Effect of Uplift and Soil Nonlinearity on Plastic Hinge

Development and Induced Vibrations in Structures

X. Qin, Y. Chen and N. Chouw*

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, the University of Auckland, New Zealand

Abstract: Earthquakes may cause separation at the interface of the footing and the
supporting ground. When a structure vibrates the contact interface between the footing
and the soil is reduced. Because of the concentration of stress in the remaining contact
area the soil beneath the footing can deform plastically. In this experimental study, the
effect of footing uplift and soil plastic deformation on the development of a plastic
hinge in the structure was investigated. A small scale model, with uplift permitted, was
subjected to shake table excitations to simulate the seismic response of the prototype
structure. To scale the structure a reformulated Cauchy number was developed. While
the ductile behaviour of the structure was simulated by installing an artificial plastic
hinge in the model, the potential for footing settlement was included by utilising a box
of sand. The ground excitations were simulated based on Japanese design spectra that
incorporate different frequency content. The combined effect of footing uplift,
foundation soil plastic deformation and structural ductile behaviour on the induced
vibrations is discussed.

Key words: uplift, nonlinear foundation soil, ductile behaviour, induced vibration.

1. INTRODUCTION earthquake response of structures is usually analysed

During a strong earthquake when the base overturning
moment exceeds the available overturning resistance, a
portion of the foundation mat or some of the individual
column footings may intermittently separate from the
supporting soil. Several examples of towers and oil
tanks uplifting from the underlying soil were observed
during the 1952 Arvin Tehachapi, 1964 Alaska, and
1979 Imperial Valley earthquakes (Psycharis 1983).
Previous research, as discussed below, shows that lower
earthquake force will be transmitted to the structure
when foundation uplift occurs. However, no uplift is
recommended in current seismic design procedures. In
the event of foundation uplift, yielding of the
supporting soil may occur due to the concentration of
stress as a result of the reduced contact interface
between footing and the supporting ground. The
under the assumption that the foundation is fixed to the
ground. Thus, the forces activated in an earthquake may
be overestimated when the beneficial influence of uplift
is not taken into account. In the traditional design of
foundations, a seismic factor of safety of at least two is
required to ensure sufficient bearing strength during the
earthquake. The intent of this design approach is to limit
the deformation of the supporting soil. Using this
seismic design process results in a mobilised bearing
strength far in excess of that required under vertical
loading only. Observations (e.g. Apostolou et al. 2006)
also indicates that even though foundations were not
designed to uplift intentionally, uplift did occur. Unless
the foundation is massive, or tension piles are used,
some uplift of foundations during a major earthquake
cannot always be avoided.

*Corresponding author. Email address: n.chouw@auckland.ac.nz; Fax: +64-9-373-7462; Tel: +64-9-923-3512.

