Soil amplification:

These are the records of the time-history acceleration and the corresponding response
spectrum at the bed rock and free-field soil surface under the influence of the 4 earthquakes. The
following are showed in the records:

- the peak acceleration at the soft soil surface were more on the bedrock for low to moderate
levels of acceleration but at higher levels of acceleration, the low stiffness and nonlinearity of
the soft soil prevented the development of peak accelerations as large as those recorded at the
bedrock
- there are greater proportions of long-period motions than the bedrock records, which is an
important phenomenon for it influences the seismic response of a superstructure, particularly
where the modified earthquake motion hit the superstructure close to is natural frequency
- as the soil softened and behaved nonlinearly, its natural period elongated, which shifted the
peaks in the amplification curve to the right (longer periods), while the damping increased due
to the hysteretic nature of internal soil damping which reduced the amplitudes of these peaks
- reaction to seismic motion resulted in inertial forces being generated in the structural mass
which then created more motion at the base of the structure than the free-¯eld motion

Therefore, the motion experienced at the base of the foundation can be greater or weaker than
free-¯eld motion due to SSI.

Slide 2 Soil amplification:

illustrates ground motion at the base of the superstructure for different types of foundations under the
influence of the 1940 El Centro earthquake (near-field earthquake) and 1995 Kobe earthquake (far-¯eld
earthquake). The response spectrums present the peak of acceleration response of a single degree of
freedom (SDF) system with 5% damping with different natural periods for the recorded earthquake
motions on the ground surface. The response spectrums present the peak of acceleration response of a
single degree of freedom (SDF) system with 5% damping with different natural periods for the recorded
earthquake motions on the ground surface

Influence of SSI on the generated shear forces in the superstructure

In general, the ratio of the base shear for cases that included the SSI to that of the fixed base was less
than one (see Fig. 13), which showed how this interaction reduced the base shear of the structure.

The results show that SSI reduced the base shear of the structure with a ratio less than 1. It showed
that , the structure supported by the pile-raft foundation experienced more base shear than the
structure supported by the floating pile and shallow foundations, which excluded SSI.

As a consequence, practicing engineers should realize that the reduction ratio for the maximum base
shear due to SSI (Fig. 11) cannot be generalized to all levels of the superstructure because it could result
in an unsafe design.
ROCKING the 15-storey superstructure

The figure on the top left shows the numerical prediction of rocking components for different types of
foundations under the El Centro Earthquake while the figure of the top right compares the max vertical
displacement experienced by the diff. types of foundations subjected to the 4 earthquake records. This
is summarized on the table below.

As was expected, higher intensity earthquakes (near-field) such as the 1994 Northridge and 1995 Kobe
earthquakes, caused the buildings to rock more than the low intensity (far-field) earthquakes such as the
1940 El Centro and 1968 Hachinohe earthquakes because far more inertial energy was generated in the
structure

it was discovered that the structure supported by the shallow foundation experienced the most severe
rocking. However, the pile elements in the floating pile and pile-raft foundations reduced the maximum
uplift in the structure quite considerably, which in turn reduced the maximum rocking.

Consequently, when the design engineer's primary concern is to improve the total stability of the
structure by reducing the rocking component, the pile-raft foundation might be an appropriate option
considering the cases investigated in this study

Lateral deflection and inter-storey drifts of the 15-storey superstructure

According to Fig. 16, and as expected, the near-¯eld earthquakes (i.e. 1994 Northridge and 1995 Kobe
earthquakes) generated more lateral deflections in the structure than the low intensity far-¯eld
earthquakes (i.e. 1940 El Centro and 1968 Hachinohe) due to the higher inertial forces that were
generated

In general, the SSI tends to amplify lateral deflections in the superstructure. This shows that the
amplification factor varied with the type of foundation such that the pile elements in the floating pile
and pile-raft foundations reduced the amplitudes of lateral deflection in the structure more than the
shallow foundations

Accordingly, SSI tended to increase the inter-storey drifts of the superstructure, although the maximum
inter-storey drift of the structure supported by the floating pile foundation was more than the
corresponding value for the fixed-base condition, excluding the SSI. However, the structure supported
by the °oating pile foundation experienced less inter-storey drifts than the structure supported by the
pile-raft and shallow foundations.

As a result, the SSI may affect the performance level of the structure and shift the performance level of
the structure from the life safe zone (less than 1.5% drift) to the near collapse or even the collapse
zones, particularly in soft soils. depending on the type of foundation, the input excitation attracted
different portions of the structure's higher mode responses which contributed to the distribution of
inter-storey drifts in the superstructure.

Rocking-dissipation due to SSI

the foundation is allowed to rock because it reduces the inertial loading that it may transmit into the
superstructure. Accordingly, if a practicing engineer can satisfy the required performance level (inter-
storey drifts of less than 1.5%) and total stability of the structure while accounting for SSI, the rocking
component could actually benefit the structure because it can dissipate the seismic energy and reduce
the structural demand of the structure. In this case, the rocking component would be beneficial in the
design because the structural demand (base shear) would be reduced by 28% compared to the fixed-
based structure. However, any reduction in the base shear should be adopted with extreme caution and
only after assessing the influence of SSI and considering the following points: (1) The reduction factor in
the shear forces due to SSI varies for different levels in the structure (see Sec. 4.2); (2) the residual
rotation and differential settlements must be evaluated critically and (3) the total stability of the
structure should be checked carefully