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:
“Ignorant kindness may have the effect of cruelty; but to be angry with it as if it were direct cruelty would be an ignorant unkindness.”
—George Eliot [Mary Ann (or Marian)
“The reason why women effect so little and are so shallow is because their aims are low, marriage is the prize for which they strive; if foiled in that they rarely rise above disappointment ... [ellipsis in source]”
—Sarah M. Grimke (1792–1873)
“There will be mud on the carpet tonight
and blood in the gravy as well.
The wifebeater is out,
the childbeater is out
eating soil and drinking bullets from a cup.”
—Anne Sexton (1928–1974)
“Each structure and institution here was so primitive that you could at once refer it to its source; but our buildings commonly suggest neither their origin nor their purpose.”
—Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)
“Our rural village life was a purifying, uplifting influence that fortified us against the later impacts of urbanization; Church and State, because they were separated and friendly, had spiritual and ethical standards that were mutually enriching; freedom and discipline, individualism and collectivity, nature and nurture in their interaction promised an ever stronger democracy. I have no illusions that those simpler, happier days can be resurrected.”
—Agnes E. Meyer (1887–1970)
“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)
“Women had to deal with the men’s response when the women wanted more time “out” of the home; men now must deal with the women’s response as men want more time “in.””
—Kyle D. Pruett (20th century)