THE INFLUENCE OF EXCAVATION ON THE NEARBY

BUILDING UNDER SEISMIC LOADING CONDITION,

USING SHAKE TABLE TEST

SUBMITTED BY

SUBHASIS PRAMANIK

ROLL NO- 1523014

M.TECH (CIVIL ENGG.)

UNDER THE GIUDENSE OF

Dr. S. S. Mishra

Professor

Dept. of Civil Engineering

NIT Patna
 CHAPTER

ONE

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General
The response of the super structures such as buildings, bridges, under
seismic conditions are highly exaggerated by the underlying soil layer. So far,
wide studies on the impact of the earthquakes on underground and ground
buildings have been carried out. It has been proved bye the implemented studies
that underground structures are less vulnerable than the superstructures, and
even large number of tunnels and underground spaces without a seismic design,
have resisted against heavy earthquakes. For example, the Mexico-city
underground tunnel during 1985 earthquake and the Los Angeles subway during
earthquake escaped quite undamaged while many surface buildings were largely
damaged. So it is very important to investigate the impact of earthquake on the
surface buildings. Particularly when it is intended to do some excavation
throughout the ground, highly covered by residential and old ancient buildings.
Due to this reason a great effort has been afforded to study and look into the
effect of earthquake on the adjacent buildings. The super structural effect of the
earthquake have been studied before construction of the underground and has
been compared with those induced after excavation of the adjacent soil. Most of
the city is familiar as a zone by relatively high risk in the seismic zonation of India.
According to the results of the past studies in the region, in spite of heavy
earthquakes which have caused severe damages to the cities, the existing
monuments and historical buildings. Seismic responses need to be revaluated
together in which the interface between excavation and adjacent structures plays
an important role and may lead to different and new results.
 In intense urban regions where land is limited and buildings are narrowly
spaced, deep excavation for basement building and other underground
services like cut- cover tunnels are unavoidable. As these excavations are
usually carried out close to existing buildings, a major concern is to
prevent or minimize damage to adjacent buildings. As many high rise buildings
are supported on foundation, there is fear that lateral ground movement resulting
from the soil excavation, may badly affect the nearby foundation systems.

The lack of land compels engineers to construct buildings at locations with

less favorable geotechnical conditions in seismically active regions. For
determining the seismic response of structures, it is a common practice to
assume the structure is fixed at the base. In fact, if the ground is stiff enough
(e.g. structure founded on solid rock) it is reasonable to assume that the input
motion of the structure due to a design earthquake is essentially identical to the
motion of the free field, which is defined as the motion experienced at the same
point before the structure is built. However, for the structures constructed on soft
soils, two modifications should be considered for determining the seismic
response. First, the imposed motion to the structure differs from the free field
motion due to the presence of the structure and foundation. Secondly, additional
dynamic deformations are induced within the structure due to the underneath soft
soil.

Model tests in geotechnical engineering offer the advantage of simulating

complex systems under controlled conditions providing the opportunity of better
understanding of the fundamental mechanisms of these systems. Such tests are
often used as calibration benchmarks for numerical or analytical methods, or to
make quantitative predictions of the prototype response. Conducting shaking
table tests adopting multi-storey frame is highly demanded, where the dynamic
properties of the prototype structure such as natural frequency of the first and
higher modes, and number of stories is simulated during the shaking table tests.
It is of considerable interest to establish practical solution to predict the
displacement/deformation around the excavation accurately. Existing methods for
estimation of the excavation-induced ground movements are mainly separated
into three categories i.e.

(a) empirical methods,

(b) numerical methods and
(c) the analytical

This approach can prove to be the best practice in any engineering project along
with initial field and laboratory investigations. Thus, it could minimize risks of
construction and damage to adjacent structures which further could save both
time and cost.

Several researchers have conducted studies on different foundation type

The research work consists of four parts:

(a) developing of nonlinear three-dimensional geometrical frame model,

(b) preparation of tank,
(c) laboratory test for properties of soil,
(d) conducting a series of experimental shaking table test,

1.2 Objective:
Objective of this study are

1. To determine the building model responses before and after excavation

adjacent to the structure.
2. To compare the maximum deflection of building model before and after
excavation.
3. To study the change of deformation due to different size of excavation
 4. To assess the amount of variations in deformation in the building model
due to change in footing system.

