calculated at selected depths. The backbone curve for the side soil can be adequately modeled using the horizontal nonlinear springs and static active earth pressure distributed over the basement walls area. Thus, nonlinear inelastic horizontal bar elements distributed horizontally and vertically over the surface area of the basement walls were used to model the nonlinear behavior of the side soil. The bar elements were equally spaced vertically at 1.2 m and horizontally at 7.2 m (i.e. the bar elements were distributed along the underground perimeter columns, so that one bar is located at each story level and two intermediate bars are equally spaced within each story). The backbone curve for each bar element was calculated using its corresponding depth. The minimum active earth pressure acting on the basement walls was represented by static concentrated loads acting at the bar elements locations. These loads were calculated as the value of the active earth pressure at the bar level multiplied by the horizontal and vertical spacing of the bar elements.

7. Earthquake loads The model buildings are assumed to be located in the Vancouver area. Thus, earthquake records compatible with the

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1256 H. El Ganainy, M.H. El Naggar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 12491261

Fig. 5. Acceleration record for M6.5 at a distance of 30 km event.

Fig. 6. Acceleration record for M7.2 at a distance of 70 km event.

Fig. 7. Acceleration record for M8.5 Cascadia event scaled by a factor of 2.2.

7.2. Ground response analysis The UHS given by the NBCC 2005 are dened with reference to site class C that is dened as very dense soil and soft rock. Thus, the compatible records can be considered bedrock motions. In general, the characteristics of the bedrock motion can be amplied or attenuated while propagating from the bedrock towards the ground surface. This alteration depends mainly on the frequency content of the bedrock motion and the properties of the soil deposit. Firm soil deposits, such as site class C, will probably not alter the characteristics of the bedrock motion since they can be considered part of the bedrock. Therefore, all buildings founded on site class C can be analyzed for the bedrock motions shown in Figs. 57, whether they are surface building or have multiple underground stories. On the other hand, a soft soil deposit as site class E would probably alter the characteristics of the bedrock motion, by amplication or attenuation. Thus, the ground motions shown in Figs. 57 were propagated within a 30-m-thick deposit of soil site class E (Table 2), performing nonlinear free-eld site response analyses using the one-dimensional (1D) site response analysis program DEEPSOIL [15]. The G/Gmax modulus reduction curve and the equivalent damping ratio versus shear strain relationship for sand given by Seed and Idriss [16] were assigned to the soil deposit [17]. Three ground response analyses were conducted, one for each of the three ground motions as input bedrock motion and the response of the soil deposit was evaluated. The ground motion was calculated at four foundation levels corresponding to buildings having ve, three and one underground stories and at the ground surface for buildings with surface foundations. Figs. 810 show the results of the ground response analyses in terms of the acceleration time histories of the three bedrock

motions at the considered foundation levels. In general, the results show attenuation for the three bedrock motions, which is most pronounced for M6.5 at a distance of 30 km event.

8. Nonlinear dynamic analysis Nonlinear dynamic analyses were performed to assess the seismic performance of the model buildings. A series of nonlinear direct integration timehistory analyses were conducted using the nonlinear structural analysis software Perform-3D [1]. The seismic responses of ve, ten and fteen story buildings with underground stories ranging from zero (i.e. founded on the ground surface) to ve underground stories were investigated. The response of the buildings was evaluated in terms of: (1) the magnitudes and distribution of the envelope of the story shear and moment demand on the buildings throughout each seismic event; (2) the maximum usage ratio of the limit states dening the performance level of the primary structural components of the building. The performance of the following structural components has been investigated: (1) perimeter columns end rotation; (2) perimeter girders end rotation; (3) connection panel zones shear deformation, in terms of three performance levels, namely: immediate occupancy, life safety and collapse prevention, as specied by the ASCE 41 [7] standard.

8.1. Nonlinear direct integration timehistory analysis Perform-3D utilizes step-by-step integration through time using the constant average acceleration (CAA) method (also known as the trapezoidal rule or the Newmark b 1 4 method) to calculate the seismic response of buildings.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
H. El Ganainy, M.H. El Naggar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 12491261 1257

Fig. 8. Ground response analysis results for M6.5 at a distance of 30 km event.

