Research Article Evaluation of Seismic Performance of ...downloads.hindawi.com/archive/2014/940923.pdf · Research Article Evaluation of Seismic Performance of Buildings Constructed

Research ArticleEvaluation of Seismic Performance of Buildings Constructed onHillside Slope of Doronka Village-Egypt

Ahmed Abdelraheem Farghaly

Civil and Architectural Buildings Faculty of Industrial Education Sohag University Sohag 82524 Egypt

Correspondence should be addressed to Ahmed Abdelraheem Farghaly khodary20002000yahoocom

Received 30 January 2014 Accepted 4 March 2014 Published 10 April 2014

Academic Editors E J Sapountzakis and I Smith

Copyright copy 2014 Ahmed Abdelraheem Farghaly This is an open access article distributed under the Creative CommonsAttribution License which permits unrestricted use distribution and reproduction in any medium provided the original work isproperly cited

Construction on the hillside slope ismore challenging to the structural engineer especially under seismic load due to the presence ofa powerful earthquake in addition to the forces of sliding slope itself Regarding the population growth and narrowness of availablelands people take hillside slopes to build their houses One of the main sources of seismic vulnerability in Egypt is representedby the instability of slopes therefore this is a subject of great significance particularly in view of the growing attention that hasbeen recently dedicated to the reduction of seismic hazardThis paper evaluates the seismic performance of Doronka city buildingsconstructed on rocky hillside slope and its foundations system by studying base shear acceleration and displacementsThe stabilityof the slope was first evaluated under seismic loads and then the stability of constructed buildings was checked on the hillside slopeThe results of study show that these buildings will collapse if subjected to earthquake even if its peak ground acceleration (PGA)magnitude is less than 025 g but the hillside slope remains stable within a high earthquake magnitude

1 Introduction

Doronka village is in the south of Cairo (about 375 km)and was subjected to flood in 1996 and most of its houseswere destroyed therefore its people tended to construct theirhouses on the hillside of the town away from the danger offuture flood The nature of the soil of the hillside is a rockysoil which is a very hard soil used to find traditional buildingson it so most of the buildings constructed on hillside inDoronka town were founded as stepped (the foundationfound to be on more than one level in most cases) and raftfoundations

The response of a slope under seismic loading is deter-mined by the temporal and spatial distribution of the seismicforces in the soilmass which in turn depend on the character-istics of the seismic input and on themechanical properties ofthe soil In general any foundation design should meet fouressential requirements (1) adequate Geotechnical capacity ofsoilrock surrounding the foundation with a specified safetyagainst ultimate failure (2) acceptable total or differentialsettlements under static and dynamic loads (3) adequate

overall stability of slopes in the vicinity of a footingmat and(4) constructability with solutions for anticipated problems

The ground response analyses can be performed under 1Dor 2D conditions and the nonlinear soil behavior is usuallydescribed through the equivalent linearmethod that providesa reasonable estimate of soil response for moderate levels ofshearing intensity provided that no significant excess porewater pressure develop during seismic shaking

2 Analysis of Slope Stability Overview

Numerous methods have been developed for assessing thestability of soil slopes most of which are based on the conceptof ideally plastic response when failure is imminent Amongthem the limit equilibrium methods enjoy wide acceptancedue to their reasonable agreement with reality and theirsimplicity [1] Complex soil profiles seepage and a varietyof loading conditions can be easily dealt with [2] Limitequilibrium solutions however are not rigorous To be calledrigorous a solution must satisfy the equilibrium equations

Hindawi Publishing CorporationISRN Civil EngineeringVolume 2014 Article ID 940923 13 pageshttpdxdoiorg1011552014940923

2 ISRN Civil Engineering

(a) High slope angle with stepped foundation (b) Small slope angle with stepped foundation

Figure 1 The techniques of constructing building on hillside slope in Doronka village

the compatibility conditions the constitutive relations of allmaterials and the boundary conditions

Limit equilibriummethods often violate the stress bound-ary conditions they do not enforce an appropriate plasticflow rule for the soil while the developing stresses may noteverywhere obey the requirement for nonincidence of soilstrength Moreover the introduction of assumptions neces-sary to remove static indeterminacy leads to kinematicallyinadmissible collapse mechanisms

The finite element (FE)method is an alternative approachemployed with two different methodologies (a) those thatsearch for the critical slip surface using stress fields obtainedfrom the stress and deformation FE analysis and (b) thosethat compute the factor of safety through an iterative finiteelement analysis by the ldquostrength reduction techniquerdquo [3]In the latter category of methods finite elements are utilizedto model the development of shear zones and the progressivefailure of soil The advantages of the FE approach over theconventional slope stability methods can be summarized asfollows

(i) No assumption needs to be made a priori aboutthe shape and location of the slip surface Failureoccurs naturally within the soil when the appliedshear stresses exceed the shear strength of the soilmass

(ii) The solution is kinematically admissible and there areno arbitrary assumptions about the slice side forces

(iii) It can capture progressive failure phenomena andprovide information about the displacement fielduntil the ultimate state

(iv) It can readily (if not easily) handle irregular slopegeometries in 2 and 3 dimensions complex soilstratigraphy and calculation of low quantities (due tosteady seepage or to transient flow)

Pitilakis [4] and Anastasopoulos et al [5] discussed the2D wave propagation effects and it is perhaps leading toldquotopographicrdquo amplification are taken into account in theiranalysis The authors have been shown that such effects maylead to increased amplitude of ground shaking near the crestof the slope

Figure 1 shows the techniques of building constructedin Doronka city (area of study) which clears that they areconstructed on stepped isolated footings or raft foundation

Latha and Garaga [6] proved that the factor of safety forthe slope was reduced by 46 with the application of earth-quake loads in pseudostatic analysis than static conditionsand it is recommended to flatten the slope from 50∘ to 43∘to avoid wedging failures at all pier locations

Pandey et al [7] studied the behavior of buildings onhill slope through a 3D analysis of the building in whichthe static pushover analysis and response spectrum analysishave been conducted on five buildings with varying supportconditions These buildings have been analyzed for differentsoil conditions (hard medium and soft soils) idealized byequivalent springs In general it is found that responsereduction factor decreases with increasing time period but isexpected to be constant beyond a certain value of the timeperiod

Kourkoulis et al [8] studied parametrically the effectsof foundation type (isolated footings versus a rigid raft)on the position of the sliding surface on the foundationtotal and differential displacements and on the distressof the foundation slab and superstructure columns Theauthors showed that a frame structure founded on a properlydesigned raft could survive the combined effects of slopefailure and ground shaking even if the latter is the result ofa strong base excitation amplified by the soil layer and slopetopography

Failure mechanisms caused by shear strength reductionassume different characteristics depending on soil behaviorductile or brittle and soil type granular or cohesive asdiscussed by Rampello et al [9] These mechanisms can beanalyzed in the static condition following the seismic eventusing conventional limit equilibrium methods eventuallyaccounting for the increase of pore water pressure and thedegradation of strength parameters induced by earthquakeloading

On the contrary when slope instability is producedby earthquake-induced inertial forces a progressive devel-opment of slope displacements occurs for the durationof ground motion only Accordingly evaluation of sloperesponse to earthquake loading should be carried out in

ISRN Civil Engineering 3

principle using analytical procedures which account fortime-dependent seismic action and that allow an evaluationof the induced displacement to be obtained If a pseudostaticapproach is adopted in this case the equivalent seismiccoefficients used in limit equilibrium calculations must becalibrated against specifying levels of slope performance andin turn defined by specifying threshold values of earthquake-induced displacements In fact in the pseudostatic approachthe safety factor provides an indirect estimate of the seismicperformance of the slope to earthquake loading while understatic conditions it represents a measure of the distance froma potential failure mechanism

In situ soil slopes and embankments are often reinforcedwith nails to improve their static and seismic performanceMichalowski and You [10] developed an approximatemethodbased on the kinematic approach of limit analysis to estimatethe permanent displacement of geosynthetic-reinforced soilslopes subjected to earthquake loading Chavan et al [11]verified this approximatemethod through finite element (FE)analysis of nails and soil slopes considering the soil and thenails as nonlinear and linear elastic materials respectivelyRadiation damping has been considered by using Lysmer-Kuhlemeyer (L-K) dampers at the soil boundaries of theFE model Soil is assumed to be dry and cohesionlessand analyzed under plane strain conditions The permanentdisplacements from approximate method and FE analysishave been compared It is found that the displacements fromFE analysis are considerable (more than 10) less than thosefrom approximate method

Krishnamoorthy [12] obtained a procedure to evaluate thefactor of safety of the slope (1 1) subjected to seismic loadusing Monte Carlo technique The proposed method can beused to obtain simply the factor of safety of the slope anddeformation of the slope

Mavrouli et al [13] presented an analytical methodologyto evaluate rock slope stability under seismic conditions byconsidering the geomechanical and topographic propertiesof a slope The objective is to locate potential rock fall sourceareas and evaluate their susceptibility in terms of probabilityof failure For this purpose the slope face of a study area isdiscretized into cells having homogenous aspect slope anglerock properties and joint set orientations A pseudostaticlimit equilibrium analysis is performed for each cell wherebythe destabilizing effect of an earthquake is represented bya horizontal force The value of this force is calculated bylinear interpolation between the peak horizontal groundacceleration PGA at the base and the top of the slope Theground acceleration at the top of the slope is increased by 50to account for topographic amplification The uncertaintyassociated with the joint dip is taken into account usingthe Monte Carlo method The proposed methodology wasapplied to a study site with moderate seismicity in Solrsquoade Santa Coloma located in the Principality of AndorraThe results of the analysis are consistent with the spatialdistribution of historical rock falls that have occurred since1997 Moreover the results indicate that for the studiedarea (1) the most important factor controlling the rock fallsusceptibility of the slope is the water pressure in jointsand (2) earthquake shaking with PGA of 016 g will cause

a significant increase in rock fall activity only if water levelsin the joints are greater than 50 of the joint height

Figure 2 illustrates the models used for the analysisof different cases for constructing both isolated and raftfoundation cases The angles of slopes 120601 are 60∘ 45∘ and 25∘depending on the slope location in the nature (dimensionsof the models were in m) The finite-element (FE) analysescan be successfully utilized to model the generation ofsliding failure surfaces in the slope reproducing similarfailure surfaces with those derived from limit-equilibriumand limit-analysis methods and leading to similar yieldaccelerations But the capability to treat realistically thedynamic response to ground shaking is an exclusive attributeof the numerical (FE) methodology not of the pseudostaticlimit equilibriumanalysis methods An additional capabilityof the numerical (FE) methodology is that any structure-foundation system can be placed on the slope For thepurpose of the present study a discretization of 05mtimes05mhas been adopted as in Kourkoulis et al [8]