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 1 2013 135

 Effect of Uplift and Soil Nonlinearity on Plastic Hinge Development and Induced Vibrations in Structures
Most of the early investigations on uplift mainly
consider the rocking behaviour of a structure sitting on
a rigid base. The investigation of the mechanics of
rocking began in Japan in the late 1800s. Milne (1881)
published one of the earliest papers attempting to find
the quantitative correlation between the intensity of
ground motions and the overturning of rectangular
columns. Housner (1963) was the pioneer who
identified the beneficial effect of the rocking
mechanism on structural seismic performance. He
investigated the seemingly unstable elevated water
towers that survived the devastating 1960 Chilean
Earthquake, and used a simple rigid free standing block
to simulate the complex rocking process. Over the
following few decades, studies focusing on rigid block
structures (Aslam et al. 1980; Tso and Wong 1989;
Yang et al. 2000) indicated that the rocking mechanism
is helpful in dissipating some energy, and the rocking
behaviour is influenced mainly by the dimensions of the
structure. Following Housner’s theoretical results
Priestley et al. (1978) suggested that a single-degree-of-
freedom (SDOF) oscillator with damping, and period
depending on the amplitude of rocking, may be used to
represent a rocking rigid block. To validate the
applicability of their assumption, free vibration and
shake table tests on a free-to-rock SDOF model were
conducted using the EL Centro 1940 N-S record.
The results confirmed that a rocking mechanism can
reduce structural damage. An approach for estimating
the maximum displacement of rocking structures using
displacement spectra was proposed. The analogies and
methodologies in their research have been adopted by
the FEMA 356 Guidelines (2000). However, Makris
and Konstantinidis (2001) revised the research of
Priestley et al. They pointed out that the above
mentioned design approach was oversimplified and the
experimental verification was limited to a single
earthquake record. A recent design guideline for rocking
walls was developed by Kelly (2009). These design
guidelines were based on more sophisticated nonlinear
analyses and the flexibility of foundation soil was
considered.
The uplift performances of flexible structures are
different from those of rigid structures. Yim and Chopra
(1985) were among the first to develop a better
understanding of the effect of transient foundation uplift
on the response of flexible elastic structures. Some
recent research considered the combined effect of
material nonlinearity, owing to plastic hinge
development in the structure, and geometrical
nonlinearity due to foundation uplift. Hung et al. (2011)
conducted cyclic loading tests and pseudo-dynamic tests
on reinforced concrete bridge columns and compared
136
the responses with and without a plastic hinge. They
found that uplift could reduce the strength and ductility
demand of the column. In the study performed by Deng
et al. (2008) a series of centrifuge tests on a simplified
bridge system with plastic hinges was executed to
investigate the effect of nonlinear footings and columns
on seismic behaviour of the system. However, there is
no publication discussing the results of these tests so far.
There has been research focusing on the soil
nonlinearity that could result in permanent displacement
of the soil-foundation interface. An early contribution to
this research is the paper of Taylor et al. (1981). In their
work cyclic rocking displacements were applied to
model footings sitting on clay and sand. The results
suggested that the soil beneath spread footings may be
intentionally designed to yield in high-intensity
earthquakes and plastic hinge development at column
base of RC frames may be avoided. Some of recent
studies on nonlinear soil-foundation-structure interaction
(SFSI) are reviewed in the following. Paolucci (1997)
proposed a four degree-of-freedom model to simulate a
foundation-structure system and introduced nonlinear
effect in the calculation of soil reactions through a failure
criterion and plastic flow-rule calibrated through
previous experimental work. Gazetas et al. (2007)
addressed the seismic response of a tall structure resting
on a shallow foundation, which experienced uplift and
induced large inelastic deformations in the soil, via
numerical analysis and centrifuge experiments. Pecker et
al. (2010) proposed a macro-element model for shallow
foundations within the context of performance-based
design of structures. Algie et al. (2009, 2010) conducted
centrifuge tests on SDOF bridge structures with different
footing sizes and carried out dynamics field tests on a
rocking shallow foundation. The results of these
investigations emphasized that nonlinear soil behaviour
in severe earthquakes should be mobilized if the
beneficial effect from soil-structure interaction is to be
realized. Toh and Pender (2010) compared the response
of a foundation designed according to three different
approaches: (1) the traditional design utilising a factor
safety of two, (2) using a seismic factor of safety of unity
and (3) using a static factor of safety equal to one and
incorporating seismic yielding of soil. They pointed out
that the design approach which allowed yielding was
better able to improve the system efficiency and
performance. They also suggested design criteria for
yielding foundations. An improved design procedure of
RC walls on shallow foundations including SFSI was
proposed by Sullivan et al. (2010). Ormeno et al. (2012)
investigated the effect of uplift including fluid-structure
interaction. Loo et al. (2012) proposed an approach to
control seismic response of timber structures, by
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 1 2013
X. Qin, Y. Chen and N. Chouw
allowing the structure to rock at the same time
controlling the uplift movement by using slip friction
devices at its base.
The studies carried out so far have mainly focused on
the global response of structures. There are also
investigations on rocking behaviour of secondary
structures and the possible mitigation measures, e.g.
book stacks in libraries and overturning of equipment in
a power station (Yao 1998). However, the effect of soil
was not considered. Studies of the simultaneous effect
of primary structural uplift and plastic deformation in
soil on the response of secondary structures have not
been reported. Although physical tests on flexible
structures with material nonlinearity have been
conducted by several researchers, the authors are not
aware of any publications that focused on the combined
effect of uplift and soil nonlinearity on plastic hinge
development and the induced vibrations in structures.
The objectives of the research described herein are to
reveal this combined effect. A series of shake table tests
of a SDOF model were conducted. The excitations
applied were simulated based on design spectra for two
different soil conditions. During these excitations,
plastic deformations occurred in the structure and the
soil with loss and reestablishment of contact over part of
the foundation-soil interface was included. The
development of a plastic hinge, the horizontal
displacement, induced acceleration and the vertical
displacement of the foundation are described in the
following.
2. EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
2.1. Model Analysis
The prototype model was simulated from a two-story
steel building (Figure 1). Three foundation conditions
are considered: 1) fixed base, 2) allowable uplift on