Fig. 9. Ground response analysis results for M7.2 at a distance of 70 km event.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1258 H. El Ganainy, M.H. El Naggar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 12491261

Fig. 10. Ground response analysis results for M8.5 Cascadia event scaled by a factor of 2.2.

The input ground motions resulting from the ground response analyses and the corresponding bedrock motions were used in the analysis of the buildings. The earthquake direction was set to the WE direction for all buildings. The ground motions were given in 0.01 s time steps. Therefore, the integration time step for the analysis was taken 0.01 s in order to accurately capture the input ground motions. Also, it is sufciently small to capture the structure response, since it is considerably smaller than 1 of the structure period [18] the recommended practical value of 12 that ranges around 3.0 s for all model buildings encountered in this study. There are two sources of damping in nonlinear structures: (1) for a structure that is essentially elastic, the earthquake energy is dissipated through viscous damping; (2) after the structure yields, hysteretic damping resulting from the inelastic behavior of the structural components would add to the total dissipated energy. Modeling the structural elements of the building using inelastic components inherently accounts for this source of damping [18]. To simulate viscous damping in buildings, either the modal damping or Rayleigh damping can be used. Rayleigh damping calculates the damping matrix of the structure using a combination of the mass matrix and the initial elastic stiffness matrix of the structure, multiplied by scaling factors, a and b, for the mass and stiffness matrices, respectively. The Rayleigh damping is widely used in linear structural analysis. However, it can lead to unrealistic large damping values in nonlinear analysis. The Rayleigh damping matrix is calculated once at the beginning of the analysis using the initial elastic stiffness matrix of the structure and is used throughout the analysis. However, as the intensity of the seismic shaking increases and the structure experiences nonlinear behavior in the form of plastic hinging, the structure would soften and its stiffness would decrease and become much less than the elastic value used initially in calculating the damping matrix. Hence, the

Rayleigh damping could overestimate the viscous damping in nonlinear structures [18]. Using the modal damping could alleviate this defect. In the modal damping approach, the damping matrix is calculated for linear analysis using the elastic mode shapes and periods of the structure utilizing the specied damping ratio. This damping matrix is kept constant throughout the analysis steps. For nonlinear analysis, the deformed shape for the nonlinear structure generally contains contributions from the elastic mode shapes. However, the effective periods of vibration for these shapes are not the linear periods. Consequently, the mode shapes are still damped, but since the effective period may have changed after yielding of structural components (probably increased) while the damping matrix is unchanged, the amount of damping, expressed as a proportion of critical damping, generally changes [18]. A shortcoming of using modal damping in nonlinear analysis is that only the calculated elastic mode shapes are damped. However, the higher modes are undamped. To provide reasonable damping values, avoiding the pitfalls of both methods, a combination of modal damping and a small value of the Beta-K Rayleigh damping (with no Alpha-M damping) could be used. This is to insure that the Beta-K part will serve in damping the higher modes of vibration, and the modal damping serves in damping the lower modes (i.e. elastic modes). For the current study, the damping ratio was assigned to the model buildings as a combination of 3% modal damping in addition to 0.1% Beta-K Rayleigh damping, and six modes of vibration were calculated for the buildings. The analyses involved a gravity load case followed by a series of independent dynamic analyses, each having the gravity load case as the preceding case. The self weight of the structure and the active earth pressure acting on the basement walls were applied in the gravity load case. The pd effects were considered for all the vertical components of the building. The elastic frame members

ARTICLE IN PRESS
H. El Ganainy, M.H. El Naggar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 12491261 1259

used within the assemblage utilized in modeling the shallow foundations response were not assigned pd effects to eliminate any additional articial moments on the footings that could result from the self weight of the structure.