CHAPTER

TWO

2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 General
Seismic incidents in the recent decades have evoked extensive studies on
the effect of foundation-soil flexibility to the response of structures. In 1940,
Caltech professor Romeo Raoul Martel offered one of the earliest commentaries
in the US on the possible interaction between structures and soils (Martel, 1940).
His observations cited the results of studies on the 1933 Long Beach earthquake
together with observed effects on the Hollywood Storage Building as well as
Japanese researches of the1930s, and opined that damage to buildings on soft
soils, deep alluvium, or high elevations can be expected to be more widespread
than in buildings resting on firm or level ground. Again Housner (1957) on the
basis of actual strong motion records demonstrated that the Hollywood Storage
Building had measurable effects on motions nearby.

Hokemabadi et al. (2014) studied in his thesis the “Effect of Dynamic

Soil-Pile-Structure Interaction on Seismic Response of Mid-Rise Moment
Resisting Frames for typical soils and foundations”. In this study, in order to
provide a benchmark to verify and calibrate the numerical model as well as
experimentally investigate the influence of SSI on the seismic response of
buildings, a series of shaking table tests on the soil-foundation-structure models
are conducted at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS)structures
laboratory.

Azadi et al. (2007) did software analysis on “the influence of tunnels on

the nearby buildings under seismic Loadings conditions”, case study: shiraz
underground-iran. In this paper the impact of the excavation on the adjacent
structures under different earthquake loadings are studied and investigated. The
corrected accelerograms of the Naghan and El-Centro earthquakes have been
used for seismic analyses and a one and two stories buildings have been
modeled as the adjacent buildings in PLAXIS-2D. In this study since the impact of
the tunnels excavations on adjacent buildings under seismic conditions are only
concentrated, the radial deformation of the surrounding soils have been
neglected.

Rainer et al. (1975) presented a simplified method of analysis for the

determination of dynamic properties of single-story structures founded on flexible
foundations. He observed that the natural frequency of the fundamental mode of
a structure-foundation system is primarily dependent on the stiffness ratio of
structure to ground and the aspect ratio of height to width of foundation. In 1985
Wolf’s book on Dynamic soil-structure interaction was published providing a
rigorous and comprehensive treatment of the topic with applications both to
machine foundations and particularly to the seismic case.

Tremblay et.al (2012) describes the seismic experimental programs that

had been conducted in the new Hydro-Quebec Structural Engineering testing
facility at Ecole Polytechnique of Montreal, Canada. For study, a shake table test
setup was developed for multi-storey building models and testing was completed
on full-scale two-storey steel frame/wood sheathed shear wall and reduced scale
eight-storey reinforced concrete shear wall models. They also described the
seismic dynamic testing of large scale roof deck diaphragm specimens and real
time dynamic sub-structuring testing of seismic dampers and isolators for bridge
structures. The test setup used for the multi axis testing of rectangular bridge
piers subjected to bi-directional seismic loading was discussed. Future expansion
of the multi-directional testing capability of the laboratory is introduced.
Trombetti et.al (2013) presents the results of a comparison study
performed between the numerically predicted and experimentally observed
(through shaking table tests) dynamic behaviors of two scaled models of steel
frame buildings structures: one symmetric and one asymmetric in plan. The
shaking table tests were carried out. The models were designed and built to be
representative of steel buildings designed according to the Euro codes 3 and 8.
Both 1/5 scale models have a rectangular layout of 2000mm (direction) by
1500mm (y-direction). The models consist of two three-storey frames arranged
lengthways along the plan. Inter storey height is 700mm. Additional masses
(made up of lead bars) were placed on each storey in order to simulate the
appropriate mass distributions, to obtain the desired symmetric and asymmetric
models. The eccentricity between the center of mass and center of stiffness is
about 10% of the side length along the longitudinal (x-) direction. The models
were tested using as base inputs the EW and NS components of the El Centro
1940 earthquake ground motion simultaneously applied along the x and y
directions respectively. These seismic excitations were scaled at various levels in
order to first test the model in its linear elastic behavior and then to bring it to its
nonlinear behavior. The results obtained experimentally are compared with their
numerical counterparts, obtained through a three-dimensional linear and non-
linear modeling, performed using 3-node quadratic spatial beam elements for the
columns, 2-node linear spatial beam elements for the girders, and 4-node doubly
curved shell elements for the floor slabs. The numerical and experimental
comparison indicates that a careful numerical modeling of the structure
(especially of the connections between columns and floor slabs) is necessary to
correctly simulate and understand the experimental data.
 Magdi et al. (2016), investigate the important role of deep excavation
support and its effect on nearby existing buildings, especially those founded on
shallow foundations. They Excavation of basement or foundations induces
movements as a consequence of stress-release from earthwork and an increase
in overburden pressure in the retained ground. Ground movements throughout
excavation result in damage to existing structure located nearby. They conclude
that there are

Poulos and Chen (1996) did A two stage analysis involving the finite
element method and the boundary element method is used by for the study of the
pile response due to excavation induced lateral soil movement in clay layer. They
showed that the pile response is different from that caused by excavations which
are braced.