rigid base and 3) uplift on sand. The building has 3 m
height and 25 m2 floor areas for each story. 250UB25.7
and 360UB50.7 are selected for the beams of roof and
floor, respectively, and 250UC72.9 for the columns.
5m
3m
4.25 m
2.8 m × 2.8 m rigid foundation 2.8 m × 2.8 m rigid foundation
Figure 1. Prototype and corresponding SDOF model
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 1 2013
According to New Zealand Design Standard
(NZS1170.5 2004), this building has a seismic mass of
approximately 32,000 kg for the first floor, and 15,000 kg
for the roof. The foundation was designed to be rigid
with area of 2.8 m × 2.8 m. The calculated fundamental
frequency is 2.23 Hz.
To transform the multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF)
structure into a SDOF system, the base shear and
moment of MDOF system were set as equal to those of
the SDOF system. The effective mass (mr*) and height
(hr*) of the MDOF system were obtained, as given in
Eqns 1 and 2 (see e.g. Chopra 2007).
2
mr * =
(∑ N
j =1
m j × Φ )
jr
(1)
N
∑ m × Φjr2
j =1 j
N
* ∑ j =1 m j × h j × Φjr
hr = N
(2)
∑ j =1 m j × Φjr2
where Φjr was jth element of the r th mode, hj and mj were
the story height and seismic mass of j th level and N is the
number of the DOFs.
The calculated effective height h1* and mass m1* of
the fundamental mode were respectively 4.25 m and
45640 kg, which contributes 97.1% of the total mass.
The effect of second mode on the overall structural
response was small and thus could be neglected. The
column size of the SDOF model was adjusted to
obtain the same fundamental frequency as the
prototype.
2.2. Experimental Approach
In traditional earthquake engineering, three types of
testing methods were usually applied to investigate the
performance of structural systems: Quasi-Static Test
(QST), Shake Table Test and Pseudo-Dynamic Test
(PsDT). The most common approaches are QST and
PsDT. Over 80% of experimental studies were
conducted using these methods (Robert et al. 1996).
QST is performed by approximating the earthquake
shakings on a specimen in a simplified pattern which
applies cyclic loads or displacements to specimens at a
slow rate. The influence of material strain rates and
damping on model performance is neglected. However,
most elastic and inelastic behaviours of structural
systems are sensitive to the frequency content of the
loading. Hence, the seismic performance cannot be
investigated because the dynamic properties of the
137
 Effect of Uplift and Soil Nonlinearity on Plastic Hinge Development and Induced Vibrations in Structures
structure and the earthquake characteristics are not
considered in QST (Scholl 1984).
PsDT approach reproduces the seismic effect by
combining QST techniques with computational
procedures and experimental measurements, to generate
a realistic dynamic response of specimens. Unlike QST,
the applied actions are not pre-defined but computed
according to the restoring force measured directly from
deformed specimens. At each time step, the governing
equation of motion is solved numerically by utilizing
previous measurements. The incremental structural
deformations can be calculated. Thus, by incorporating
the prototype’s dynamic properties and the earthquake
time history in computer program, PsDT is able to
replicate the displacement (or effective force) histories
that closely resemble the prototype’s real responses in
earthquakes. However, the predicted model behaviours
in PsDT are less reliable, since errors from
computations and measurements are accumulative.
Because the uplift behaviour of structure and
nonlinearity of soil under dynamic actions are sensitive
to the frequency content of the ground motions, their
effect on the seismic performance of the soil-footing-
structure system cannot be reproduced by QST and
PsDT. In order to replicate the dynamics of structure
with allowable footing uplift and foundation soil plastic
deformation, shake table test is thus the most suitable
experimental approach.
Shake table test was adequately developed in 1972 at
the University of California, Berkeley. It has been
widely used in earthquake engineering research. In a
shake table test, a stiff platform is shaken to simulate the
appropriate dynamic motions of an earthquake in real
time. The inertia forces are generated and applied to the
structure/model which is placed on the platform. The
structural response to the base excitation can then
be quantified. Using a good-quality shake table real-
time earthquakes can be simulated, which allows the
repeatability of complex structural behaviour under real
seismic inputs. Shake table test was therefore selected
for this study. However, there are challenges in
conducting an accurate shake table test. First of all, the
geometry and capacity of a shake table imposes a
restriction on the scale of models. To overcome this
restriction the structure can be scaled down sufficiently
into a model with appropriate size and geometry. In
addition, not all parameters can be scaled down
correctly due to issues in constructions, e.g. welding,
material and bolts.
2.3. Model Scaling
To enable the measured results from a model to be
transferred into the prototype responses the prototype
138
has to be scaled by the theory of similarity. It is a
well-documented technique for modelling a wide
range of engineering problems. The method is for
defining the required correlations between the model
and prototype geometry, material properties and
applied loading. The response of the prototype
structure can then be illustrated as that response of the
scale model with a scale factor. The required
correlations were derived by a dimensional analysis
following the fundamental of Buckingham’s π
theorem (Buckingham 1914). It stated that if a
physically homogeneous equation involves n and p of
physical variables and independent fundamental
physical quantities, respectively, the original
expression is equivalent to an equation involving a set
of (n–p) dimensionless variables constructed from the
original variables. By matching the corresponding
dimensionless variables of the scaled model and the
prototype, the scale factor of each physical variable
can be defined. In many scaled down shake table test,
Cauchy number and Froude number were usually
considered. The Cauchy number is defined as the ratio
between inertial and elastic restoring forces, Fi and Fe,
(Eqn 3) and the Froude number is defined as the ratio
between inertial and gravitational forces, Fi and Fg,
(Eqn 4).
Fi ma ( ρl 3 v 2 / l ) ρ v 2
= = = (3)
Fe EA El 2 E
Fi ma ( ρl 3 v 2 / l ) ρ v 2
= = = (4)
Fe mg ρl 3 g lg
where ρ = density, l = length, v = velocity, E = modulus
of elasticity, a = horizontal acceleration, m = mass, A
= cross-section area and g = gravitational acceleration.
In geotechnical modelling, the scaling of gravitational
acceleration can be fulfilled by utilizing centrifuge
modelling. However, in the case of structural
engineering, satisfaction of the gravitational acceleration
scaling is very difficult to achieve. Moreover, because
the response of a structure to horizontal base excitations
is dominated by its horizontal movement, the scaling of
applied acceleration in the vertical direction will not
contribute a great effect on the structural response. Thus
the scaling requirement for gravitational acceleration in
this work is relaxed, and only the scaling criterion of
Cauchy number was considered. In addition, the
structural horizontal vibrations can be analysed using a
SDOF system. In this case, the term “elastic restoring
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 1 2013
X. Qin, Y. Chen and N. Chouw

