Effect of Soil Structure Interaction On Structural Response
It has conventionally been considered that soil-structure interaction has beneficial effect on the seismic response of a structure. Many design codes have suggested that the effect of SSI can reasonably be neglected for the seismic analysis of structures. This myth about SSI apparently stems from the false perception that SSI reduces the overall seismic response of a structure, and hence, leads to improved safety margins. Most of the design codes use oversimplified design spectra, which attain constant acceleration up to a certain period, and thereafter decreases monotonically with period. Considering soil-structure interaction makes a structure more flexible and thus, increasing the natural period of the structure compared to the corresponding rigidly supported structure. Moreover, considering the SSI effect increases the effective damping ratio of the system. The smooth idealization of design spectrum suggests smaller seismic response with the increased natural periods and effective damping ratio due to SSI. With this assumption, it was traditionally been considered that SSI can conveniently be neglected for conservative design. In addition, neglecting SSI tremendously reduces the complication in the analysis of the structures which has tempted designers to neglect the effect of SSI in the analysis.
This conservative simplification is valid for certain class of structures and soil conditions, such as light structures in relatively stiff soil. Unfortunately, the assumption does not always hold true. In fact, the SSI can have a detrimental effect on the structural response, and neglecting SSI in the analysis may lead to unsafe design for both the superstructure and the foundation.
Read more about this topic: Soil Structure Interaction
Famous quotes containing the words effect of, effect, soil, structure, interaction, structural and/or response:
“The effect of having other interests beyond those domestic works well. The more one does and sees and feels, the more one is able to do, and the more genuine may be one’s appreciation of fundamental things like home, and love, and understanding companionship.”
—Amelia Earhart (1897–1937)
“Before the effect one believes in different causes than one does after the effect.”
—Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900)
“Let none admire
That riches grow in hell; that soil may best
Deserve the precious bane.”
—John Milton (1608–1674)
“Why does philosophy use concepts and why does faith use symbols if both try to express the same ultimate? The answer, of course, is that the relation to the ultimate is not the same in each case. The philosophical relation is in principle a detached description of the basic structure in which the ultimate manifests itself. The relation of faith is in principle an involved expression of concern about the meaning of the ultimate for the faithful.”
—Paul Tillich (1886–1965)
“UG [universal grammar] may be regarded as a characterization of the genetically determined language faculty. One may think of this faculty as a ‘language acquisition device,’ an innate component of the human mind that yields a particular language through interaction with present experience, a device that converts experience into a system of knowledge attained: knowledge of one or another language.”
—Noam Chomsky (b. 1928)
“The reader uses his eyes as well as or instead of his ears and is in every way encouraged to take a more abstract view of the language he sees. The written or printed sentence lends itself to structural analysis as the spoken does not because the reader’s eye can play back and forth over the words, giving him time to divide the sentence into visually appreciated parts and to reflect on the grammatical function.”
—J. David Bolter (b. 1951)
“There is ... but one response possible from us: Force, Force to the uttermost, Force without stint or limit, the righteous and triumphant Force which shall make Right the law of the world and cast every selfish dominion down in the dust.”
—Woodrow Wilson (1856–1924)