Korffet.al (2016),describes an analytical model relating axial pile

deformation to the vertical soil displacement resulting from the deep excavation
and also suggests ways to determine the pile response to lateral displacements.
They found that deep excavations may cause settlement and damage to adjacent
buildings even if they have founded on deep pile. The corresponding pile
deformations are determined by axial and lateral effects.

Sawwaf and Nazi (2011), presented the results of laboratory model tests
on the influence of deep excavation induced lateral soil movements on the
behavior of a model strip footing adjacent to the excavation and supported on
reinforced granular soil. Firstly, the response of the strip footings supported on
un-reinforced sand and subjected to vertical loads (which were constant during
the test) due to adjacent deep excavation-induced lateral soil movement were
obtained and the effects of the inclusion of geosynthetic reinforcement in
supporting soil on the model footing behavior under the same conditions were
investigated later. The factors take account of the value of the sustained footing
loads, the location of footing relative to the excavation, the affected depth of soil
due to deep excavation, and the relative density of sand. Test results indicate
that the inclusion of soil reinforcement in the supporting sand significantly
decreases both vertical settlements and the tilts of the footings due to the nearby
excavation. Based on the test results, the variation of the footing measured
vertical settlements with different parameters was presented.

Li et.al (2012) conducted the Shaking table model tests on dynamic

structure-soil-structure interaction during various excitations. For this purpose
they were prepared a flexible soil container to minimize the boundary effect. The
model scale was 1/15 for the fabrication of frame. For the tests, they adopted as
uniform silt clay as the model soil, 12-story cast-in-place reinforced concrete
frames as the superstructures, and 3 by 3 group piles as the foundations. For
seismic excitation El Centro wave and Shanghai bedrock wave were adopted.
They found that the adjacent structures would damage more serious than that in
single one. The dynamic response of the SSSI system, the strain response of
piles and contact pressure between the surfaces of the pile-soil are influenced by
the SSSI effect.
 CHAPTER
THREE

3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 General
In this study by using Multi Axial Shake Table dynamic analysis using the
ground accelerograms has been studied. Since it is aimed to study the impact of
a excavation on the response of the adjacent buildings, two different cases have
been carried out.

I) Firstly the seismic analysis of the buildings before making the trenches was
done. Accelerometers were used to get the acceleration of the buildings at
different elevations .Thereafter displacements are calculated from the
accelerations.

II) Secondly the dynamic analysis of the building under the same
accelerograms were implemented, while adjacent soil had already been
excavated. Then the deformations of the buildings again were calculated. To
study the effect of the surface excavation on the seismic deformation of the
buildings, those two deformations were compared with each other and
percentage of incremental value of deflection has been calculated.
For the fulfillment of desire objective the adopted methodology for the shake table
Test on a four story scaled frame, soil and soil container assembly has been
outlined by step by step procedure bellow.
Two type of experiment has been done on the shake table. One for calculating
the natural frequency of the scaled frame structure by free vibration test and
other for the soil structure assembly system to get the required responses using
the past recorded accelerograms.
Steps for Free vibration Test:
1. Selection of steel material for making frame structure
2. With four angle section and steel plate a frame was prepared by welded
connection
3. Proper bore whole were created on proper positions to mount the structure
on shake table.
4. Frame was mounted on the table and accelerometers were placed in
proper positions.
5. a rope pulley arrangement was installed for providing a sudden force to
the frame structure. One end of the rope was tied to the top of the frame
structure and one heavy weight was tied on the other end of the rope. the
rope was passed over a steel rod to act as a pulley.
 Figure 3.1: Rope tied system in Free vibration Test

Figure 3.2 : Hanging Load System in Free vibration Test

6. Rope was cut suddenly and the response were recorded by data
accusation system.
7. Further natural frequency was calculated.
Steps for recording soil structure assembly responses
1. Soil container was made in mechanical workshop of NIT Patna of
maximum size as far as possible. Soil container was made little bit smaller
than the original size of the table.

Figure 3.3 : Soil container

2. Soil was dug from proper site with proper specification.

3. Soil was tested in the geotechnical lab of NIT patna
4. Four angle section of proper size had been chosen and drilled in proper
places of proper sizes to mount the soil container on the table.
 Figure 3.4 : Angle section for mounting soil container

5. soil was compacted in 5 layer with the help of over burden loads.