force” in the Cauchy number can be reformulated using shake table [Figure 2(a)]. To simulate the effect of SFSI,
Hooke’s law (Eqn 5). the model was placed inside a sand box with dimension of
1200 mm x 450 mm (Figure 3). The sand box was filled
Fi ma
= (5)
Fe ku
(a)
where m, a, k and u are the four physical quantities:
mass, acceleration, lateral stiffness and deflection,
respectively.
A Cauchy number can be calculated using the four
quantities of the prototype as given in Eqn 5. The
quantities of the model were then pre-defined in order to
reproduce this Cauchy number. One of the quick ways
to generate these model quantities is to keep the mass-
lateral stiffness ratio of the model and prototype the
same. The scale factors of mass and lateral stiffness
were therefore unchanged, while the fundamental
frequency of model and prototype can be maintained.
This provides greater freedom for conducting shake
table tests. It is also suggested that the scale factors of
acceleration (a) and displacement (u) should be the
same. This can provide convenience for scaling the (b)
applied excitation which will be discussed in section
2.5. Because of the shake table capacity, the scale
factors of mass and length were pre-defined to be
7438.8 and 10, respectively. Table 1 summarizes the
scale factors.

2.4. Experimental Setup

Figure 2 shows the structural model for the shake
table tests. In a small-scale laboratory testing, it is
impossible to scale the model stiffness and member
elastic limit at the same time. For this reason, an
artificial plastic hinge was constructed [Figure 2(b)],
so that a permanent rotation of the column could be
simulated. The bending moment capacity of the Figure 2. Scaled down SDOF model: (a) Model on rigid base; and
artificial hinge was controlled by a force washer. In (b) artificial plastic hinge at column base
this work a 3 kN bolt pressure was applied. To achieve
the repeatability of the artificial hinge behaviour,
Teflon washers were used on both sides of the central
steel plate.
To replicate the performance of current routine
foundation design, the SDOF model was fixed onto the

Table 1. Applied scale factors

Quantity Symbol Scale Factor

Length l 10
Lateral Stiffness k 7438.8
Mass m 7438.8
Acceleration a 10
Time t 1
Frequency f 1
Figure 3. SDOF model in a sand box

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 1 2013 139

 Effect of Uplift and Soil Nonlinearity on Plastic Hinge Development and Induced Vibrations in Structures

with 400 mm depth of sand. The density of the sand was (a)
0.09
controlled by raining the sand with 500 mm drop height. Load case 1 Load case 2
0.06
2.5. Ground Motions

Acceleration (g)
0.03
The ground excitations were simulated based on
Japanese design spectra (Chouw and Hao 2005). These 0
spectra were introduced after the 1995 Kobe earthquake. −0.03
During this earthquake, data of ground motions were
−0.06
collected within a distance of 100 km from the
epicentre. The spectra were constructed by wrapping up −0.09
0 5 10 15 20
the spectral values of the severe ground excitations
Time (s)
recorded in the Kobe earthquake.
In the case of similitude applied to earthquake (b)
0.25 Load case 1 Load case 2
engineering, in order to satisfy the inertial force and
elastic restoring force ratio, the peak ground 0.2

Acceleration (g)
acceleration (PGA), frequency content and spectral
values of earthquake must be scaled according to 0.15

model scaling. As mentioned, it was suggested that the 0.1

scaling factor of acceleration was selected to be the
same as that of model dimension (length). The peak
ground acceleration and displacement can be scaled by
the scale factor of length. Eqn 6 shows a simple
relationship between ground acceleration and
displacement.
ag
= ω2
ug
where ω is the circular frequency of excitation. ag and ug
are the peak ground acceleration and displacement,
respectively.
Since the scale factors of ground acceleration and
displacement were the same, the ground acceleration-
displacement ratio of the scaled excitation is the same
with that of full scale earthquake. The scaling on the
frequency content of excitations is not required.
Because the natural frequency of the structure was also
not scaled, the structural and excitation frequency ratio
of the prototype system will be the same with that of the
scaled experimental setup. The scaling requirement of
earthquake spectral values will be automatically
satisfied.
Figure 4(a) shows the scaled ground accelerations.
To investigate the effect of earthquake characteristics,
the ground motions for hard and medium soil conditions
are considered and denoted as load case 1 and load case
2, respectively. Figure 4(b) displays the response
spectra with a damping ratio of 5%. The spectral value
of load case 1 beyond 1.38 Hz is larger than that of load
case 2. However, the spectral value is smaller in
frequency range below 1.38 Hz.
0.05
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 4. Ground excitations: (a) Time history; and (b) response
spectra
(6)
3. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
3.1. Plastic Hinge Development in Fixed Base
Structures
In current design practice, plastic hinge development is
tolerated to reduce the earthquake impact on buildings.
A portion of the earthquake energy will be dissipated
through inelastic deformations of structural members at
the plastic hinge locations. In the study of structural
uplift and nonlinear SFSI influence on structural
performance the development of plastic hinges is first
separately considered. As described (Section 2.4),
ductile structural behaviour is simulated by an artificial
plastic hinge at the column support. Figure 5 shows the
development of bending moment (BM) at the column
base incorporating the ductile behaviour of structure. As
expected the bending moment linearly increases with
relative displacement (u) at the top of the structure.
When the bending moment reaches its ultimate capacity,
permanent rotation takes place and results in a residual
horizontal relative displacement.
The residual horizontal displacements correspond to
the peak ground acceleration in each load case [Figure
4(a)]. As shown in the moment-displacement (BM-u)
relationship in Figure 5, there are four occurrences of
hinge rotational sliding in load case 1 while only two in

