Effects of Soil Structure Interaction on Seismic Response of an Aqueduct

Bhavana Valeti 11103011

Dept of Civil Engineering Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur

Outline .
Introduction Literature Review Aqueduct Soil Structure Interaction Motivation Modeling Aqueduct Numerical Model Structural Model Water Model Modal Analysis Future work
2

Aqueduct: A water supply channel

Types Inverted Syphonic Open and elevated

Trough Type Aqueduct

Previous Work
Chen and Hao (2004): Proposed a suitable

aqueduct model to accurately represent aqueduct design, water structure interaction and effects of bearing properties
Akogul and Celik(2008): Effect of elastomeric

bearings on stiffness of bridge systems

Soil Structure Interaction

On soft soil Fixed base

7 Fundamental Concepts Of Earthquake Engineering , Roberto Villaverdo

Soil Structure Interaction

Prevalent structural design assumes base to be

fixed at the foundation level

Structures flexible compared to foundation

small foundation displacements can be neglected

Stiff structural systems compared to foundation

significant foundation displacements cannot be ignored

Soil Structure Interaction

Foundation movements can introduce flexibility to

the structure and may alter the frequency and mode shapes of the system Inelastic behavior of foundation can provide valuable energy dissipative capability to the system upon mobilization of load capacity As a result
Force demands to the structure may reduce- Benefit Excessive settlement, rotation and total drift may occur-

Consequences

Foundation Deformation Modes

Super structure
Df

Df

u(t)
Ground surface

Shallow foundation Shallow

L = length of footing foundation B = width L = length of footing of footing B = width of of footing footing H = thickness H = thickness of footing Df = depth of embedment D = depth of embedment
f

Induced earthquake Induced motion earthquake

motion

Sliding mode
Sliding mode

Initial position Initial top position of footing

of footing top
s(t)
s(t)

Vertical mode
10

Vertical mode

t
u(t)

Super structure

Ground surface

Rocking mode

Rocking mode

Current Design Provisions

ATC-40 (1996) FEMA-356 (2000)

NEHRP (2000) ASCE-7 (2005)

} }

Winklers springs with stiffness suggested by Gazetas (1991)

Increased period and damping ratio to account for SSI of shallow foundations

11

Models for non-linear soil structure interaction analysis (Gajan et al, 2010)

Beam-on-nonlinear-Winkler foundation (BNWF)

12

Contact Interface model(CIM)

Motivation

Aqueduct is an important lifeline system prediction of

whose seismic response is very important Introduction of SSI can reduce force demands in structures rigid compared to the ground Also estimation of critical depth of water (which causes maximum demand) for design purpose

13

Forces Acting On An Elevated Trough Type Aqueduct

Forces due to Dead load Traffic load Wind load Seismic loading Water
Hydrostatic Hydrodynamic

14

Modeling Aqueduct
Superstructure Deck Bearings Water Substructure Foundation
Deck

Piers
15

Bearings

Aqueduct Dimensions
Deck
Length: 188.5m Number of spans: 13 (14.5m each) Width: 31.5m Number of channels:4(6.938m wide each) Deck wall height:3.11m

Thickness of Deck wall:0.75m

Deck slab depth:0.6m

16

Aqueduct Dimensions
Elastomeric bearing dimensions:

0.8mx0.4mx0.112m

Dimensions of piers: 15mx34.5mx1.73m

Number of piers: 12
17

Numerical model
Structural model: SAP2000 4 noded rectangular shell elements of concrete are used for modeling deck and piers Abutments are hinged in transverse direction and roller in longitudinal direction with Elastomeric bearings connecting to deck Piers are connected to the deck through elastomeric bearings Elastomeric bearings are reinforced Piers are fixed at the bottom
18

Numerical model

Abutment model in SAP 2000

19

Numerical model
Elastomeric bearings: Link element The link element is composed of uncoupled
Lateral( KH ) Vertical( KV )

Rotational( K ) stiffness components

20

Akogul And Celik(2008)

Numerical model
Lateral stiffness

= 2709 kN/m

Vertical stiffness
Rotational stiffness

=1763608.5714 kN/m
=24598 kN-m/m

Akogul and Celik(2008)

where, Geff = shear modulus of elastomeric bearing A = Elastomer gross plan area Hr = Total elastomer thickness Ec = Elastic modulus of elastomer H = Elastomeric bearing height

21

Water modeling Housners model(1963)

Dynamic pressure of water on Aqueduct wall

Impulsive

Convective

22

Water modeling Housners model(1963)

Impulsive pressure: Equivalent to static water mass attaching to the structure vibrating in phase with the Aqueduct wall. Equivalent impulsive mass:

Its equivalent height:

Where, l= half width of water channel H= height of water M= total mass of water

Connected by rigid link to aqueduct wall

23

Water modeling - Housner model(1963)

Convective pressure: Due to water vibration inside the aqueduct Equivalent convective mass:

Equivalent height:

M1 is connected to aqueduct wall by link of uniaxial

spring stiffness
g= acceleration due to gravity
24

Water modeling Housners model

L(m) 3.469 H(m) 2.36 M(kg) Ho (m) Mo (kg) H1 (m) M1 (kg) 10041 K1 (kN/m) 35540

16374 0.885 6352.5 1.0772 (For 1 meter length of aqueduct)

25

Chen and Hao(2004)

SAP 2000 Model

26

Modal Analysis

Modes corresponding to water appear initially Time period of water mode:3.3297s (average)

Time periods of the aqueduct:

Time period(s)

Longitudinal
1.432

Transverse
1.143

SAP model

27

Longtudinal mode: 1.432s

28

Transverse mode: 1.143s

29

Progress
Literature Survey Detailed 3D modeling Modal analysis and comparison with available data

Future work
Modeling the raft foundations for Soil-structure-interaction

effects Performing nonlinear dynamic analysis to obtain seismic response under scenario earthquakes. Estimate the critical depth of water for maximum seismic response of the structure Performing seismic fragility analysis for various damage scenarios.
30