The finite element (FE) method is one of many stresses-deformation methods It is widely accepted for its accuracyin modeling different geological geotechnical phenomena asit implements physical laws During the last decade majorimprovements in efficiency and configuration have made iteasier and cheaper to use and therefore it has become a morecommon tool in science and engineering

3 Selection of Adequate Accelerographs

The recorded accelerographs of Northridge (1989) and ElCentro (1940) earthquakes are shown in Figure 3 Sincethere are no accelerographs available (neither recorded norpredicted based on the seismic risk analyses) in the areathe above accelerographs are selected for seismic analysesof the model According to the Egyptian code of practicefor seismic resistant design of buildings [14] the city ofDoronka is classified as the area by relatively low seismicrisk and the design acceleration of the area is recommendedto 025 g Thus the above mentioned accelerographs havebeen scaled and corrected for this amount Egypt in thelast years was classified as high seismic regions so theresearch will analyse the buildings constructed on hillsideslope subjected to earthquake acceleration 025 05 and 1 g tocover all possibilities of how earthquake force can affect thearea Time history analysis is carried out using SAP200 [15]program considering the factor of acceleration 025 05 and1 g and nonlinear analysis with 4000 step at 40 sec for bothtime history used earthquakes (El Centro and Northridgeearthquakes)The time history corresponding to 5dampingis considered which is reasonable for concrete structure

4 Model Description

The 2D building model consists of frame elements as beamand column The column dimension is 50 times 50 cm andthe beam section is 25 times 50 cm all over the height of thebuildingThe foundation is chosen to be either raft or isolatedfoundation in the analyses A 4-story building was modeled


Earthquake

X

Z

120601∘

(a) Slope with angle 120601 with directions of earthquakes

2000

2000

200

0

Changeable

Chan

geab

le

500

300

1500

120601∘

(b) Building on slope constructed on isolated footing

Earthquake

X

Z

(c) Stepped buildings on slope constructed on isolated footing (d) Stepped buildings on slopes constructed onraft foundation

Figure 2 Finite element mesh in the area of the slope the discretization is denser (05m times 05m quadrilateral elements)

Acce

lera

tion

(cm

ss

)

600

0

minus600

0 8 16 24 32 40

Time (s)

(a) El Centro

Acce

lera

tion

(cm

ss

)

600

0

minus600

0 8 16 24 32 40

Time (s)

(b) Northridge

Figure 3 Acceleration time histories of the earthquakes in N-S direction

with a 3m height (each story) and a 15m length as shown inFigure 2

No matter what type and size of RC structure is underinvestigation the finite element method (FEM) is the mostaccurate and reliable numerical technique for assessing thedemands on structure components in both 2D and 3Ddomains

The inelastic analysis is performed and the failure crite-rion used for both the soil and the structure members has tobe stated as well

Frame members primarily not only serve to carry themajority of gravity loads in a building but also serve as partof lateral resisting systems Bernoulli-Euler beam theory andTimoshenko beam theoryHjelmstad [16] if considering sheareffects of deep beam are widely used and have been imple-mented in most computer-based frame analysis packages

A Beam element was loaded with constant distributed loadsequal to 250 tonm1015840 at all floor levels in addition to ownweight of elements

5 Results and Analysis

To evaluate the performance of buildings constructed onhillside slopes at Doronka city two main parts were studiedthe first part is the performance of the building with adifferent foundation system to seismic loads on the hillsideslope and presenting the straining actions of them resultingfrom two earthquakes (El Centro and Northridge earth-quakes) analyses in steps that is first 025 g 05 g and 1 g inincreasing order of the PGAand the secondpart evaluated theperformance of hillside slope (slope angles 60∘ 45∘ and 25∘)


Table 1 Description of used symbols in different curves

Symbols Description

I 60∘ Building on 60∘ slope angle founded on isolatedfooting

R 60∘ Building on 60∘ slope angle founded on raft footing



I 25∘ Building on a 25∘ slope angle founded on isolatedfooting

R 25∘ Building on a 25∘ slope angle founded on isolatedfooting

Fixed ISO Building with fixed stepped isolated footingFixed raft Building with fixed raft footing

under static and seismic loads with and without constructedbuilding to evaluate the static and dynamic stability of thehillside slope

Figure 4 represents the straining actions of the analyzedmodel using El Centro earthquake time history taking intoconsideration the various types of slope angles ground accel-erations and foundation systems (isolated or raft foundationsystem) Figure 4(a) shows variations of normal force in basecolumns for a building founded at a 60∘ slope with raftfoundation and the normal force recorded the highest valuewith respect to the other casesThe greater the slope angle thegreater the normal forces

Figure 4(c) shows bending moment for base column Amaximum bending moment occurs in raft foundation onslope angle 60∘ in 1 g acceleration but in 050 g accelerationthe maximum value was found in raft foundation with 45∘slope angle Figure 4(d) represents the top floor displacementand themaximum value of displacement for the testedmodelwas founded in raft foundation on slope angle 60∘ thisbehavior was repeated in all used accelerations

Table 1 describes the used symbols in different curvesFigure 4(e) shows the values of top floor acceleration of

the building model the maximum top floor acceleration wasregistered in the case of raft foundation on a 25∘ slope anglenearly 24 times the applied acceleration on the model for1 g acceleration 27 times the applied acceleration (050 g)and equals to 2 times the applied acceleration (025 g) fromfigure its can improved that the slope has not effect on thevalues of bending moment of base column except for R 25(raft foundation on hillside slope 25∘) nearly increased by 175times than all cases the bending moments in fixed base casesregistered a lower value with respect to the rest cases

Figure 5 shows the straining actions of the analyzedmod-els using Northridge time history earthquake model takinginto consideration the various types of slope angles groundaccelerations and foundation systems (stepped isolated orraft foundation system) Figure 5(a) shows the variation ofnormal force in base columns and building founded on 60∘slope with raft foundation gives the highest value of thenormal force with respect to the other cases (nearly morethan the other cases by 25 times) the big slope effect on

the oblique of the building so that the high value of normalforce Figure 5(b) illustrates that base shear force at the raftfoundation system in 60∘ slope angle gives the maximumvalue with respect to the other slopes and a foundationsystem this phenomenon was repeated for the three selectedground accelerations

Figure 5(c) shows that base bendingmoment for base col-umn maximum bending moment occurs in raft foundationcase on slope angle 60∘ and rafton slope 25∘ in 1 g accelerationbut in 050 g and 025 g acceleration the values were nearlyconstant Figure 4(d) represents the top floor displacementand themaximumvalue of displacement of the testedmodelsdisplacement of model in 60∘ slope was smaller than in 25∘by 115 times and this behavior was repeated in all usedaccelerations

Figure 5(e) shows the values of top floor accelerationof models and the maximum top floor acceleration wasregistered in the case of raft foundation on a 25∘ slope anglenearly 16 times the applied acceleration on the model for 1 g050 g and 025 g cases of the applied acceleration

The results founded fromEl Centro earthquake excitationwere in the same trend with Northridge earthquake exalta-tion

Figure 6 displays the stress distribution in 119909- and 119911-directions of 2D slopes (angles 60∘ 45∘ and 25∘) under staticcondition Figure 6(c) shows the stress distribution in 119909-and 119911-directions and all stresses are negative (compressionstress) with the allowable stress for the rocky soil of thehillside in Figure 6(b) stress in the hillsidewith slope 45∘ withmoderate compression stress but in Figure 5(a) the stress alsoin compression but with low value that because of the highervalue of slope angle 60∘

To evaluate the effect of different kind of foundationsystem on hillside slopes under El Centro earthquake with025 g 05 g and 1 g PGA (Pick Ground Acceleration) exci-tation there are three actual slopes that were tested (60∘45∘ and 25∘) Only hillside slopes under 1 g PGA are shownin Figure 7 A hillside slope 25∘ subjected to El Centroearthquake with PGA 1 g with raft foundation stress in 119909-direction no tension between foundation and soil under-neath the model and so in 119911-direction generally no tensionstress come out in thewhole of the slopeThe surface of failureappears under raft foundation more straight but for steepedfoundation the surface looks like a quarter circle (criticalcircle of slip) Compression stress in hillside slope underneathsteeped foundation is bigger than raft foundation

For a hillside slope angle 45 the straining action onthe slope is moderate without tension stress between raftfoundation in 119911-direction and the hillside soil will but thereis a tension stress between the raft foundation buildingmodeland the hillside soil in 119909-direction which means collapse ofthe building model there is a tension stress in the hillsideslope in a crest parts and the steeped foundation shows aminimum effect on the slope This appears as a small valueof compression stress in both directions and no tension stressappears underneath the steeped foundation of the model

For hillside slope angle 60∘ deformation of hillside slopewith raft foundation a small part of the hillside will take offa tension stress appears underneath the foundation in both


05

1015202530354045

I 60 R 25I 25R 45I 45R 60iso

Fixedraft

Foundation system with slope

Fixed

N1 gN05 gN025 g

Nor

mal

forc

e (t)

(a) Base column normal force

02468

10121416


I 60 R 25I 25R 45I 45R 60iso

Fixedraft

Fixed

Shea

r for

ce (t

)

Q 1gQ 05 gQ 025 g

(b) Base column shear force

02468

1012141618

I 60 R 25I 25R 45I 45R 60iso

Fixedraft


Fixed

M1 gM05 gM025 g

Mom

ent (mmiddott

)

(c) Base column bending moment

0

5

10

15

20

Dis

(cm

)

I 60 R 25I 25R 45I 45R 60iso

Fixedraft


Fixed

Dis 1gDis 05 gDis 025 g

(d) Displacement of top floor

0

05

1

15

2

25

Acce

lera

tion

(g)

I 60 R 25I 25R 45I 45R 60iso

Fixedraft


Fixed

Acceleration 1gAcceleration 05 gAcceleration 025 g

(e) Acceleration of top floor

Figure 4 Straining actions of 2D building with different types of foundation system and slope angle with El Centro earthquake excitation

directions and stepped foundationmodel appears to bemorestable than raft foundation model because there is no tensionbetween foundation and soil

If the PGA equal to 05 g for the hillside slope 25∘no tension between both types of foundation and the soil

underneath both stress are compression in both directionswhich have a large values In hillside slope 45∘ stressunderneath a raft foundation model approximates to zeroin both directions and this means the model is aboutrotation to be destroyed but the steeped foundation was