140 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 1 2013

X. Qin, Y. Chen and N. Chouw
(a)
4 Elastic structure with fixed footing
2 10
BM (Nm)
0
−2
−4
−15 −7.5 0 7.5
u (mm)
(b)
4 5
2
BM (Nm)
0 0
−2
−4
−15 −7.5 0 7.5
u (mm)
Figure 5. Moment-displacement relation of the structure with fixed
base due to (a) load case 1 and (b) load case 2
load case 2. As expected the maximum bending moment
is limited to approximately 4 Nm due to the applied bolt
pressure used to simulate the hinge. The permanent
relative horizontal displacements (u) due to load cases 1
and 2 were found to be 11.4 mm and 6.7 mm,
respectively.
3.2. Uplift Effect on Plastic Hinge Development
The results clearly show that uplift can reduce structural
damage occurring from an excessive development of the
plastic hinge. Figure 6 shows the time history of the
horizontal displacement (u) at the top of structure
relative to the shake table platform with three different
conditions: fixed base with elastic structural behaviour
(thin dotted line), fixed base with possible plastic hinge
development (solid line) and allowable uplift with
plastic hinge development (dashed line). To eliminate
the influence of the foundation soil deformation on the
dynamic behaviour in the case of a structure with
allowable uplift a rigid base is utilised. In the cases
considered the structure with or without uplift
developed a plastic hinge. However, in contrast to the
fixed-base model, when uplift is permitted the seismic
energy in the structure can be dissipated not only by the
simulated ductile behaviour, but also structural uplift.
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 1 2013
(a)
Fixed footing and possible plastic hinge
With allowable uplift and plastic hinge
5
u (mm)
0
−5
−10
−15
0 5 10 15 20 25
(b)
1.5 Elastic structure with fixed footing
Fixed footing and possible plastic hinge
10 With allowable uplift and plastic hinge
u (mm)
0
−5
−10
−15
5 10 15 20 25
Time (s)
Figure 6. Time history of relative displacement (u) at the top of the
structure due to: (a) load case 1; and (b) load case 2
1.5
Consequently, the structure with uplift experiences less
plastic deformation than the fixed-base structure. When
uplift occurred, the residual relative displacement
caused by load case 1 was reduced from 11.4 mm to
5.2 mm, and similarly for load case 2 a 5 mm reduction
of permanent displacement was observed. The results
clearly show that structural uplift can reduce the residual
horizontal top displacement by 55% and 74% in load
cases 1 and 2, respectively. This reduction of plastic
deformation in the structure will provide the structure
with more earthquake-resistant capacity and thus
building safety.
A comparison of the moment-displacement
relationships with and without structural uplift in
Figures 5 and 7 shows the difference in the dynamics of
the structure. In both load cases the plastic hinge limits
the activated bending moments at the column support.
While in the fixed base case the structure has a larger
positive permanent displacement, the structure with
allowable uplift has relatively smaller permanent
negative displacement, i.e. the structure tilts to the left.
The comparison further reveals that footing uplift can
reduce the number of plastic hinge excursions during
earthquake motions and thus the permanent deformation
of the structure.
3.3. Effect of Foundation Yielding on Plastic
Hinge Development
The result presented in section 3.2 did not consider soil
deformation. In this section, the effect of plastic soil
141
 Effect of Uplift and Soil Nonlinearity on Plastic Hinge Development and Induced Vibrations in Structures

(a) (a)
4 With allowable uplift on sand
With allowable uplift on rigid base
10
2 5

u (mm)
BM (Nm)

0
0 −5
−10
−15
−2 0 5 10 15 20 25

(b)
−4 With allowable uplift on sand
−15 −7.5 0 7.5 1.5 With allowable uplift on rigid base
10
u (mm)
5

u (mm)
(b) 0
4
−5
−10
2 −15
0 5 10 15 20 25
BM (Nm)

Time (s)
0
Figure 8. Time history of relative displacement at the top of model
−2 due to: (a) load case 1; and (b) load case 2

−4 8(b) shows that in the lower PGA case (load case 2)

−15 −7.5 0 7.5 1.5
u (mm)
Figure 7. Moment-displacement relation of the structure with
allowable uplift on rigid base due to: (a) load case 1 and (b) load
case 2
deformation on the structural plastic hinge
development was investigated using the experimental
setup shown in Figure 3. To enable a comparison for
highlighting the combined effect of structural uplift and
soil plastic deformation on structural ductile behaviour,
the same hinge bolt pressure of 3 kN as those in
sections 3.1 and 3.2 was applied. It should be
plastic hinge development in the structure was even
eliminated through the consideration of soil
deformation and uplift. The results provide evidence
for soil plastic deformation protecting the structure
from damage during an earthquake, as a comparison of
the moment-displacement relation in Figures 9, 7 and 5
also shows.
(a)
4
2
BM (Nm)

mentioned that although the two load cases 1 and 2 are 0

obtained from response spectra for two different soil
conditions, in this study, for simplicity the same sand is −2
used, i.e. only the characteristic of the loading is
considered. Figure 8(a) shows the relative top −4
−15 −7.5 0 7.5 1.5
displacements of the structure with allowable uplift on u (mm)
a rigid base (dashed line) and sand (solid line) for load
(b)
case 1. Compared to the residual displacement in the 4
structure on the rigid base (5.2 mm), the structure on
sand has only suffered a residual displacement of 1.3 2
mm, thus there is a significant reduction of 75% in the
BM (Nm)

residual displacement. Figure 8(b) also shows that 0

further reduction of plastic hinge development in the
structure can be observed when soil deformation and −2
uplift are permitted. These results confirm that
deformation of the supporting soil can greatly restrict −4
the plastic hinge development in structures during −15 −7.5 0 7.5 1.5
u (mm)
earthquakes and thus limit the severity of damage. By
considering soil deformation during design, structural Figure 9. Moment-displacement relation with allowable uplift on
strength demand could be significantly reduced. Figure sand due to: (a) load case 1; and (b) load case 2