Figure 3.6 : Over burden load Figure 3.5: Creation of

for compaction of soil Foundation Depth

6. Soil container was mounted on the table

7. For making of raft footing a wood sheet of thick 10mm was cut of proper
size.
8. For isolated footing steel plate of thick 3mm of proper size was cut and
fixed to the frame
9. Soil was excavated to mount the structure up to proper depth.
10. Frame with its footing arrangement was installed in soil.

Figure 3.7: Placing of Frame structure (Isolated Footing)

 Figure 3.8: Placing of frame
11. All the structure (Raft footing) accelerometers were
installed in proper positions.

Figure 3.9: Installation of accelerometers

Figure 3.11: Arrangement of Isolated footing
before making of Trench

Figure 3.12: Arrangement fo Raft Footing before

Excavation
12. Trenches were made according to the requirement.

Figure 3.14: Making of trenches Figure 3.13: Making of Trenches (Raft

(Isolated Footing) Footing)
 13. Shake table test was performed using previous earthquake data in both
trenches and without trenches.
14. Obtain data has been analyzed after the test.

CHAPTER

FOUR

4 MODELING

4.1 General
The reliability of model tests depends on whether the model can represent
the real behavior of the prototype system. In order to achieve the real behavior,
parameters of dynamic loads are controlled to meet the performance
requirements of shaking table. Requirements of construction and capacity of
equipment must be reachable in laboratory. A 4-story moment resisting frame
model is used as superstructure, and loose soil is taken as prototype soil. Thus,
the prototype system can be considered as a typical small building system. The
scales of model is 1:10.

4.2 Description of test container

The container was designed and constructed at the mechanical workshop of NIT
Patna. The experimental model tests were done in a test box of inside
dimensions of 780 mm ×550 mm in plan and 600 mm in depth. The model box
was a rigid rectangular containers made with mild steel plates of 3mm thickness.
Tank is having high weight and stiffened at different levels to avoid any
deformation, effect of filling of soil and loading during the testing. The model box
was a rigid rectangular container. The tank box was built sufficiently rigid to
achieve plane strain conditions by minimizing the out of plane ddformation. The
effect of sidewall friction may play an important role in the distribution of stresses
and strains within the model.

4.3 Prototype Model

For the purpose of practical experimental study, a 4-storey scaled structural

model is prepared. The model was adopted by an appropriate geometric scaling
factor. Therefore, considering the above-mentioned specifications of the shaking
table, a scaling factor (λ) of 1:10 is adopted in the scaled model for experimental
shaking table tests in this study. The total Height of the model is 1.2m with width
0.3m The model is made of angle section steel elements (25*25*3mm) and mild
steel
 0.3m

1.2m

0.3m

plates (2mm). The steel sections have been arranged in a rectangular pattern
with a spacing of 0.3m along the longitudinal direction and 0.3m along the
transverse direction. Mild steel plates have been used as floor slabs, which is
placed at different floor levels. The structure weights 18 kg. The presented four-
story building is mounted on a middle-sized shaking table platform located
National Institute of Technology (Patna). The Shaking table platform is used as
the base acceleration system to simulate the lateral forces and displacements
caused by earthquakes.

4.4 Simulation of Soil Boundary Condition

The simulation of soil boundary condition plays an important role in the

validity of the test design. In shaking table tests, model soil cannot be held in an
infinite dimension box. Due to wave reflection on the boundary and variation of
system vibration mode, certain error so called ‘box effect’ will occur in test results.
In order to reduce the box effect, a flexible container and the proper
constructional details are designed in model test.
 The model consists of two parts, soil and geometrical steel frame model.
Input parameters considered in the analysis included soil mechanical properties .
The prototype frame model was modeled as isotropic linearly-elastic materials.
For preparation of prototype frame model geometrical parameters are considered
in terms geometrical scaling factor 1:10.

4.5 Soil Properties

The soil is a critical part to deal with in the modeling procedure. Necessary soil
parameters were derived from laboratory tests to get a broad view of the
geotechnical properties. Laboratory tests were performed in different soil samples
which includes, drained and un-drained shear strength, Permeability test. A local
unbounded homogeneous soil volume of 200m x 100m x50m is considered with
the following engineering properties In general, the top 1.2 m of soil consists of
made ground overlying 15.65 m of soft clayey silt that will be required some form
of retention during excavation. The site topography is generally flat. Excavation
process was simulated considering ground water flow condition.

Table 1: Properties of soil used in this study

Soil Test Report

Soil type Dry unit Shear strength parameters Co-efficient of
weight permeability(m/s)
3
(KN/m ) Friction Angle Cohesion Kh Kv
2
(Degree) (KN/m )
Loose soil 17 25 20 10-5 10-5

4.6 Selection of adequate accelerograms

 The input ground motions in this experiment are represented by a set of real
earthquake. Test model was subjected to shaking event El Centro,
California1940. In this study combined El Centro(N-S,E-W,Up-Down) earthquake
were used.