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

60 R 25 iso25 R45 iso45 R60 iso R fixed I fixedFoundation system with slope

N1 gN05 gN025 g

Nor

mal

forc

e (t)


0

05

1

15

2

25

3


Base

shea

r (t)

Q 1gQ 05 gQ 025 g


0

05

1

15

2

25

3

35


M1 gM05 gM025 g

Bend

ing

mom

ent (mmiddott

)


002040608

112141618

Dis

(cm

)




002040608

112141618

Acce

lera

tion

(g)




Figure 5 Straining actions of 2D model with different types of foundation and slope angles with Northridge earthquake


minus100

minus90

minus80

minus70

minus60

minus50

minus40

minus30

minus20

minus10

0 10

20

30

minus132

minus121

minus110

minus99

minus88

minus77

minus66

minus55

minus44

minus33

minus22

minus11

0 11

Stress in x direction stress Stress in z direction stress

(a) Slope 60∘

minus910

minus840

minus770

minus700

minus630

minus560

minus490

minus420

minus350

minus280

minus210

minus140

minus70

00

minus390

minus360

minus330

minus300

minus270

minus240

minus210

minus180

minus150

minus120

minus90

minus60

minus30

00

Stress in x direction stressStress in z direction stress

(b) Slope 45∘

minus168

minus154

minus140

minus126

minus112

minus98

minus84

minus70

minus56

minus42

minus28

minus14

00

14

minus585

minus540

minus495

minus450

minus405

minus360

minus315

minus270

minus225

minus180

minus135

minus90

minus45

00


(c) Slope 25∘

Figure 6 Stress distribution on 2D slope with different slope angles under static load

more stable because there is a small value of compressionstress underneath foundation For a hillside slope angle45 the straining action on the slope is moderate withouttension stress between raft foundation in 119911-direction andthe hillside soil will but there is a tension stress betweenthe raft foundation building model and the hillside soil in119909-direction which means collapse of the building modeland there is a tension stress in the hillside slope in a crestparts and the steeped foundation shows aminimum effect on

the slope This appears as a small value of compression stressin both directions and no tension stress appears underneaththe steeped foundation of the model

Figure 8 illustrates the straining actions of the hillsideslope under Northridge earthquake excitation with differentkinds of foundation systems and slopes For PGA 1 g slope60∘ there is a tension stress between foundation and soil onthe slope this indicated a failure of the model for both kindsof foundation (raft and stepped) deformation for stepped


minus102

minus94

minus86

minus78

minus70

minus62

minus54

minus46

minus38

minus30

minus22

minus14

minus6

00

minus102

minus94

minus86

minus78

minus70

minus62

minus54

minus46

minus38

minus30

minus22

minus14

minus6

00

480

420

360

300

240

180

120

6000minus60

minus120

minus180

minus240

minus300

420

360

300

240

180

120

6000minus60

minus120

minus180

minus240

minus300

minus360

Deformation

Deformation

(B) Stepped foundation

(A) Raft foundation x directionz direction

x direction z direction

(a) Straining action on slope 60∘

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

5000minus50

minus100

minus150

minus200

minus250

160

8000minus80

minus160

minus240

minus320

minus400

minus480

minus560

minus640

minus720

minus800

360

315

270

225

180

135

904500minus45

minus90

minus135

minus180

minus225

minus16

minus24

minus32

minus40

minus48

minus56

minus64

minus70

minus78

minus86

minus94

minus102

minus110

Deformation

Deformation

(A) Stepped foundation

(B) Raft foundation

x directionz direction


(b) Straining action on slope 45∘

Figure 7 Continued


minus78

minus52

minus26

00265278104

130

156

182

208

234

260

603000minus30

minus60

minus90

minus120

minus150

minus180

minus210

minus240

minus270

minus300

minus330

minus80

minus60

minus40

minus20

0020406080100

120

140

160

180

84562800minus28

minus56

minus84

minus112

minus140

minus168

minus196

minus224

minus252

minus280

Deformation

Deformation

(A) Raft foundation

(B) Raft foundation



(c) Straining action on slope 25∘

Figure 7 Straining actions of 2D building with different types of foundation system and slope angle with El Centro earthquake excitationwith PGA equal to 1 g

Table 2 Conclusion of model stable with different earthquake PGA

Earthquakeacceleration

Hillside slopeangle

Static stability of slope only Dynamic stability withconstructed one building

Dynamic stability withconstructed series building

Tension stress Compressionstress

Tension stressunder building

Compressionstress underbuilding



1 g60∘ No Yes Yes mdash Yes mdash45∘ No Yes Yes mdash Yes mdash25∘ No Yes No Yes Yes mdash

050 g60∘ No Yes Yes mdash Yes mdash45∘ No Yes Yes mdash Yes mdash25∘ No Yes No Yes mdash Yes

025 g60∘ No Yes Yes mdash Yes mdash45∘ No Yes No Yes Yes mdash25∘ No Yes No Yes mdash Yes

foundation is bigger than a raft foundation model and thestraining action seems to be lower than the correspondingvalues of El Centro earthquake exaltation For slope 45∘ and1 g PGA there is no tension stress between foundation and soilon the hillside slope but the compression stress in the slope issmall with respect to 60∘ slope and the corresponding valuesin 25∘ slope are bigger than 45∘ and no tension stress appears

The results obtained from Northridge earthquake aresimilar in trend with these founded from El Centro earth-quake excitation

Table 2 concluded the results of model stress founded onthe slopes with the view of stability or not under differentearthquake excitationThe stability of a series of building con-struction on a slope under earthquake excitation was studiedand also concluded in Table 2 It seem that series buildings

can bemore critical than one building and it is shown that theconstruction of series buildings on a slope from60 to 45 anglecan be destroyed under moderate earthquake even so theseries buildings withstand the same earthquake magnitudesif it is founded on a flat land foundation

6 Conclusions

A 2D building model founded on a hillside slope was evalu-ated to check the performance of buildings and slopes undervarious earthquake time history excitation and magnitudestudying a real case of study in a Doronka village in UpperEgypt Two earthquake time histories were used El Centroand Northridge earthquake with 025 g 05 g and 1 g PGAmagnitudeThe models used were prepared to agree with the


13

0minus13

minus26

minus39

minus52

minus65

minus78

minus91

minus104

minus117

minus130

minus143

minus156

0minus22

minus44

minus66

minus88

minus110

minus132

minus154

minus176

minus198

minus220

minus242

minus262

minus286

12

0minus12

minus24

minus36

minus48

minus60

minus72

minus84

minus96

minus108

minus120

minus132

minus144

minus44

minus66

minus88

minus110

minus132

minus154

minus176

minus198

minus220

minus242

minus262

minus286

minus600

minus550

minus500

minus450

minus400

minus350

minus300

minus250

minus200

minus150

minus100

minus50

00

50

0minus9

minus18

minus27

minus36

minus45

minus54

minus63

minus72

minus81

minus90

minus99

minus108

minus117

60

00

minus60

minus120

minus180

minus240

minus300

minus360

minus420

minus480

minus540

minus600

minus660

minus720

12

0minus12

minus24

minus36

minus48

minus60

minus72

minus84

minus96

minus108

minus120

minus132

minus144

X directionZ direction Deformation

Deformation

Deformation

Deformation

(i) Raft foundation

(ii) Stepped foundation

(iii) Stepped foundation

(iv) Raft foundation





Figure 8 Continued


34

17

00

minus17

minus34

minus51

minus68

minus85

minus102

minus119

minus136

minus153

minus170

minus187

45

00

minus45

minus90

minus135

minus180

minus225

minus270

minus315

minus360

minus405

minus450

minus495

minus540

14

00

minus14

minus28

minus42

minus56

minus70

minus84

minus98

minus112

minus126

minus140

minus154

minus168

45

00

minus45

minus90

minus135

minus180

minus225

minus270

minus315

minus360

minus405

minus450

minus495

minus540

Deformation

Deformation

(v) Raft foundation

(vi) Stepped foundation




Figure 8 Straining actions of 2D building with different types of foundation system and slope angle with Northridge earthquake excitationwith PGA equals 1 g

reality of the nature of the case study and the slopes were 60∘45∘ and 25∘ and the foundation system to be stepped isolatedor raft foundations The nonlinear parameters of the rockytype soil were provided to SAP2000 program as a curve of soilunder cyclic loading Applying the two selected earthquaketime histories with different PGA on a free hillside slope frombuilding and with only one building and then with a series ofbuildings the highlight points can be drawn as follows

(i) Static analysis of hillside with different angles ofslopes was found to be stable

(ii) The study gives an overview of the stability of hillsideslopes under earthquake excitations especially forconstruction requirements

(iii) The stability of slopes (without constructing build-ings) (with slope angles range from 60∘ to 25∘) isacceptable in the high PGA for the study of rocky soilno tensile stress was found in the hillside slope

(iv) Compression stress in a hillside slope angle 60∘decreased by 15 times than hillside slope angle 45∘and decreased by 14 times than hillside slope 25∘under seismic excitations

(v) The interplay between dynamic ldquoinertialrdquo effects aris-ing from the ground vibration and the quasistaticldquokinematicrdquo effects arising from the downwardmove-ment of a shallow sliding soil wedge are studied Itwas thus determined that a rigid raft foundationplaced on a big angle slope which is in a precariousequilibrium and fails during very strong shakingcannot protect the superstructure from both falling(being dragged) with the sliding soil mass and fromsuffering large damaging internal forces

(vi) This is in qualitative agreement with several casehistories of structures that have survived the com-bined effects of strong seismic shaking and of soildownward sliding The penalty to pay however is(a) appreciable rotation and lateral displacement ofthe whole system which may impair the serviceabilityof the structure and (b) generation of large bendingmoments and shear forces in the foundation slabby contrast as in fact most engineers would haveintuitively predicted placing a structure with isolatedfootings on a seismically unstable slope would be aprudent decision

(vii) It is recommended to flatten the slope from 60∘ to45∘ to avoid wedge failures at all isolated steppedfoundation locations (normal force decreased by 50for a slope angle 60∘ than slope angle 45∘ and baseshear decreased by 40 in a slope angle 60∘ than slopeangle 45∘)

(viii) The difference in straining action between steps andraft fixed base under dynamic loads is not significant(base shear in raft foundation increased by 2 thanstepping isolated footing 3 in bending moment 5in top displacement and 7 in top floor acceleration)

(ix) Stepped isolated foundation represents the best solu-tion for both dynamic performance of superstructureconstructed on hillside slope and the stability ofthe slope (columns normal force for isolated footingdecreased by 133 times than raft foundation anddecreased by 145 times in base shear) in 2D the effectof the tie beams to connect stepped footing has beenignored