142 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 1 2013

X. Qin, Y. Chen and N. Chouw

3.4. Structural and Foundation Soil Nonlinearity Figure 10 shows the relationship between the relative
Effect on Uplift Behaviour horizontal top displacement (u) of the structure and the
In order to capitalise on uplift behaviour to improve vertical displacement (v) at the centre of the footing.
structural seismic performance, it is important to Figures 10(a), 10(b) and Figures 10(c), 10(d) show the
understand how uplift behaviour will interact with u–v relationships of a structure with allowable uplift on
structural ductile behaviour. In this section, foundation a rigid base and sand, respectively. While the results in
vertical displacements were measured using portal Figures 10(a) and 10(c) were obtained by applying load
gauges placed on each side of the foundation (Figure 3). case 1, the data shown in Figures 10(b) and 10(d) were
measured during load case 2. Although load case 1 has
(a) −8 −4 0 4 8 12 a larger acceleration spectral value than load case 2,
1.2
which cause a larger permanent column deflection, the
Max 1.08 mm
maximum vertical displacements of the footing due to
0.8 the two excitations are similar. If a superstructure
v (mm)

behaves linearly, earthquake energy is only dissipated

0.4 by structural uplift. The greater the kinetic energy in the
structure, the more severe uplift motion will be,
resulting in greater amplitude of vertical foundation
0
u (mm)
displacement. In the case where a plastic hinge is
Load case 1
developed in the structure, the maximum bending
−8 −4 0 4 8 12
moment in the structure is restricted and thus the
(b)
1.2 moment applied onto the footing is limited.
Max 1.01 mm The maximum moment that causes the foundation to
rotate depends on the moment capacity of structure. In
v (mm)

0.8
the cases considered, the elastic limit in the structure is
equal for all excitations due to the same applied bolt
0.4
pressure on the artificial plastic hinge. The maximum
vertical displacements of the footing for both load cases
0 are therefore similar.
u (mm)
On the other hand, in the case when plastic
Load case 2
deformation of the supporting soil is permitted, footing
(c) settlement may accumulate. If the structure behaves
−8 −4 0 4 8 12
0 elastically during the excitation, soil plastic deformation
will restrict the bending moment development in the
−0.2
structure and result in footing settlement. The larger the
v (mm)

−0.4 acceleration spectral value, the greater the footing

settlement could be. In this section plastic hinge
−0.6 development in the structure was included. In load case
Settlement 0.68 mm 2 plastic hinge development could not be observed
−0.8
u (mm) while in load case 1 a minor slippage of the plastic hinge
Load case 1 took place (see Figure 9). Since the maximum bending
(d)
moment in the structure was controlled by the slippage
−8 −4 0 4 8 12 of the plastic hinge, the combined action of moment and
0
gravitational force applied on the foundation soil was
−0.2 almost the same. Consequently, in both load cases
similar footing settlement was measured. The footing
v (mm)

−0.4 settlement at the end of load cases 1 and 2 were 0.68 mm

−0.6
and 0.73 mm, respectively.
In addition, it is also found that plastic deformation of
Settlement 0.73 mm
−0.8 the soil can reduce the magnitude of footing uplift. As it
u (mm)
can be seen in Figures 10(c) and 10(d), the footing
Load case 2
settles when the relative horizontal displacement of the
Figure 10. Relationship of the top horizontal displacement of the structure reaches the peak of each cycle. In contrast,
structure and vertical displacement of the footing with allowable when a rigid base is considered the footing vertical
uplift on (a), (b) a rigid base and (c), (d) sand displacement increases with the horizontal displacement

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 1 2013 143

 Effect of Uplift and Soil Nonlinearity on Plastic Hinge Development and Induced Vibrations in Structures

once uplift takes place. The results illustrate that soil (a)
plastic deformation can reduce not only the structural Fixed footing with elastic structure
0.2 Fixed footing with plastic hinge
horizontal displacement but also the foundation uplift.

Acceleration (g)
0.15
3.5. Induced Vibrations
Induced vibrations are of concern in the design of 0.1
secondary structures. In order to reveal the combined
effect of uplift, soil nonlinearity and plastic hinge 0.05
development on induced vibrations, response spectra of
the horizontal accelerations at the top of the structure are 0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3
discussed in this section. The spectrum values represent
Frequency (Hz)
the maximum responses of secondary structures
attached to the top of the column. A damping ratio of (b)
Fixed footing with elastic structure
5% is assumed. The response spectra of structures with Uplift on rigid base and plastic hinge
0.2

(a)

Acceleration (g)
0.15
Fixed footing with elastic structure
0.2 Fixed footing with plastic hinge
0.1
Acceleration (g)

0.15 0.05

0.1 0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3
0.05 Frequency (Hz)
(c)
0 Fixed footing with elastic structure
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 On sand and possible plastic hinge
0.2
Frequency (Hz)

(b)
Acceleration (g)

0.15
Fixed footing with elastic structure
Uplift on rigid base and plastic hinge
0.2 0.1
Acceleration (g)

0.15 0.05

0.1 0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3
0.05 Frequency (Hz)

Figure 12. Comparisons of response spectrum of the induced

0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 horizontal accelerations at the top of the structure due to load case
Frequency (Hz) 2: (a) fixed footing; (b) allowable uplift on rigid base; and
(c) (c) allowable uplift on sand
Fixed footing with elastic structure
On sand and possible plastic hinge
0.2 plastic hinge development and different support
conditions are compared to that of an elastic structure
Acceleration (g)

0.15 with an assumed fixed base. The comparisons of load

cases 1 and 2 are displayed in Figures 11 and 12,
0.1
respectively. In all considered cases the largest spectrum
0.05 value occurs at 2.23 Hz, which is the fundamental
frequency of the structure. The spectrum values at
0 frequencies higher than 3 Hz approached the same value
1 1.5 2 2.5 3
in all cases. The results indicate that for secondary
Frequency (Hz)
structures with high frequency beyond 3 Hz the
Figure 11. Comparisons of response spectrum of the induced influence of the structural uplift, soil nonlinearity and
horizontal accelerations at the top of the structure due to load case plastic hinge development becomes irrelevant.
1: (a) fixed footing; (b) allowable uplift on rigid base; and However, further investigations are needed to obtain
(c) allowable uplift on sand more general conclusions.