4.7 Instrumentation and Data acquisition system

4.7.1 shake table

i) BISS 3 axes, 6 degree of freedom are state of the art solution for
seismic studies, including earthquake simulation.
ii) Any multi axis acceleration time history can be reproduced on the
system within the envelope of its technical specifications.
iii) This can be from harmonics to 6-axes acceleration records of actual
earthquakes.

Standard features: -

 Simulator table size – 1.5mX1.5m.

 Threaded mounting holes on the table top for specimen.
 Fatigue rated actuators.
 Low friction and Low maintenance swivels.
 Displacement range ±200 mm in each axes.
 Fully digitally controlled with servo loop update 2-5 KHz and DAQ rate of
0.5-2 KHz.
4.7.2 Accelerometers

Model: PCB Biaxial accelerometer

Frequency range: ± 5%

Measurement range: ± 490 m/s-2

Measurement accuracy: ± 0.006 m/s-2

Operating temperature: -54 to +121 ºC

4.8 Shaking Table Tests on the Fixed-Base Model Structures

i) A 3-D experimental model was prepared, with horizontal mild steel

plates as the floors and four vertical steel angle sections as the
columns.
ii) Grade Fe250 steel plates have adopted in the design; according to
Indian Standard (IS: 800-2007).
iii) The connections between the columns and floors are provided using
arch welding taking into consideration construction limitations and the
thickness of the steel plates.
iv) After the numerical modeling and design, the structural models are
constructed in-house.
v) The first stage of the shaking table tests is carried out under the fixed-
base condition in which the constructed structures are directly fixed on
top of the shaking table.
vi) shaking table tests are performed by applying scaled earthquake
acceleration records of previous earthquakes. Acceleration records of
 the El Centro (California, USA) 1940 earthquakes has been used to
perform shake table test of the fixed-base structural models.
vii) The installation of accelerometers were done in the model structures to
take the readings of the accelerations at different locations, which is
the outcome of accelerometer with the fixed-base models.
viii) The final setups of the tests, including the accelerometers at various
levels of the structural model for the 4-story isolated foundation system
on the shaking table. The peak accelerations experienced by the
structure is measured.

4.9 Shaking Table Tests on the Soil-Structure Model

i) In this test, soil container is first mounted on the shake table and soil
was compacted in 5 layers. Then the structural model is mounted on
the table.
ii) Acceleration transducers are placed on the model at desired locations.
iii) shake table tests were performed by applying scaled earthquake
acceleration records of previous earthquakes and by applying previous
earthquake records of El Centro (California, USA) has been used in the
shaking table test.
iv) The peak accelerations experienced by the structures is measured.
The responses of the model under forced vibration showed a
significant decrease in acceleration at the top of the structure.

4.10 Excavations
The shape and dimensions in plan and excavation depth can be sources
of risk. The higher the trench depth, increase the difficulties of achieving not only
work but also risks for themselves or for construction work in the neighborhood,
to their stability, to be taken into account. It is important to understand how the
ground movements due to excavations influence nearby structures. The
response of buildings to excavation-related ground movements is dependent on
the source and pattern of the ground movements, the type and condition of the
structure, and the mitigation measures employed to protect the building.
In this study 9 trenches have been made of different width and different depth. All
the trenches are of same length. Here length of all the trenches are equal to the
lateral as well as longitudinal dimension of the scaled model structure. Sizes of
the trenches and their offset from the edge of footing of the frame is show in
tabular form bellow.

Table 4.1: Size of the Trenches and its offset from edge of the footing of the
building
Size of the trenches and its offset from the edge of the building
Trench No Offset from Width(m) Depth(m) Length(m)
Building Edge
1 0.075
2 0.15 0.075 0.15
3 0.225
4 0.075
5 0.075 0.15 0.15 0.3
6 0.225
7 0.075
8 0 0.225 0.15
9 0.225
 CHAPTER

FIVE

5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

5.1 Natural Frequency

For finding out the natural frequency of the structure a free vibration test was
performed. Different location was selected for tying up the rope so that natural
frequency for different location can be determined. No of cycle in the response
divided by total time give the natural frequency. By averaging of all the result a
average natural frequency of value 14 was obtained.

5.2 Lateral Maximum Deflection Of Super structure:

The response of four story frame structure supported by Isolated and Raft footing
arrangement were obtained. The top floor level deflection is considered as
maximum deflection by observation of the test results. For the input earthquake
combined data of El-Centro, output response in all the direction i.e. in X and Y
are taken into consideration. Then Maximum lateral deflection are calculated and
summarized in both the direction X and Y. Maximum lateral deflections are
compared for different footing system and also for different size of trenches.
Deflections are compared in tabular form and graphically both.