(x) Series buildings constructed on a hillside slope espe-cially 60∘ angle normal force increased by nearly 15times than the one building model 175 times forshear force 140 times in bending moment and 125times for displacement and decreased by 020 timesfor top floor acceleration

This conclusion drawn from a 2D analysis remains validfor the 3D cases since more attenuation would be observedif the radiation damping into the third dimension wastaken into consideration These very local conditions are notadequately captured by the analysis However verification isrequired to check the results in 2D and 3D

Conflict of Interests

The author declares that there is no conflict of interestsregarding the publication of this paper

References

[1] E Spencer ldquoA method of analysis of the stability of embank-ments assuming parallel inter slice forcesrdquo Geo-Technique vol17 no 1 pp 11ndash26 1967

[2] H S Yu R Salgado S W Sloan and J M Kim ldquoLimitanalysis versus limit equilibrium for slope stabilityrdquo Journal ofGeotechnical Engineering (ASCE) vol 124 no 1 pp 1ndash11 1998

[3] A Troncone ldquoNumerical analysis of a landslide in soils withstrain-softening behaviourrdquo Geotechnique vol 55 no 8 pp585ndash596 2005

[4] D Pitilakis ldquoTopographic irregularities and soilmdashfoundationmdashstructure interactionrdquo in Proceedings of the 3rd Japan-GreeceWorkshop on Seismic Design Observation and Retrofit of Foun-dations pp 335ndash343 Santorini Greece 2009

[5] I Anastasopoulos G Gazetas M F Bransby M C RDavies and A El Nahas ldquoFault rupture propagation throughsand finite-element analysis and validation through centrifugeexperimentsrdquo Journal of Geotechnical and GeoenvironmentalEngineering vol 133 no 8 pp 943ndash958 2007

[6] G M Latha and A Garaga ldquoStability analysis of a rock slopein Himalayasrdquo Geomechanics and Engineering vol 2 no 2 pp125ndash140 2010

[7] A D Pandey P Kumar and S Sharma ldquoSeismic soil structureinteraction of buildings on hill slopesrdquo International Journal ForComputational Civil and Structural Engineering vol 2 no 2 pp544ndash555 2011

[8] R Kourkoulis I Anastasopoulos F Gelagoti and G GazetasldquoInteraction of foundation-structure systems with seismicallyprecarious slopes numerical analysis with strain softeningconstitutivemodelrdquo Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineeringvol 30 no 12 pp 1430ndash1445 2010

[9] S Rampello L Callisto and P Fargnoli ldquoEvaluation of seismiccoefficients for slope stability analysis using a displacement-based approachrdquo in Proceedings of the Seismic EngineeringInternational Conference Commemorating the 1908 Messina andReggio Calabria Earthquake (MERCEA rsquo08) 2008

[10] R L Michalowski and L You ldquoDisplacements of reinforcedslopes subjected to seismic loadsrdquo Journal of Geotechnical andGeoenvironmental Engineering vol 126 no 8 pp 685ndash6942000

[11] D S Chavan G Mondal and A Prashant ldquoPermanent dis-placement of nailed soil slopes subjected to earthquake load-ingrdquo in Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on EarthquakeEngineering (WCEE rsquo12) Lisbon Portugal 2012

[12] A Krishnamoorthy ldquoFactor of safety of a slope subjected toseismic loadrdquoElectronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering vol12 2007

[13] O Mavrouli J Corominas and J Wartman ldquoMethodology toevaluate rock slope stability under seismic conditions at Solade Santa Coloma Andorrardquo Natural Hazards and Earth SystemScience vol 9 no 6 pp 1763ndash1773 2009

[14] ECOL 201 The Egyptian Code For Calculation of Loads andForces in Structural Building Work Housing and BuildingResearch Center Cairo Egypt 2008

[15] SAP200 Nonlinear Version 14 Static and Dynamic Finite Ele-ments Analysis of Structure Computers amp Structures BerkeleyCalif USA 2010

[16] K D Hjelmstad Fundamentals of Structural MechanicsSpringer New York NY USA 2nd edition 2005

International Journal of

AerospaceEngineeringHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

RoboticsJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014


Active and Passive Electronic Components

Control Scienceand Engineering

Journal of



RotatingMachinery


Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom

Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2014

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration


Civil EngineeringAdvances in

Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in



Electrical and Computer Engineering

Journal of

Advances inOptoElectronics


Volume 2014

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

SensorsJournal of


Modelling amp Simulation in EngineeringHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014


Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and

Propagation




Navigation and Observation



DistributedSensor Networks



(a) High slope angle with stepped foundation (b) Small slope angle with stepped foundation

Figure 1 The techniques of constructing building on hillside slope in Doronka village

the compatibility conditions the constitutive relations of allmaterials and the boundary conditions

Limit equilibriummethods often violate the stress bound-ary conditions they do not enforce an appropriate plasticflow rule for the soil while the developing stresses may noteverywhere obey the requirement for nonincidence of soilstrength Moreover the introduction of assumptions neces-sary to remove static indeterminacy leads to kinematicallyinadmissible collapse mechanisms

The finite element (FE)method is an alternative approachemployed with two different methodologies (a) those thatsearch for the critical slip surface using stress fields obtainedfrom the stress and deformation FE analysis and (b) thosethat compute the factor of safety through an iterative finiteelement analysis by the ldquostrength reduction techniquerdquo [3]In the latter category of methods finite elements are utilizedto model the development of shear zones and the progressivefailure of soil The advantages of the FE approach over theconventional slope stability methods can be summarized asfollows

(i) No assumption needs to be made a priori aboutthe shape and location of the slip surface Failureoccurs naturally within the soil when the appliedshear stresses exceed the shear strength of the soilmass

(ii) The solution is kinematically admissible and there areno arbitrary assumptions about the slice side forces

(iii) It can capture progressive failure phenomena andprovide information about the displacement fielduntil the ultimate state

(iv) It can readily (if not easily) handle irregular slopegeometries in 2 and 3 dimensions complex soilstratigraphy and calculation of low quantities (due tosteady seepage or to transient flow)

Pitilakis [4] and Anastasopoulos et al [5] discussed the2D wave propagation effects and it is perhaps leading toldquotopographicrdquo amplification are taken into account in theiranalysis The authors have been shown that such effects maylead to increased amplitude of ground shaking near the crestof the slope

Figure 1 shows the techniques of building constructedin Doronka city (area of study) which clears that they areconstructed on stepped isolated footings or raft foundation

Latha and Garaga [6] proved that the factor of safety forthe slope was reduced by 46 with the application of earth-quake loads in pseudostatic analysis than static conditionsand it is recommended to flatten the slope from 50∘ to 43∘to avoid wedging failures at all pier locations

Pandey et al [7] studied the behavior of buildings onhill slope through a 3D analysis of the building in whichthe static pushover analysis and response spectrum analysishave been conducted on five buildings with varying supportconditions These buildings have been analyzed for differentsoil conditions (hard medium and soft soils) idealized byequivalent springs In general it is found that responsereduction factor decreases with increasing time period but isexpected to be constant beyond a certain value of the timeperiod

Kourkoulis et al [8] studied parametrically the effectsof foundation type (isolated footings versus a rigid raft)on the position of the sliding surface on the foundationtotal and differential displacements and on the distressof the foundation slab and superstructure columns Theauthors showed that a frame structure founded on a properlydesigned raft could survive the combined effects of slopefailure and ground shaking even if the latter is the result ofa strong base excitation amplified by the soil layer and slopetopography

Failure mechanisms caused by shear strength reductionassume different characteristics depending on soil behaviorductile or brittle and soil type granular or cohesive asdiscussed by Rampello et al [9] These mechanisms can beanalyzed in the static condition following the seismic eventusing conventional limit equilibrium methods eventuallyaccounting for the increase of pore water pressure and thedegradation of strength parameters induced by earthquakeloading

On the contrary when slope instability is producedby earthquake-induced inertial forces a progressive devel-opment of slope displacements occurs for the durationof ground motion only Accordingly evaluation of sloperesponse to earthquake loading should be carried out in











4 Model Description



Earthquake

X

Z

120601∘


2000

2000

200

0

Changeable

Chan

geab

le

500

300

1500

120601∘


Earthquake

X

Z



Acce

lera

tion

(cm

ss

)

600

0

minus600

0 8 16 24 32 40

Time (s)

(a) El Centro

Acce

lera

tion

(cm

ss

)

600

0

minus600

0 8 16 24 32 40

Time (s)

(b) Northridge











Symbols Description























05

1015202530354045

I 60 R 25I 25R 45I 45R 60iso

Fixedraft


Fixed

N1 gN05 gN025 g

Nor

mal

forc

e (t)


02468

10121416


I 60 R 25I 25R 45I 45R 60iso

Fixedraft

Fixed

Shea

r for

ce (t

)

Q 1gQ 05 gQ 025 g


02468

1012141618

I 60 R 25I 25R 45I 45R 60iso

Fixedraft


Fixed

M1 gM05 gM025 g

Mom

ent (mmiddott

)


0

5

10

15

20

Dis

(cm

)

I 60 R 25I 25R 45I 45R 60iso

Fixedraft


Fixed



0

05

1

15

2

25

Acce

lera

tion

(g)

I 60 R 25I 25R 45I 45R 60iso

Fixedraft


Fixed








0

2

4

6

8

10

12


N1 gN05 gN025 g

Nor

mal

forc

e (t)


0

05

1

15

2

25

3


Base

shea

r (t)

Q 1gQ 05 gQ 025 g


0

05

1

15

2

25

3

35


M1 gM05 gM025 g

Bend

ing

mom

ent (mmiddott

)


002040608

112141618

Dis

(cm

)