144 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 1 2013

X. Qin, Y. Chen and N. Chouw
Table 2. Influence of the support conditions on the maximum induced acceleration
Load case 1 (0.191 g)**
Fixed Uplift on
Support conditions footing rigid base
Maximum acceleration (g)
induced in structure with
plastic hinge 0.145 0.135
Normalized value (%) * 76.0 70.7
* The maximum induced acceleration normalized by that in an elastic and fixed-base structure (**).
Table 2 summarises the largest induced acceleration
in the structure with different conditions. When the
fixed-base structure is considered in both load cases the
maximum induced accelerations in the structure with
plastic hinge development are only 76% of those in the
elastic structure [Figures 11(a) and 12 (a)]. This is
because in both load cases the activated maximum
bending moments are similar (see Figure 5).
When structural uplift on a rigid base is additionally
considered [Figures 11(b) and 12 (b)], the uplift and
plastic hinge development reduce the maximum induced
accelerations in load cases 1 and 2 by 29.3% and 13.6%,
respectively. If plastic soil deformation is permitted as
well, less reduction of the maximum induced
accelerations is observed. In load cases 1 and 2 the
reduction is respectively 7.7% and 10.9% [Figures 11(c)
and 12(c)].
A comparison between the maximum induced
accelerations in the nonlinear structure with and
without uplift on rigid base [solid lines in Figures
11(a) and (b)] shows that uplift causes a reduction in
load case 1. Figures 12(a) and 12(b) show, however,
in load case 2 uplift causes a slight increase of the
maximum induced acceleration. The results show that
a plastic deformation in the structure reduces the
induced vibrations. Consequently, the less plastic
hinge development the more vibrations will be
induced into the structure. Since uplift in load case 2
causes less plastic deformation as shown in Figure 6,
hence less reduction of induced vibrations is
anticipated. In the considered case this less reduction
results in larger induced vibrations in comparison to
the case without uplift.
If plastic soil deformation is permitted, the maximum
induced accelerations are larger than those with rigid
base. As shown in Figure 8(b) the plastic soil
deformation causes no plastic hinge development in the
structure because of smaller earthquake loading (load
case 2). Consequently, no reduction of the induced
vibrations is expected. In the considered case the plastic
soil deformation causes a slight increase of the induced
vibrations. In load case 1, the stronger load case, the
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 1 2013
Load case 2 (0.150 g)**
Uplift on Fixed Uplift on Uplift on
sand footing rigid base sand
0.176 0.115 0.129 0.133
92.3 76.5 86.4 89.1
simultaneous influence of plastic soil deformation and
uplift and plastic hinge development results in a residual
deformation of the structure as shown by the solid line
in Figure 8(a). However, this deformation is much
smaller than the one without plastic soil deformation
(dashed line). The stronger anticipated induced
vibrations are confirmed in Figure 11(c).
4. CONCLUSIONS
In this work, shake table simulations were performed
using a scaled model to investigate the influence of
foundation uplift and plastic behaviour in the structure
and soil on the structural response. A new expression for
the Cauchy number was developed to fulfil the
requirement of similitude in shake table test to enable
the scale model to replicate the dynamic behaviour of
prototype structure. The bending moment capacity,
which defines the structural non-linear behaviour, was
simulated by an artificial plastic hinge at the base of the
structure. The ground motions considered were
stochastically simulated based on the Japanese design
spectra, and the plastic behaviour of the foundation was
replicated by sand in a box.
The investigation reveals:
(1) It is confirmed that uplift can reduce plastic
hinge development.
(2) An additional plastic deformation of soil can
further reduce or even eliminate the plastic
hinge development in the structure and thus
provide more earthquake-resistant capacity of
the structure.
(3) Plastic deformation of soil can reduce not only
the structural response but also the footing
vertical displacement during earthquake.
(4) Development of plastic hinge reduces the
induced vibrations.
(5) Uplift causes less reduction of the induced
vibrations compared to the fixed base case.
(6) When soil plastic deformation is taken into
account, even lower reduction of the induced
vibrations is possible.
145
 Effect of Uplift and Soil Nonlinearity on Plastic Hinge Development and Induced Vibrations in Structures
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank Dr T. Larkin of the
University of Auckland for his valuable suggestions and
the constructive comments by the two reviewers.
REFERENCES
Algie, T.B., Deng, L. and Kutter, B.L. (2009). “Centrifuge tests of
rocking shallow bridge foundations”, Proceedings of the Annual
Conference of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake
Engineering, Christchurch, New Zealand, April.
Algie, T.B., Pender, M.J., Orense, R.P. and Wortherspoon, L.M.
(2010). “Dynamic field testing of shallow foundations subject to
rocking”, Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the New
Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Wellington, New
Zealand, March.
Apostolou, M., Gazetas, G. and Garini, E. (2006). “Seismic response
of slender rigid structures with foundation uplifting”, Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 27, No. 7,
pp. 642–654.
Aslam, M., Scalise, D.T. and Godden, W.G. (1980). “Earthquake