Due to trenches the percentage in increment of maximum deflection with

respect to the maximum deflection without trenches are also compared in both
the tabular and graphical form.
The output response in X direction in Isolated footing arrangement

Acceleration Vs Time(with out Trench_x_isolated)

0.4
Acceleration(m/s2)

0.3

0.2

0.1

0 acceleration
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
-0.1

-0.2

-0.3
Time(s)

Acceleration Vs Time( Trench_0.075*0.075_x_isolated_El centro)

0.4
0.3
Acceleration(m/s2)

0.2
0.1
0 acceleration
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
Time(s)
 Acceleration Vs Time( Trench_0.075*0.15_x_isolated_El centro)
0.4
Acceleration(m/s2)
0.2

0
0 20 40 60 acceletration
-0.2

-0.4
Time(s)

Acceleration Vs Time( Trench_0.075*0.225_x_isolated_El centro)

0.4
0.3
Acceleration(m/s2)

0.2
0.1
0 acceleration
-0.1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

-0.2
-0.3
Time(s)
 Acceleration Vs Time( Trench_0.15*0.075_x_isolated_El centro)
0.4
0.3
Acceleration(m/s2)

0.2
0.1
0 acceleration
-0.1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

-0.2
-0.3 Time(s)

Acceleration Vs Time( Trench_0.15*0.15_x_isolated_El centro)

0.4
0.3
Acceleration(m/s2)

0.2
0.1
0 acceleration
-0.1 0 20 40 60 80

-0.2
-0.3
Time(s)
 Acceleration Vs Time( Trench_0.15*0.225_x_isolated_El centro)
0.4
0.3
Acceleration(m/s2)

0.2
0.1
0 acceleration
-0.1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
-0.2
-0.3
Time(s)

Acceleration Vs Time( Trench_0.225*0.075_x_isolated_El centro)

0.4
0.3
Acceleration(m/s2)

0.2
0.1
0 acceleration
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
Time(s)
 Acceleration Vs Time( Trench_0.225*0.15_x_isolated_El centro)
0.4
0.3
Acceleration(m/s2)

0.2
0.1
0 acceleration
0 20 40 60
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
Time(s)

Acceleration Vs Time( Trench_0.225*0.225_x_isolated_El centro)

0.4
0.3
Acceleration(m/s2)

0.2
0.1
0 acceleration
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
Time(s)
Output response in y direction in isolated footing arrangement

Acceleration Vs Time(with out Trench_y_isolated)

0.2
0.15
Acceleration(m/s2)

0.1
0.05
0
-0.05 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 acceleration
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
Time(s)

Acceleration Vs Time(Trench_0.075*0.075_y_isolated_El centro)

0.2
0.15
Acceleration(m/s2)

0.1
0.05
0
-0.05 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 acceleration
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
Time(s)
 Acceleration Vs Time( Trench_0.075*0.15_y_isolated_El centro)
0.2
0.15
Acceleration(m/s2)

0.1
0.05
0
-0.05 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 acceleration
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
Time(s)

Acceleration Vs Time( Trench_0.075*0.225_y_isolated_El centro)

0.2

0.1
Acceleration(m/s2)

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
acceleration
-0.1

-0.2

-0.3
Time(s)
 Acceleration Vs Time( Trench_0.15*0.075_y_isolated_El centro)
0.2
0.15
0.1
Acceleration(m/s2)

0.05
0
-0.05 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 acceleration
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
Time(s)

Acceleration Vs Time( Trench_0.15*0.15_y_isolated_El centro)

0.2
0.15
0.1
Acceleration(m/s2)

0.05
0
-0.05 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 acceleration
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
Time(s)
 Acceleration Vs Time( Trench_0.15*0.225_y_isolated_El centro)
0.2
0.15
0.1
Acceleration(m/s2)

0.05
0
-0.05 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 accelerarion
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
Time(s)

Acceleration Vs Time( Trench_0.225*0.075_y_isolated_El centro)

0.2
0.15
Acceleration(m/s2)

0.1
0.05
0
-0.05 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 acceleration
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
Time(s)
 Acceleration Vs Time( Trench_0.225*0.15_y_isolated_El centro)
0.2
0.15
0.1
Acceleration(m/s2)

0.05
0
-0.05 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 acceleration
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
Time(s)

Acceleration Vs Time( Trench_0.225*0.225_y_isolated_El centro)