002040608

112141618

Acce

lera

tion

(g)






minus100

minus90

minus80

minus70

minus60

minus50

minus40

minus30

minus20

minus10

0 10

20

30

minus132

minus121

minus110

minus99

minus88

minus77

minus66

minus55

minus44

minus33

minus22

minus11

0 11


(a) Slope 60∘

minus910

minus840

minus770

minus700

minus630

minus560

minus490

minus420

minus350

minus280

minus210

minus140

minus70

00

minus390

minus360

minus330

minus300

minus270

minus240

minus210

minus180

minus150

minus120

minus90

minus60

minus30

00


(b) Slope 45∘

minus168

minus154

minus140

minus126

minus112

minus98

minus84

minus70

minus56

minus42

minus28

minus14

00

14

minus585

minus540

minus495

minus450

minus405

minus360

minus315

minus270

minus225

minus180

minus135

minus90

minus45

00


(c) Slope 25∘






minus102

minus94

minus86

minus78

minus70

minus62

minus54

minus46

minus38

minus30

minus22

minus14

minus6

00

minus102

minus94

minus86

minus78

minus70

minus62

minus54

minus46

minus38

minus30

minus22

minus14

minus6

00

480

420

360

300

240

180

120

6000minus60

minus120

minus180

minus240

minus300

420

360

300

240

180

120

6000minus60

minus120

minus180

minus240

minus300

minus360

Deformation

Deformation





400

350

300

250

200

150

100

5000minus50

minus100

minus150

minus200

minus250

160

8000minus80

minus160

minus240

minus320

minus400

minus480

minus560

minus640

minus720

minus800

360

315

270

225

180

135

904500minus45

minus90

minus135

minus180

minus225

minus16

minus24

minus32

minus40

minus48

minus56

minus64

minus70

minus78

minus86

minus94

minus102

minus110

Deformation

Deformation


(B) Raft foundation




Figure 7 Continued


minus78

minus52

minus26

00265278104

130

156

182

208

234

260

603000minus30

minus60

minus90

minus120

minus150

minus180

minus210

minus240

minus270

minus300

minus330

minus80

minus60

minus40

minus20

0020406080100

120

140

160

180

84562800minus28

minus56

minus84

minus112

minus140

minus168

minus196

minus224

minus252

minus280

Deformation

Deformation

(A) Raft foundation

(B) Raft foundation







Hillside slopeangle















6 Conclusions



13

0minus13

minus26

minus39

minus52

minus65

minus78

minus91

minus104

minus117

minus130

minus143

minus156

0minus22

minus44

minus66

minus88

minus110

minus132

minus154

minus176

minus198

minus220

minus242

minus262

minus286

12

0minus12

minus24

minus36

minus48

minus60

minus72

minus84

minus96

minus108

minus120

minus132

minus144

minus44

minus66

minus88

minus110

minus132

minus154

minus176

minus198

minus220

minus242

minus262

minus286

minus600

minus550

minus500

minus450

minus400

minus350

minus300

minus250

minus200

minus150

minus100

minus50

00

50

0minus9

minus18

minus27

minus36

minus45

minus54

minus63

minus72

minus81

minus90

minus99

minus108

minus117

60

00

minus60

minus120

minus180

minus240

minus300

minus360

minus420

minus480

minus540

minus600

minus660

minus720

12

0minus12

minus24

minus36

minus48

minus60

minus72

minus84

minus96

minus108

minus120

minus132

minus144


Deformation

Deformation

Deformation

(i) Raft foundation








Figure 8 Continued


34

17

00

minus17

minus34

minus51

minus68

minus85

minus102

minus119

minus136

minus153

minus170

minus187

45

00

minus45

minus90

minus135

minus180

minus225

minus270

minus315

minus360

minus405

minus450

minus495

minus540

14

00

minus14

minus28

minus42

minus56

minus70

minus84

minus98

minus112

minus126

minus140

minus154

minus168

45

00

minus45

minus90

minus135

minus180

minus225

minus270

minus315

minus360

minus405

minus450

minus495

minus540

Deformation

Deformation

(v) Raft foundation





















References



















RoboticsJournal of





Journal of



RotatingMachinery





VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2014


SensorsJournal of





Propagation



















4 Model Description



Earthquake

X

Z

120601∘


2000

2000

200

0

Changeable

Chan

geab

le

500

300

1500

120601∘


Earthquake

X

Z



Acce

lera

tion

(cm

ss

)

600

0

minus600

0 8 16 24 32 40

Time (s)

(a) El Centro

Acce

lera

tion

(cm

ss

)

600

0

minus600

0 8 16 24 32 40

Time (s)

(b) Northridge











Symbols Description























05

1015202530354045

I 60 R 25I 25R 45I 45R 60iso

Fixedraft


Fixed

N1 gN05 gN025 g

Nor

mal

forc

e (t)


02468

10121416


I 60 R 25I 25R 45I 45R 60iso

Fixedraft

Fixed

Shea

r for

ce (t

)

Q 1gQ 05 gQ 025 g


02468

1012141618

I 60 R 25I 25R 45I 45R 60iso

Fixedraft


Fixed

M1 gM05 gM025 g

Mom

ent (mmiddott

)


0

5

10

15

20

Dis

(cm

)

I 60 R 25I 25R 45I 45R 60iso

Fixedraft


Fixed



0

05

1

15

2

25

Acce

lera

tion

(g)

I 60 R 25I 25R 45I 45R 60iso

Fixedraft


Fixed








0

2

4

6

8

10

12


N1 gN05 gN025 g

Nor

mal

forc

e (t)


0

05

1

15

2

25

3


Base

shea

r (t)

Q 1gQ 05 gQ 025 g


0

05

1

15

2

25

3

35


M1 gM05 gM025 g

Bend

ing

mom

ent (mmiddott

)


002040608

112141618

Dis

(cm

)




002040608

112141618

Acce

lera

tion

(g)






minus100

minus90

minus80

minus70

minus60

minus50

minus40

minus30

minus20

minus10

0 10

20

30

minus132

minus121

minus110

minus99

minus88

minus77

minus66

minus55

minus44

minus33

minus22

minus11

0 11


(a) Slope 60∘

minus910

minus840

minus770

minus700

minus630

minus560

minus490

minus420

minus350

minus280

minus210

minus140

minus70

00

minus390

minus360

minus330

minus300

minus270

minus240

minus210

minus180

minus150

minus120

minus90

minus60

minus30

00


(b) Slope 45∘

minus168

minus154

minus140

minus126

minus112

minus98

minus84

minus70

minus56

minus42

minus28

minus14

00

14

minus585

minus540

minus495

minus450

minus405

minus360

minus315

minus270

minus225

minus180

minus135

minus90

minus45

00


(c) Slope 25∘






minus102

minus94

minus86

minus78

minus70

minus62

minus54

minus46

minus38

minus30

minus22

minus14

minus6

00

minus102

minus94

minus86

minus78

minus70

minus62

minus54

minus46

minus38

minus30

minus22

minus14

minus6

00

480

420

360

300

240

180

120

6000minus60

minus120

minus180

minus240

minus300

420

360

300

240

180

120

6000minus60

minus120

minus180

minus240

minus300

minus360

Deformation

Deformation





400

350

300

250

200

150

100

5000minus50

minus100

minus150

minus200

minus250

160

8000minus80

minus160

minus240

minus320

minus400

minus480

minus560

minus640

minus720

minus800

360

315

270

225

180

135

904500minus45

minus90

minus135

minus180

minus225

minus16

minus24

minus32

minus40

minus48

minus56

minus64

minus70

minus78

minus86

minus94

minus102

minus110

Deformation

Deformation


(B) Raft foundation




Figure 7 Continued


minus78

minus52

minus26

00265278104

130

156

182

208

234

260

603000minus30

minus60

minus90

minus120

minus150

minus180

minus210

minus240

minus270

minus300

minus330

minus80

minus60

minus40

minus20

0020406080100

120

140

160

180

84562800minus28

minus56

minus84

minus112

minus140

minus168

minus196

minus224

minus252

minus280

Deformation

Deformation

(A) Raft foundation

(B) Raft foundation







Hillside slopeangle















6 Conclusions



13

0minus13

minus26

minus39

minus52

minus65

minus78

minus91

minus104

minus117

minus130

minus143

minus156

0minus22

minus44

minus66

minus88

minus110

minus132

minus154

minus176

minus198

minus220

minus242

minus262

minus286

12

0minus12

minus24

minus36

minus48

minus60

minus72

minus84

minus96

minus108

minus120

minus132

minus144

minus44

minus66

minus88

minus110

minus132

minus154

minus176

minus198

minus220

minus242

minus262

minus286

minus600

minus550

minus500

minus450

minus400

minus350

minus300

minus250

minus200

minus150

minus100

minus50

00

50

0minus9

minus18

minus27

minus36

minus45

minus54

minus63

minus72

minus81

minus90

minus99

minus108

minus117

60

00

minus60

minus120

minus180

minus240

minus300

minus360

minus420

minus480

minus540

minus600

minus660

minus720

12

0minus12

minus24

minus36

minus48

minus60

minus72

minus84

minus96

minus108

minus120

minus132

minus144


Deformation

Deformation

Deformation

(i) Raft foundation








Figure 8 Continued


34

17

00

minus17

minus34

minus51

minus68

minus85

minus102

minus119

minus136

minus153

minus170

minus187

45

00

minus45

minus90

minus135

minus180

minus225

minus270

minus315

minus360

minus405

minus450

minus495

minus540

14

00

minus14

minus28

minus42

minus56

minus70

minus84

minus98

minus112

minus126

minus140

minus154

minus168

45

00

minus45

minus90

minus135

minus180

minus225

minus270

minus315

minus360

minus405

minus450

minus495

minus540

Deformation

Deformation

(v) Raft foundation





















References



















RoboticsJournal of





Journal of



RotatingMachinery





VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2014


SensorsJournal of





Propagation










Earthquake

X

Z

120601∘


2000

2000

200

0

Changeable

Chan

geab

le

500

300

1500

120601∘


Earthquake

X

Z



Acce

lera

tion

(cm

ss

)

600

0

minus600

0 8 16 24 32 40

Time (s)

(a) El Centro

Acce

lera

tion

(cm

ss

)

600

0

minus600

0 8 16 24 32 40

Time (s)

(b) Northridge











Symbols Description























05

1015202530354045

I 60 R 25I 25R 45I 45R 60iso

Fixedraft


Fixed

N1 gN05 gN025 g

Nor

mal

forc

e (t)


02468

10121416


I 60 R 25I 25R 45I 45R 60iso

Fixedraft

Fixed

Shea

r for

ce (t

)

Q 1gQ 05 gQ 025 g


02468

1012141618

I 60 R 25I 25R 45I 45R 60iso

Fixedraft


Fixed

M1 gM05 gM025 g

Mom

ent (mmiddott

)


0

5

10

15

20

Dis

(cm

)

I 60 R 25I 25R 45I 45R 60iso

Fixedraft


Fixed



0

05

1

15

2

25

Acce

lera

tion

(g)

I 60 R 25I 25R 45I 45R 60iso

Fixedraft


Fixed








0

2

4

6

8

10

12


N1 gN05 gN025 g

Nor

mal

forc

e (t)


0

05

1

15

2

25

3


Base

shea

r (t)

Q 1gQ 05 gQ 025 g


0

05

1

15

2

25

3

35


M1 gM05 gM025 g

Bend

ing

mom

ent (mmiddott

)