rocking response of rigid bodies”, Journal of the Structural
Division, ASCE, Vol. 106, No. 2, pp. 377–392.
Buckingham, E. (1914). “Illustrations of the use of dimensional
analysis, On Physically Similar Systems”, Physics Review, Vol.
4, No. 4, pp. 354–377.
Chopra, A.K. (2007). Dynamics of Structures: Theory and
Applications to Earthquake Engineering, 3rd Edition, Prentice
Hall.
Chouw, N. and Hao, H. (2005). “Study of SSI and non-uniform
ground motion effect on pounding between bridge girders”,
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 25, No. 7,
pp. 717-728.
Deng, L., Algie, T. and Kutter, B.L. (2008). Seismic Performance of
Bridge Systems with Rocking Foundations: Centrifuge Data
Report for the LJD02 Test Series, Data Report, Center for
Geotechnical Modeling, University of California, Davis, USA.
FEMA356 (2000). Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic
Rehabilitation of Buildings, American Society of Civil Engineers
for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington,
DC, USA.
Gazetas, G., Anastasopoilos, I. and Apostolou, M. (2007). “Shallow
and deep foundations under fault rupture or strong seismic
shaking”, Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Springer, The
Netherlands, pp. 185–215.
Housner, G.W. (1963). “Behavior of inverted pendulum structures
during eathquakes”, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America, Vol. 53, No. 2, pp. 403–417.
Hung, H.H., Liu, K.Y., Ho, T.H. and Chang, K.C. (2011). “An
experimental study on the rocking response of bridge piers with
spread footing foundation”, Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, Vol. 40, No. 7, pp. 749–769.
146
Kelly, T.E. (2009). “Tentative seismic design guidelines for rocking
structures”, Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake
Engineering, Vol. 42, No. 4, pp. 239–274.
Loo, W.Y., Quenneville, P. and Chouw, N. (2012). “A numerical
study of the seismic behavior of timber shear walls with slip-
friction connectors”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 34, pp.
233–243.
Makris, N. and Konstantinidis, D. (2001). The Rocking Spectrum
and the Shortcoming of Design Guidelines, PEER Report
No. 2001/07, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center ,
University of California, Berkeley, California, USA.
Milne, J. (1881). “Experiments in observational seismology”,
Transactions of the Seismological Society of Japan, Vol. 3,
pp. 12–64.
NZS1170.5. (2004). Structural Design Actions Part 5: Earthquake
Action, Standard New Zealand.
Ormeno, M., Larkin, T. and Chouw, N. (2012). “Comparison
between standards for seismic design of liquid storage tanks with
respect to soil-foundation-structure interaction and uplift”,
Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering,
Vol. 45, No. 1, pp. 40–46.
Paolucci, R. (1997). “Simplified evaluation of earthquake-induced
permanent displacements of shallow foundations”, Journal of
Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 563–579.
Pecker, A., Chatzugogos, C.T. and Salencon, J. (2010). “A dynamic
macro-element for performance based design of foundations”,
Advances in Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering,
Springer, pp. 103–112.
Priestley, M.J.N., Evison, R.J. and Carr, A.J. (1978). “Seismic
response of structures free to rock on their foundations”, Bulletin
of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake
Engineering, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 141–150.
Psycharis, I.N. (1983). “Dynamic behavior of rocking structures
allowed to uplift”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics,Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 57–76.
Robert, T., Gregory, G. and Deierlein, M. (1996). “Considerations
for the use of quasi-static testing”, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 12,
No. 1, pp. 87–109.
Scholl, R.E. (1984). Experimental Research Needs for Improving
Earthquake Resistant Design of Buildings, Workshop
Proceedings, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute,
Oakland, CA, USA.
Sullivan, T.J., Salawdeh, S., Pecker, A., Corigliano, M. and Calvi,
G.M. (2010). “Soil-foundation-structure interaction considerations
for performance-based design of RC wall structures on shallow
foundations”, Soil-Foundation-Structure Interaction, CRC Press ,
The Netherlands, pp. 193–200.
Taylor, P.W., Bartlett, P.E. and Wiessing, P.R. (1981). “Foundation
rocking under earthquake loading”, Proceedings of the 10th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden, Vol. 3, pp. 313–322.
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 1 2013
X. Qin, Y. Chen and N. Chouw
Toh, J.C.W. and Pender, M.J. (2010). “Design approach and criteria for
earthquake-resistant shallow foundation systems”, Soil-Foundation-
Structure Interaction, CRC Press, The Netherland, pp. 173–180.
Tso, W. and Wong, C. (1989). “Steady state rocking response of
rigid blocks, part I: analysis”, Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 89–106.
Yang, Y., Hung, H. and He, M. (2000). “Sliding and rocking
response of rigid blocks due to horizontal excitations?, Structural
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 1 2013
Engineering and Mechanics, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 1–16.
Yao, G.C. (1998). “Seismic strengthening of spring-supported
mechanical systems in hospitals”, Proceedings of 11th European
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paris, France.
Yim, C.S. and Chopra, A.K. (1985). “Simplified earthquake analysis
of multistory structures with foundation uplift”, Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 111, No. 12, pp. 2078–2731.
147