0.2
0.15
Acceleration(m/s2)

0.1
0.05
0
-0.05 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 acceleration
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
Time(s)
Output response in x direction in raft footing arrangement

Acceleration Vs Time( with outTrench_x_Raft_El centro)

0.4

0.3

0.2
Acceleration(m/s2)

0.1

0 acceleration
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
-0.1

-0.2

-0.3
Time(s)

Acceleration Vs Time( Trench_0.075*0.075_x_Raft_El centro)

0.2
0.15
Acceleration(m/s2)

0.1
0.05
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 acceleration
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
Time(s)
 Acceleration Vs Time( Trench_0.075*0.15_y_Raft_El centro)
0.2
0.15
0.1
Acceleration(m/s2)

0.05
0
-0.05 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 acceleration
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
Time(s)

Acceleration Vs Time( Trench_0.075*0.225_x_Raft_El centro)

0.4

0.3
Acceleration(m/s2)

0.2

0.1

0 acceleration
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
-0.1

-0.2

-0.3
Time(s)
 Acceleration Vs Time( Trench_0.15*0.075_x_Raft_El centro)
0.4

0.3
Acceleration(m/s2)

0.2

0.1

0 acceleration
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
-0.1

-0.2

-0.3
Time(s)

Acceleration Vs Time( Trench_0.15*0.15_x_Raft_El centro)

0.4

0.3
Acceleration(m/s2)

0.2

0.1

0 acceleration
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
-0.1

-0.2

-0.3
Time(s)
 Acceleration Vs Time( Trench_0.15*0.225_x_Raft_El centro)
0.4

0.3
Acceleration(m/s2)

0.2

0.1

0 acceleration
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
-0.1

-0.2

-0.3
Time(s)

Acceleration Vs Time( Trench_0.225*0.075_x_Raft_El centro)

0.4

0.3
Acceleration(m/s2)

0.2

0.1

0 acceleration
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
-0.1

-0.2

-0.3
Time(s)
 Acceleration Vs Time( Trench_0.225*0.15_x_Raft_El centro)
0.4

0.3
Acceleration(m/s2)

0.2

0.1

0 acceleration
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
-0.1

-0.2

-0.3
Time(s)

Acceleration Vs Time( Trench_0.225*0.225_x_Raft_El centro)

0.4

0.3
Acceleration(m/s2)

0.2

0.1

0 acceleration
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
-0.1

-0.2

-0.3
Time(s)
Output response in y direction in Raft footing arrangement

Acceleration Vs Time( with outTrench_y_Raft_El centro)

0.2
0.15
0.1
Acceleration(m/s2)

0.05
0
-0.05 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 acceleration
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
Time(s)
 Acceleration Vs Time( Trench_0.075*0.075_y_Raft_El centro)
0.15

0.1
Acceleration(m/s2)

0.05

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
-0.05 acceleration

-0.1

-0.15

-0.2
Time(s)

Acceleration Vs Time( Trench_0.075*0.15_y_Raft_El centro)

0.2
0.15
0.1
Acceleration(m/s2)

0.05
0
-0.05 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 acceleration
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
Time(s)
 Acceleration Vs Time( Trench_0.075*0.225_y_Raft_El centro)
0.2
0.15
0.1
Acceleration(m/s2)

0.05
0
-0.05 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 acceleration
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25 Time(s)

Acceleration Vs Time( Trench_0.15*0.075_y_Raft_El centro)

0.2
0.15
0.1
Acceleration(m/s2)

0.05
0
-0.05 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 acceleration
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25 Time(s)
 Acceleration Vs Time( Trench_0.15*0.15_y_Raft_El centro)
0.2
0.15
0.1
Acceleration(m/s2)

0.05
0
-0.05 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
acceleration
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
-0.3
Time(s)

Acceleration Vs Time( Trench_0.15*0.15_y_Raft_El centro)

0.2
0.15
0.1
Acceleration(m/s2)

0.05
0
-0.05 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 acceleration
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
Time(s)
 Acceleration Vs Time( Trench_0.225*0.075_y_Raft_El centro)
0.2
0.15
Acceleration(m/s2)

0.1
0.05
0
-0.05 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 acceleration
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
Time(s)

Acceleration Vs Time( Trench_0.225*0.15_y_Raft_El centro)

0.5

0.4
Acceleration(m/s2)

0.3

0.2

0.1 acceleration

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
-0.1

-0.2
Time(s)
 Acceleration Vs Time( Trench_0.225*0.225_y_Raft_El centro)
0.2
0.15
0.1
Acceleration(m/s2)

0.05
0
-0.05 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 acceleration
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
Time(s)