9. Results and discussion Because of the extensive amount of results obtained from the parametric study, only some representative results are presented here. The complete set of results can be found in El Ganainy [9]. The results are presented in the form of graphs comparing response quantities for each of the ve, ten and fteen story buildings with these conditions: xed base, exible foundation (i.e. zero underground stories) and having one, three or ve underground stories. The response quantities presented include: (1) the envelope of the story shear and moment demand on the buildings throughout the earthquake events; (2) the maximum usage ratio of the limit states dening the performance level of the structural components of the building. 9.1. Story shear and moment demand Figs. 11 and 12 show the envelope of story shear demand on ve story buildings for the M8.5 Cascadia event scaled by a factor of 2.2 for soil classes C and E, respectively, while Figs. 13 and 14 show the envelope of moment demand for the same conditions. The gures show that the SSI decreased the base shear and moment demands on buildings founded on stiff soil, but increased the base story shear and moment demand on buildings founded on soft soil conditions. For example, it increased by about 1025% of the xed base buildings values for buildings founded on soil class E. This shows that the common assumption that SSI has a favorable effect by decreasing the seismic forces postulated by almost all the design code does not always hold. The gures also show that the behavior of buildings with underground stories is closer to that of xed base, i.e., as the number of underground stories increased, the SSI effects decreased. This could be attributed to the rigidity of the basement walls together with the rigid diaphragm action of the underground stories slabs
Fig. 12. Story shear demand on ve story buildingsM8.5 Cascadia event scaled by a factor of 2.2 (soil class E).

Fig. 13. Story moment demand on ve story buildingsM8.5 Cascadia event scaled by a factor of 2.2 (soil class C).

rendering the embedded part of the building essentially a rigid box, hence xing the structure. These xing effects would probably increase with the number of the underground stories. The results for the 10 and 15 story buildings (found in El Ganainy [9]) show that the SSI effects are less pronounced for buildings with longer period. Inspecting the whole set of graphs for the envelope of story shear and moment demand on the buildings found in El Ganainy [9], the following observations are made:

Fig. 11. Story shear demand on ve story buildingsM8.5 Cascadia event scaled by a factor of 2.2 (soil class C).

(1) For buildings with underground stories or exible foundations founded on soil class C, the envelope of the story shear and

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1260 H. El Ganainy, M.H. El Naggar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 12491261

Fig. 15. Usage ratio of limit states for ve story buildingsM8.5 Cascadia event scaled by a factor of 2.2 (soil class C). Fig. 14. Story moment demand on ve story buildingsM8.5 Cascadia event scaled by a factor of 2.2 (soil class E).

moment demand almost has not changed, either in magnitude or in shape of distribution, compared to the xed base buildings case. The minimal SSI effect in this case is attributed to the high soil stiffness and hence minimal change in the dynamic characteristics of the soilstructure system. (2) The effects of the SSI on the seismic loads are pronounced for buildings founded on soil class E for all seismic events considered. The envelopes of story shear and moment demand for buildings with underground stories or exible foundations have changed in magnitude compared to the case of buildings with xed base condition. The magnitudes of base shear and moment have mostly increased, especially at the base where the increase generally ranged from about 10% to 25% of the xed base values. 9.2. Usage ratio of the limit states Figs. 15 and 16 show the maximum usage ratio of the limit states for ve story buildings for the M8.5 Cascadia event scaled by a factor of 2.2 for soil classes C and E, respectively. Fig. 15 shows that for soil class C, the deformations of the structural components of buildings with exible foundations or underground stories are slightly different from those of buildings with xed base conditions. On the other hand, Fig. 16 shows that for the soil class E, the deformations of the structural components of buildings with exible foundations or underground stories are substantially different (larger) from those of buildings with xed base conditions. However, as the number of underground stories increased, the deformation of the structural components gradually decreased approaching the xed buildings values. Similar observations can be made from the rest of gures found in El Ganainy [9], for ten and fteen story buildings and different seismic events. In general, the SSI effects are less pronounced as the period of the building increased. Comparing the deformations of the structural components of buildings founded on soil class E to that of the corresponding buildings founded on soil class C, it is noted that the deformation level generally increases for the soil class E case. The increase ranges from about 50% to about 300%

Fig. 16. Usage ratio of limit states for ve story buildingsM8.5 Cascadia event scaled by a factor of 2.2 (soil class E).

especially for the connection panel zones shear deformations performance levels. This observation clearly demonstrates that SSI effects on the seismic performance of buildings increase as the soil stiffness decreases.