002040608

112141618

Dis

(cm

)




002040608

112141618

Acce

lera

tion

(g)






minus100

minus90

minus80

minus70

minus60

minus50

minus40

minus30

minus20

minus10

0 10

20

30

minus132

minus121

minus110

minus99

minus88

minus77

minus66

minus55

minus44

minus33

minus22

minus11

0 11


(a) Slope 60∘

minus910

minus840

minus770

minus700

minus630

minus560

minus490

minus420

minus350

minus280

minus210

minus140

minus70

00

minus390

minus360

minus330

minus300

minus270

minus240

minus210

minus180

minus150

minus120

minus90

minus60

minus30

00


(b) Slope 45∘

minus168

minus154

minus140

minus126

minus112

minus98

minus84

minus70

minus56

minus42

minus28

minus14

00

14

minus585

minus540

minus495

minus450

minus405

minus360

minus315

minus270

minus225

minus180

minus135

minus90

minus45

00


(c) Slope 25∘






minus102

minus94

minus86

minus78

minus70

minus62

minus54

minus46

minus38

minus30

minus22

minus14

minus6

00

minus102

minus94

minus86

minus78

minus70

minus62

minus54

minus46

minus38

minus30

minus22

minus14

minus6

00

480

420

360

300

240

180

120

6000minus60

minus120

minus180

minus240

minus300

420

360

300

240

180

120

6000minus60

minus120

minus180

minus240

minus300

minus360

Deformation

Deformation





400

350

300

250

200

150

100

5000minus50

minus100

minus150

minus200

minus250

160

8000minus80

minus160

minus240

minus320

minus400

minus480

minus560

minus640

minus720

minus800

360

315

270

225

180

135

904500minus45

minus90

minus135

minus180

minus225

minus16

minus24

minus32

minus40

minus48

minus56

minus64

minus70

minus78

minus86

minus94

minus102

minus110

Deformation

Deformation


(B) Raft foundation




Figure 7 Continued


minus78

minus52

minus26

00265278104

130

156

182

208

234

260

603000minus30

minus60

minus90

minus120

minus150

minus180

minus210

minus240

minus270

minus300

minus330

minus80

minus60

minus40

minus20

0020406080100

120

140

160

180

84562800minus28

minus56

minus84

minus112

minus140

minus168

minus196

minus224

minus252

minus280

Deformation

Deformation

(A) Raft foundation

(B) Raft foundation







Hillside slopeangle















6 Conclusions



13

0minus13

minus26

minus39

minus52

minus65

minus78

minus91

minus104

minus117

minus130

minus143

minus156

0minus22

minus44

minus66

minus88

minus110

minus132

minus154

minus176

minus198

minus220

minus242

minus262

minus286

12

0minus12

minus24

minus36

minus48

minus60

minus72

minus84

minus96

minus108

minus120

minus132

minus144

minus44

minus66

minus88

minus110

minus132

minus154

minus176

minus198

minus220

minus242

minus262

minus286

minus600

minus550

minus500

minus450

minus400

minus350

minus300

minus250

minus200

minus150

minus100

minus50

00

50

0minus9

minus18

minus27

minus36

minus45

minus54

minus63

minus72

minus81

minus90

minus99

minus108

minus117

60

00

minus60

minus120

minus180

minus240

minus300

minus360

minus420

minus480

minus540

minus600

minus660

minus720

12

0minus12

minus24

minus36

minus48

minus60

minus72

minus84

minus96

minus108

minus120

minus132

minus144


Deformation

Deformation

Deformation

(i) Raft foundation








Figure 8 Continued


34

17

00

minus17

minus34

minus51

minus68

minus85

minus102

minus119

minus136

minus153

minus170

minus187

45

00

minus45

minus90

minus135

minus180

minus225

minus270

minus315

minus360

minus405

minus450

minus495

minus540

14

00

minus14

minus28

minus42

minus56

minus70

minus84

minus98

minus112

minus126

minus140

minus154

minus168

45

00

minus45

minus90

minus135

minus180

minus225

minus270

minus315

minus360

minus405

minus450

minus495

minus540

Deformation

Deformation

(v) Raft foundation





















References



















RoboticsJournal of





Journal of



RotatingMachinery





VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2014


SensorsJournal of





Propagation











Symbols Description























05

1015202530354045

I 60 R 25I 25R 45I 45R 60iso

Fixedraft


Fixed

N1 gN05 gN025 g

Nor

mal

forc

e (t)


02468

10121416


I 60 R 25I 25R 45I 45R 60iso

Fixedraft

Fixed

Shea

r for

ce (t

)

Q 1gQ 05 gQ 025 g


02468

1012141618

I 60 R 25I 25R 45I 45R 60iso

Fixedraft


Fixed

M1 gM05 gM025 g

Mom

ent (mmiddott

)


0

5

10

15

20

Dis

(cm

)

I 60 R 25I 25R 45I 45R 60iso

Fixedraft


Fixed



0

05

1

15

2

25

Acce

lera

tion

(g)

I 60 R 25I 25R 45I 45R 60iso

Fixedraft


Fixed








0

2

4

6

8

10

12


N1 gN05 gN025 g

Nor

mal

forc

e (t)


0

05

1

15

2

25

3


Base

shea

r (t)

Q 1gQ 05 gQ 025 g


0

05

1

15

2

25

3

35


M1 gM05 gM025 g

Bend

ing

mom

ent (mmiddott

)


002040608

112141618

Dis

(cm

)




002040608

112141618

Acce

lera

tion

(g)






minus100

minus90

minus80

minus70

minus60

minus50

minus40

minus30

minus20

minus10

0 10

20

30

minus132

minus121

minus110

minus99

minus88

minus77

minus66

minus55

minus44

minus33

minus22

minus11

0 11


(a) Slope 60∘

minus910

minus840

minus770

minus700

minus630

minus560

minus490

minus420

minus350

minus280

minus210

minus140

minus70

00

minus390

minus360

minus330

minus300

minus270

minus240

minus210

minus180

minus150

minus120

minus90

minus60

minus30

00


(b) Slope 45∘

minus168

minus154

minus140

minus126

minus112

minus98

minus84

minus70

minus56

minus42

minus28

minus14

00

14

minus585

minus540

minus495

minus450

minus405

minus360

minus315

minus270

minus225

minus180

minus135

minus90

minus45

00


(c) Slope 25∘






minus102

minus94

minus86

minus78

minus70

minus62

minus54

minus46

minus38

minus30

minus22

minus14

minus6

00

minus102

minus94

minus86

minus78

minus70

minus62

minus54

minus46

minus38

minus30

minus22

minus14

minus6

00

480

420

360

300

240

180

120

6000minus60

minus120

minus180

minus240

minus300

420

360

300

240

180

120

6000minus60

minus120

minus180

minus240

minus300

minus360

Deformation

Deformation





400

350

300

250

200

150

100

5000minus50

minus100

minus150

minus200

minus250

160

8000minus80

minus160

minus240

minus320

minus400

minus480

minus560

minus640

minus720

minus800

360

315

270

225

180

135

904500minus45

minus90

minus135

minus180

minus225

minus16

minus24

minus32

minus40

minus48

minus56

minus64

minus70

minus78

minus86

minus94

minus102

minus110

Deformation

Deformation


(B) Raft foundation




Figure 7 Continued


minus78

minus52

minus26

00265278104

130

156

182

208

234

260

603000minus30

minus60

minus90

minus120

minus150

minus180

minus210

minus240

minus270

minus300

minus330

minus80

minus60

minus40

minus20

0020406080100

120

140

160

180

84562800minus28

minus56

minus84

minus112

minus140

minus168

minus196

minus224

minus252

minus280

Deformation

Deformation

(A) Raft foundation

(B) Raft foundation







Hillside slopeangle















6 Conclusions



13

0minus13

minus26

minus39

minus52

minus65

minus78

minus91

minus104

minus117

minus130

minus143

minus156

0minus22

minus44

minus66

minus88

minus110

minus132

minus154

minus176

minus198

minus220

minus242

minus262

minus286

12

0minus12

minus24

minus36

minus48

minus60

minus72

minus84

minus96

minus108

minus120

minus132

minus144

minus44

minus66

minus88

minus110

minus132

minus154

minus176

minus198

minus220

minus242

minus262

minus286

minus600

minus550

minus500

minus450

minus400

minus350

minus300

minus250

minus200

minus150

minus100

minus50

00

50

0minus9

minus18

minus27

minus36

minus45

minus54

minus63

minus72

minus81

minus90

minus99

minus108

minus117

60

00

minus60

minus120

minus180

minus240

minus300

minus360

minus420

minus480

minus540

minus600

minus660

minus720

12

0minus12

minus24

minus36

minus48

minus60

minus72

minus84

minus96

minus108

minus120

minus132

minus144


Deformation

Deformation

Deformation

(i) Raft foundation








Figure 8 Continued


34

17

00

minus17

minus34

minus51

minus68

minus85

minus102

minus119

minus136

minus153

minus170

minus187

45

00

minus45

minus90

minus135

minus180

minus225

minus270

minus315

minus360

minus405

minus450

minus495

minus540

14

00

minus14

minus28

minus42

minus56

minus70

minus84

minus98

minus112

minus126

minus140

minus154

minus168

45

00

minus45

minus90

minus135

minus180

minus225

minus270

minus315

minus360

minus405

minus450

minus495

minus540

Deformation

Deformation

(v) Raft foundation





















References



















RoboticsJournal of





Journal of



RotatingMachinery





VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2014


SensorsJournal of





Propagation










05

1015202530354045

I 60 R 25I 25R 45I 45R 60iso

Fixedraft


Fixed

N1 gN05 gN025 g

Nor

mal

forc

e (t)


02468

10121416


I 60 R 25I 25R 45I 45R 60iso

Fixedraft

Fixed

Shea

r for

ce (t

)

Q 1gQ 05 gQ 025 g


02468

1012141618

I 60 R 25I 25R 45I 45R 60iso

Fixedraft


Fixed

M1 gM05 gM025 g

Mom

ent (mmiddott

)


0

5

10

15

20

Dis

(cm

)

I 60 R 25I 25R 45I 45R 60iso

Fixedraft


Fixed



0

05

1

15

2

25

Acce

lera

tion

(g)

I 60 R 25I 25R 45I 45R 60iso

Fixedraft


Fixed








0

2

4

6

8

10

12


N1 gN05 gN025 g

Nor

mal

forc

e (t)


0

05

1

15

2

25

3


Base

shea

r (t)

Q 1gQ 05 gQ 025 g


0

05

1

15

2

25

3

35


M1 gM05 gM025 g

Bend

ing

mom

ent (mmiddott

)


002040608

112141618

Dis

(cm

)




002040608

112141618

Acce

lera

tion

(g)






minus100

minus90

minus80

minus70

minus60

minus50

minus40

minus30

minus20

minus10

0 10

20

30

minus132

minus121

minus110

minus99

minus88

minus77

minus66

minus55

minus44

minus33

minus22

minus11

0 11


(a) Slope 60∘

minus910

minus840

minus770

minus700

minus630

minus560

minus490

minus420

minus350

minus280

minus210

minus140

minus70

00

minus390

minus360

minus330

minus300

minus270

minus240

minus210

minus180

minus150

minus120

minus90

minus60

minus30

00


(b) Slope 45∘

minus168

minus154

minus140

minus126

minus112

minus98

minus84

minus70

minus56

minus42

minus28

minus14

00

14

minus585

minus540

minus495

minus450

minus405

minus360

minus315

minus270

minus225

minus180

minus135

minus90

minus45

00


(c) Slope 25∘






minus102

minus94

minus86

minus78

minus70

minus62

minus54

minus46

minus38

minus30

minus22

minus14

minus6

00

minus102

minus94

minus86

minus78

minus70

minus62

minus54

minus46

minus38

minus30

minus22

minus14

minus6

00

480

420

360

300

240

180

120

6000minus60

minus120

minus180

minus240

minus300

420

360

300

240

180

120

6000minus60

minus120

minus180

minus240

minus300

minus360

Deformation

Deformation





400

350

300

250

200

150

100

5000minus50

minus100

minus150

minus200

minus250

160

8000minus80

minus160

minus240

minus320

minus400

minus480

minus560

minus640

minus720

minus800

360

315

270

225

180

135

904500minus45

minus90

minus135

minus180

minus225

minus16

minus24

minus32

minus40

minus48

minus56

minus64

minus70

minus78

minus86

minus94

minus102

minus110

Deformation

Deformation


(B) Raft foundation




Figure 7 Continued


minus78

minus52

minus26

00265278104

130

156

182

208

234

260

603000minus30

minus60

minus90

minus120

minus150

minus180

minus210

minus240

minus270

minus300

minus330

minus80

minus60

minus40

minus20

0020406080100

120

140

160

180

84562800minus28

minus56

minus84

minus112

minus140

minus168

minus196

minus224

minus252

minus280

Deformation

Deformation

(A) Raft foundation

(B) Raft foundation







Hillside slopeangle















6 Conclusions



13

0minus13

minus26

minus39

minus52

minus65

minus78

minus91

minus104

minus117

minus130

minus143

minus156

0minus22

minus44

minus66

minus88

minus110

minus132

minus154

minus176

minus198

minus220

minus242

minus262

minus286

12

0minus12

minus24

minus36

minus48

minus60

minus72

minus84

minus96

minus108

minus120

minus132

minus144

minus44

minus66

minus88

minus110

minus132

minus154

minus176

minus198

minus220

minus242

minus262

minus286

minus600

minus550

minus500

minus450

minus400

minus350

minus300

minus250

minus200

minus150

minus100

minus50

00

50

0minus9

minus18

minus27

minus36

minus45

minus54

minus63

minus72

minus81

minus90

minus99

minus108

minus117

60

00

minus60

minus120

minus180

minus240

minus300

minus360

minus420

minus480

minus540

minus600

minus660

minus720

12

0minus12

minus24

minus36

minus48

minus60

minus72

minus84

minus96

minus108

minus120

minus132

minus144


Deformation

Deformation

Deformation

(i) Raft foundation








Figure 8 Continued


34

17

00

minus17

minus34

minus51

minus68

minus85

minus102

minus119

minus136

minus153

minus170

minus187

45

00

minus45

minus90

minus135

minus180

minus225

minus270

minus315

minus360

minus405

minus450

minus495

minus540

14

00

minus14

minus28

minus42

minus56

minus70

minus84

minus98

minus112

minus126

minus140

minus154

minus168

45

00

minus45

minus90

minus135

minus180

minus225

minus270

minus315

minus360

minus405

minus450

minus495

minus540

Deformation

Deformation

(v) Raft foundation





















References



















RoboticsJournal of





Journal of



RotatingMachinery





VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2014


SensorsJournal of





Propagation










0

2

4

6

8

10

12


N1 gN05 gN025 g

Nor

mal

forc

e (t)


0

05

1

15

2

25

3


Base

shea

r (t)

Q 1gQ 05 gQ 025 g


0

05

1

15

2

25

3

35


M1 gM05 gM025 g

Bend

ing

mom

ent (mmiddott

)


002040608

112141618

Dis

(cm

)




002040608

112141618

Acce

lera

tion

(g)