10. Summary and conclusions The seismic performance of buildings with multiple underground stories was investigated. Five, ten and fteen story 3D moment-resisting frame steel buildings with underground stories ranging from zero to ve underground stories have been examined. The buildings were assumed to be founded on shallow foundations. Two site conditions were considered: soil class C and soil class E, corresponding to rm and soft soil deposits,

ARTICLE IN PRESS
H. El Ganainy, M.H. El Naggar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 12491261 1261

respectively. Vancouver seismic area has been considered for this study. Synthetic earthquake records compatible with the Vancouver UHS, as specied by the NBCC 2005, have been used as input motion. For buildings founded on site class C, the bedrock motions have been utilized in the seismic analyses of the buildings. However, for buildings founded on site class E, ground response analyses have been performed to evaluate the characteristics of the ground motion within the soil prole at each of the desired foundation levels for the considered buildings. The building foundations were modeled using an assemblage of a curvature hinge, shear hinge connected in series with an elastic frame member attached to the bottom end of the ground story columns. El Ganainy [9] has shown that this approach can be used in modeling the 3D cyclic rocking, vertical and horizontal responses of shallow foundations effectively. The behavior of the side soil has been modeled using an approximate method: nonlinear bar elements were used to model its exibility and ultimate horizontal capacity and static earth pressure was applied to the basement walls in order to simulate the effect of the initial active earth pressure prior to the seismic event. The dynamic analysis was conducted using the nonlinear structural analysis software Perform-3D. The results indicate that the SSI can considerably affect the seismic response of surface buildings as well as buildings with underground stories founded on soft soil conditions. In general, the results showed that SSI effects are important for buildings founded on soft ground conditions. However, for rm ground conditions its effects can be neglected. The results showed that the SSI effects increased the base shear and moment demand on buildings founded on soft soil. This is contrary to the common assumption that SSI effect on seismic forces is always favorable, postulated by almost all the design codes. It is clearly demonstrated that the base shear and moment demand on short-period buildings could increase by up to 25% of the xed base buildings values. The deformations of the structural components of the buildings have also been affected by the SSI. The deformations of buildings with exible bases have shown a considerable increase that ranged from 50% to about 300% compared to the xed base

case for buildings founded on soil class E. This would in turn increase the lateral deection of the whole building. Thus, SSI can have a detrimental effect on the performance of buildings.

References
[1] Computers and Structures Inc. (CSI). Perform-3DA computer program for nonlinear analysis and performance assessment of 3D structures. 2007: 4.0.3. [2] American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). FEMA 310-handbook for the seismic evaluation of buildings: a prestandard. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency; 1998. [3] Das BM. Principles of foundation engineering. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Thomson; 2007. [4] Das BM. Fundamentals of geotechnical engineering. Pacic Grove, CA: Brooks/ Cole; 1999. [5] American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). FEMA 356Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency; 2000. [6] Computers and Structures Inc. (CSI). ETABSan integrated building design software; 2008 9.2.0. [7] American Society of Civil Engineers. ASCE 41seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. American Society of Civil Engineers; 2006; ASCE/SEI 41-06. [8] Allotey N, El Naggar MH. Analytical momentrotation curves for rigid foundations based on a Winkler model. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2003;23:36781. [9] El Ganainy HM. Seismic performance of buildings with multiple underground stories. M.E.Sc. thesis, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada 2008. [10] El-Tawil S, Deierlein GG. Nonlinear analysis of mixed steelconcrete frames. I: element formulation. J Struct Eng 2001;127:64755. [11] El-Tawil S, Deierlein GG. Nonlinear analysis of mixed steelconcrete frames. II: implementation and verication. J Struct Eng 2001;127:65665. [12] Briaud J, Kim N. Beamcolumn method for tieback walls. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 1998;124:6779. [13] Adams J, Atkinson G. Development of seismic hazard maps for the proposed 2005 edition of the national building code of Canada. Can J Civ Eng 2003;30: 25571. [14] Atkinson GM, Beresnev IA. Compatible ground-motion time histories for new national seismic hazard maps. Can J Civ Eng 1998;25:30518. [15] Hashash Y, Park D, Tsai CC. DEEPSOILa computer program for onedimensional site response analysis. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; 2005: 2.6. [16] Seed HB, Idriss IM. Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analysis. Berkeley, California: Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California; 1970: UCB/EERC-70/10. [17] Hashash Y, Park D, Tsai CC. DEEPSOILtutorial and user manual. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; 2005; 2.6. [18] Computers and Structures Inc. (CSI). Perform-3Duser manuals. 2007: 4.0.3.