minus100

minus90

minus80

minus70

minus60

minus50

minus40

minus30

minus20

minus10

0 10

20

30

minus132

minus121

minus110

minus99

minus88

minus77

minus66

minus55

minus44

minus33

minus22

minus11

0 11


(a) Slope 60∘

minus910

minus840

minus770

minus700

minus630

minus560

minus490

minus420

minus350

minus280

minus210

minus140

minus70

00

minus390

minus360

minus330

minus300

minus270

minus240

minus210

minus180

minus150

minus120

minus90

minus60

minus30

00


(b) Slope 45∘

minus168

minus154

minus140

minus126

minus112

minus98

minus84

minus70

minus56

minus42

minus28

minus14

00

14

minus585

minus540

minus495

minus450

minus405

minus360

minus315

minus270

minus225

minus180

minus135

minus90

minus45

00


(c) Slope 25∘






minus102

minus94

minus86

minus78

minus70

minus62

minus54

minus46

minus38

minus30

minus22

minus14

minus6

00

minus102

minus94

minus86

minus78

minus70

minus62

minus54

minus46

minus38

minus30

minus22

minus14

minus6

00

480

420

360

300

240

180

120

6000minus60

minus120

minus180

minus240

minus300

420

360

300

240

180

120

6000minus60

minus120

minus180

minus240

minus300

minus360

Deformation

Deformation





400

350

300

250

200

150

100

5000minus50

minus100

minus150

minus200

minus250

160

8000minus80

minus160

minus240

minus320

minus400

minus480

minus560

minus640

minus720

minus800

360

315

270

225

180

135

904500minus45

minus90

minus135

minus180

minus225

minus16

minus24

minus32

minus40

minus48

minus56

minus64

minus70

minus78

minus86

minus94

minus102

minus110

Deformation

Deformation


(B) Raft foundation




Figure 7 Continued


minus78

minus52

minus26

00265278104

130

156

182

208

234

260

603000minus30

minus60

minus90

minus120

minus150

minus180

minus210

minus240

minus270

minus300

minus330

minus80

minus60

minus40

minus20

0020406080100

120

140

160

180

84562800minus28

minus56

minus84

minus112

minus140

minus168

minus196

minus224

minus252

minus280

Deformation

Deformation

(A) Raft foundation

(B) Raft foundation







Hillside slopeangle















6 Conclusions



13

0minus13

minus26

minus39

minus52

minus65

minus78

minus91

minus104

minus117

minus130

minus143

minus156

0minus22

minus44

minus66

minus88

minus110

minus132

minus154

minus176

minus198

minus220

minus242

minus262

minus286

12

0minus12

minus24

minus36

minus48

minus60

minus72

minus84

minus96

minus108

minus120

minus132

minus144

minus44

minus66

minus88

minus110

minus132

minus154

minus176

minus198

minus220

minus242

minus262

minus286

minus600

minus550

minus500

minus450

minus400

minus350

minus300

minus250

minus200

minus150

minus100

minus50

00

50

0minus9

minus18

minus27

minus36

minus45

minus54

minus63

minus72

minus81

minus90

minus99

minus108

minus117

60

00

minus60

minus120

minus180

minus240

minus300

minus360

minus420

minus480

minus540

minus600

minus660

minus720

12

0minus12

minus24

minus36

minus48

minus60

minus72

minus84

minus96

minus108

minus120

minus132

minus144


Deformation

Deformation

Deformation

(i) Raft foundation








Figure 8 Continued


34

17

00

minus17

minus34

minus51

minus68

minus85

minus102

minus119

minus136

minus153

minus170

minus187

45

00

minus45

minus90

minus135

minus180

minus225

minus270

minus315

minus360

minus405

minus450

minus495

minus540

14

00

minus14

minus28

minus42

minus56

minus70

minus84

minus98

minus112

minus126

minus140

minus154

minus168

45

00

minus45

minus90

minus135

minus180

minus225

minus270

minus315

minus360

minus405

minus450

minus495

minus540

Deformation

Deformation

(v) Raft foundation





















References



















RoboticsJournal of





Journal of



RotatingMachinery





VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2014


SensorsJournal of





Propagation










minus100

minus90

minus80

minus70

minus60

minus50

minus40

minus30

minus20

minus10

0 10

20

30

minus132

minus121

minus110

minus99

minus88

minus77

minus66

minus55

minus44

minus33

minus22

minus11

0 11


(a) Slope 60∘

minus910

minus840

minus770

minus700

minus630

minus560

minus490

minus420

minus350

minus280

minus210

minus140

minus70

00

minus390

minus360

minus330

minus300

minus270

minus240

minus210

minus180

minus150

minus120

minus90

minus60

minus30

00


(b) Slope 45∘

minus168

minus154

minus140

minus126

minus112

minus98

minus84

minus70

minus56

minus42

minus28

minus14

00

14

minus585

minus540

minus495

minus450

minus405

minus360

minus315

minus270

minus225

minus180

minus135

minus90

minus45

00


(c) Slope 25∘






minus102

minus94

minus86

minus78

minus70

minus62

minus54

minus46

minus38

minus30

minus22

minus14

minus6

00

minus102

minus94

minus86

minus78

minus70

minus62

minus54

minus46

minus38

minus30

minus22

minus14

minus6

00

480

420

360

300

240

180

120

6000minus60

minus120

minus180

minus240

minus300

420

360

300

240

180

120

6000minus60

minus120

minus180

minus240

minus300

minus360

Deformation

Deformation





400

350

300

250

200

150

100

5000minus50

minus100

minus150

minus200

minus250

160

8000minus80

minus160

minus240

minus320

minus400

minus480

minus560

minus640

minus720

minus800

360

315

270

225

180

135

904500minus45

minus90

minus135

minus180

minus225

minus16

minus24

minus32

minus40

minus48

minus56

minus64

minus70

minus78

minus86

minus94

minus102

minus110

Deformation

Deformation


(B) Raft foundation




Figure 7 Continued


minus78

minus52

minus26

00265278104

130

156

182

208

234

260

603000minus30

minus60

minus90

minus120

minus150

minus180

minus210

minus240

minus270

minus300

minus330

minus80

minus60

minus40

minus20

0020406080100

120

140

160

180

84562800minus28

minus56

minus84

minus112

minus140

minus168

minus196

minus224

minus252

minus280

Deformation

Deformation

(A) Raft foundation

(B) Raft foundation







Hillside slopeangle















6 Conclusions



13

0minus13

minus26

minus39

minus52

minus65

minus78

minus91

minus104

minus117

minus130

minus143

minus156

0minus22

minus44

minus66

minus88

minus110

minus132

minus154

minus176

minus198

minus220

minus242

minus262

minus286

12

0minus12

minus24

minus36

minus48

minus60

minus72

minus84

minus96

minus108

minus120

minus132

minus144

minus44

minus66

minus88

minus110

minus132

minus154

minus176

minus198

minus220

minus242

minus262

minus286

minus600

minus550

minus500

minus450

minus400

minus350

minus300

minus250

minus200

minus150

minus100

minus50

00

50

0minus9

minus18

minus27

minus36

minus45

minus54

minus63

minus72

minus81

minus90

minus99

minus108

minus117

60

00

minus60

minus120

minus180

minus240

minus300

minus360

minus420

minus480

minus540

minus600

minus660

minus720

12

0minus12

minus24

minus36

minus48

minus60

minus72

minus84

minus96

minus108

minus120

minus132

minus144


Deformation

Deformation

Deformation

(i) Raft foundation








Figure 8 Continued


34

17

00

minus17

minus34

minus51

minus68

minus85

minus102

minus119

minus136

minus153

minus170

minus187

45

00

minus45

minus90

minus135

minus180

minus225

minus270

minus315

minus360

minus405

minus450

minus495

minus540

14

00

minus14

minus28

minus42

minus56

minus70

minus84

minus98

minus112

minus126

minus140

minus154

minus168

45

00

minus45

minus90

minus135

minus180

minus225

minus270

minus315

minus360

minus405

minus450

minus495

minus540

Deformation

Deformation

(v) Raft foundation





















References



















RoboticsJournal of





Journal of



RotatingMachinery





VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2014


SensorsJournal of





Propagation










minus102

minus94

minus86

minus78

minus70

minus62

minus54

minus46

minus38

minus30

minus22

minus14

minus6

00

minus102

minus94

minus86

minus78

minus70

minus62

minus54

minus46

minus38

minus30

minus22

minus14

minus6

00

480

420

360

300

240

180

120

6000minus60

minus120

minus180

minus240

minus300

420

360

300

240

180

120

6000minus60

minus120

minus180

minus240

minus300

minus360

Deformation

Deformation





400

350

300

250

200

150

100

5000minus50

minus100

minus150

minus200

minus250

160

8000minus80

minus160

minus240

minus320

minus400

minus480

minus560

minus640

minus720

minus800

360

315

270

225

180

135

904500minus45

minus90

minus135

minus180

minus225

minus16

minus24

minus32

minus40

minus48

minus56

minus64

minus70

minus78

minus86

minus94

minus102

minus110

Deformation

Deformation


(B) Raft foundation




Figure 7 Continued


minus78

minus52

minus26

00265278104

130

156

182

208

234

260

603000minus30

minus60

minus90

minus120

minus150

minus180

minus210

minus240

minus270

minus300

minus330

minus80

minus60

minus40

minus20

0020406080100

120

140

160

180

84562800minus28

minus56

minus84

minus112

minus140

minus168

minus196

minus224

minus252

minus280

Deformation

Deformation

(A) Raft foundation

(B) Raft foundation







Hillside slopeangle















6 Conclusions



13

0minus13

minus26

minus39

minus52

minus65

minus78

minus91

minus104

minus117

minus130

minus143

minus156

0minus22

minus44

minus66

minus88

minus110

minus132

minus154

minus176

minus198

minus220

minus242

minus262

minus286

12

0minus12

minus24

minus36

minus48

minus60

minus72

minus84

minus96

minus108

minus120

minus132

minus144

minus44

minus66

minus88

minus110

minus132

minus154

minus176

minus198

minus220

minus242

minus262

minus286

minus600

minus550

minus500

minus450

minus400

minus350

minus300

minus250

minus200

minus150

minus100

minus50

00

50

0minus9

minus18

minus27

minus36

minus45

minus54

minus63

minus72

minus81

minus90

minus99

minus108

minus117

60

00

minus60

minus120

minus180

minus240

minus300

minus360

minus420

minus480

minus540

minus600

minus660

minus720

12

0minus12

minus24

minus36

minus48

minus60

minus72

minus84

minus96

minus108

minus120

minus132

minus144


Deformation

Deformation

Deformation

(i) Raft foundation








Figure 8 Continued


34

17

00

minus17

minus34

minus51

minus68

minus85

minus102

minus119

minus136

minus153

minus170

minus187

45

00

minus45

minus90

minus135

minus180

minus225

minus270

minus315

minus360

minus405

minus450

minus495

minus540

14

00

minus14

minus28

minus42

minus56

minus70

minus84

minus98

minus112

minus126

minus140

minus154

minus168

45

00

minus45

minus90

minus135

minus180

minus225

minus270

minus315

minus360

minus405

minus450

minus495

minus540

Deformation

Deformation

(v) Raft foundation





















References



















RoboticsJournal of





Journal of



RotatingMachinery





VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2014


SensorsJournal of





Propagation










minus78

minus52

minus26

00265278104

130

156

182

208

234

260

603000minus30

minus60

minus90

minus120

minus150

minus180

minus210

minus240

minus270

minus300

minus330

minus80

minus60

minus40

minus20

0020406080100

120

140

160

180

84562800minus28

minus56

minus84

minus112

minus140

minus168

minus196

minus224

minus252

minus280

Deformation

Deformation

(A) Raft foundation

(B) Raft foundation







Hillside slopeangle















6 Conclusions



13

0minus13

minus26

minus39

minus52

minus65

minus78

minus91

minus104

minus117

minus130

minus143

minus156

0minus22

minus44

minus66

minus88

minus110

minus132

minus154

minus176

minus198

minus220

minus242

minus262

minus286

12

0minus12

minus24

minus36

minus48

minus60

minus72

minus84

minus96

minus108

minus120

minus132

minus144

minus44

minus66

minus88

minus110

minus132

minus154

minus176

minus198

minus220

minus242

minus262

minus286

minus600

minus550

minus500

minus450

minus400

minus350

minus300

minus250

minus200

minus150

minus100

minus50

00

50

0minus9

minus18

minus27

minus36

minus45

minus54

minus63

minus72

minus81

minus90

minus99

minus108

minus117

60

00

minus60

minus120

minus180

minus240

minus300

minus360

minus420

minus480

minus540

minus600

minus660

minus720

12

0minus12

minus24

minus36

minus48

minus60

minus72

minus84

minus96

minus108

minus120

minus132

minus144


Deformation

Deformation

Deformation

(i) Raft foundation








Figure 8 Continued


34

17

00

minus17

minus34

minus51

minus68

minus85

minus102

minus119

minus136

minus153

minus170

minus187

45

00

minus45

minus90

minus135

minus180

minus225

minus270

minus315

minus360

minus405

minus450

minus495

minus540

14

00

minus14

minus28

minus42

minus56

minus70

minus84

minus98

minus112

minus126

minus140

minus154

minus168

45

00

minus45

minus90

minus135

minus180

minus225

minus270

minus315

minus360

minus405

minus450

minus495

minus540

Deformation

Deformation

(v) Raft foundation





















References



















RoboticsJournal of





Journal of



RotatingMachinery





VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2014


SensorsJournal of





Propagation










13

0minus13

minus26

minus39

minus52

minus65

minus78

minus91

minus104

minus117

minus130

minus143

minus156

0minus22

minus44

minus66

minus88

minus110

minus132

minus154

minus176

minus198

minus220

minus242

minus262

minus286

12

0minus12

minus24

minus36

minus48

minus60

minus72

minus84

minus96

minus108

minus120

minus132

minus144

minus44

minus66

minus88

minus110

minus132

minus154

minus176

minus198

minus220

minus242

minus262

minus286

minus600

minus550

minus500

minus450

minus400

minus350

minus300

minus250

minus200

minus150

minus100

minus50

00

50

0minus9

minus18

minus27

minus36

minus45

minus54

minus63

minus72

minus81

minus90

minus99

minus108

minus117

60

00

minus60

minus120

minus180

minus240

minus300

minus360

minus420

minus480

minus540

minus600

minus660

minus720

12

0minus12

minus24

minus36

minus48

minus60

minus72

minus84

minus96

minus108

minus120

minus132

minus144


Deformation

Deformation

Deformation

(i) Raft foundation








Figure 8 Continued


34

17

00

minus17

minus34

minus51

minus68

minus85

minus102

minus119

minus136

minus153

minus170

minus187

45

00

minus45

minus90

minus135

minus180

minus225

minus270

minus315

minus360

minus405

minus450

minus495

minus540

14

00

minus14

minus28

minus42

minus56

minus70

minus84

minus98

minus112

minus126

minus140

minus154

minus168

45

00

minus45

minus90

minus135

minus180

minus225

minus270

minus315

minus360

minus405

minus450

minus495

minus540

Deformation

Deformation

(v) Raft foundation





















References



















RoboticsJournal of





Journal of



RotatingMachinery





VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2014


SensorsJournal of





Propagation










34

17

00

minus17

minus34

minus51

minus68

minus85

minus102

minus119

minus136

minus153

minus170

minus187

45

00

minus45

minus90

minus135

minus180

minus225

minus270

minus315

minus360

minus405

minus450

minus495

minus540

14

00

minus14

minus28

minus42

minus56

minus70

minus84

minus98

minus112

minus126

minus140

minus154

minus168

45

00

minus45

minus90

minus135

minus180

minus225

minus270

minus315

minus360

minus405

minus450

minus495

minus540

Deformation

Deformation

(v) Raft foundation





















References



















RoboticsJournal of





Journal of



RotatingMachinery





VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2014


SensorsJournal of





Propagation














References



















RoboticsJournal of





Journal of



RotatingMachinery





VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2014


SensorsJournal of





Propagation











RoboticsJournal of





Journal of



RotatingMachinery





VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2014


SensorsJournal of





Propagation









Documents

Research Article Evaluation of Seismic Performance of ...downloads.hindawi.com/archive/2014/940923.pdf · Research Article Evaluation of Seismic Performance of Buildings Constructed