Table 5.1: Maximum lateral Deflection in top Floor

Max Lateral Deflection of super structure for with and without Trenches
Trench Width Depth Max Deflection(m)
No (m) (m) Isolated Footing Raft Footing
In x Dire. In y Dire. In x Dire. In y
Dire.
0 0 0 0.001036638 0.00059823 0.001024 0.000613

1 0.075 0.075 0.00105575 0.00060114 0.00103 0.000615

2 0.15 0.001071017 0.00060423 0.0010361 0.000619

3 0.225 0.0010907 0.000610151 0.0010411 0.000623

4 0.15 0.075 0.0010789 0.000610064 0.0010391 0.000622

5 0.15 0.00110101 0.000615068 0.0010511 0.000629

6 0.225 0.00112423 0.000619907 0.00106541 0.000635

7 0.225 0.075 0.00111098 0.000616384 0.00106324 0.000634

8 0.15 0.00113364 0.000629065 0.00107851 0.00064

 9 0.225 0.00115394 0.000643795 0.00109215 0.00065

Note: All the trenches are having same length of 0.3m

Max Deflection Vs Depth in x direction(Isolated Footing)

0.00116
Max Deflection(m)

0.00114
0.00112
WIDTH 0.075m in x(isolated
0.0011 footing)
0.00108 WIDTH 0.15m in x(isolated
0.00106 footing)
0.00104 WIDTH 0.225m in x(isolated
0.00102 footing)
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Depth(m)

Max Deflection Vs Depth in y direction(Isolated

Footing)
0.00065
Max Deflection(m)

0.00064
0.00063 WIDTH .075m in y(isolated
0.00062 footing)

0.00061 WIDTH 0.15m in y(isolated

footing)
0.0006
WIDTH 0.225m in y(isolated
0.00059 footing)
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Depth(m)
 Max Deflection Vs Depth in x direction(Raft
Max Deflection(m)

Footing)
0.0011

0.00108
WIDTH 0.075m in x(Raft
0.00106 footing)
WIDTH 0.15m in x(Raft
0.00104
footing)
0.00102 WIDTH 0.225m in x(Raft
0 50 100 150 200 250 footing)

Depth(m)

Max Deflection Vs Depth in y direction(Raft

Footing)
Max Deflection(m)

0.00066
0.00065
0.00064 WIDTH .075m in y(Raft
footing)
0.00063
WIDTH 0.15m in y(Raft
0.00062 footing)
0.00061 WIDTH 0.225m in y(Raft
0 50 100 150 200 250 footing)

Depth(m)
Table 5.2: Percentage increases in lateral deflection in top floor level

Percentage increment of Max Lateral Deflection for with and without trenches
Trench Width(m) Depth(m) Percentage of increment Max Deflection
No Isolated Footing Raft Footing
In x Dire. In y Dire. In x Dire. In y Dire.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0.075 0.075 1.843652 0.486435 0.585938 0.326264

2 0.15 3.316394 1.002959 1.181641 0.978793

3 0.225 5.215128 1.992712 1.669922 1.631321

4 0.15 0.075 4.076833 1.978152 1.474609 1.468189

5 0.15 6.209689 2.814637 2.646484 2.610114

6 0.225 8.449623 3.623489 4.043945 3.588907

7 0.225 0.075 7.171452 3.034619 3.832031 3.425775

8 0.15 9.357365 5.154372 5.323242 4.404568

9 0.225 11.31562 7.616636 6.655273 6.035889

Note: All the trenches are having same length of 0.3m
 Percentage increment in deflection due to
trenches Vs Depth of Trenches
12

% increment W_0.075m in x
( isolated footing)
10
% increment W_0.15m in x (
isolated footing)
% increment W_0.225m in x
( isolated footing)
8
%increment in max displacement

% increment W_0.075m in y(
isolated footing)
% increment W_0.15m in y (
isolated footing)

6 % increment W_0.225m in y
( isolated footing)
% increment W_0.075m in x
( Raft footing)
% increment W_0.15m in x (
4 iRaft footing)
% increment W_0.225m in x
( Raft footing)
% increment W_0.075m in y(
2 Raft footing)
% increment W_0.15m in y (
Raft footing)
% increment W_0.225m in y
( Raft footing)
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Depth(m)

From the above stated results following observations are made bellow

i) With increasing width of the trench maximum deflection increases

 ii) With increasing depth of the trenches maximum deflection also
increases
iii) Maximum lateral deflection increases upto 11.31% for maximum size of
trench(0.225*0.225m) for isolated footing system
iv) Maximum lateral deflection increases upto 6.65% for maximum size of
trenches(0.225*0.225m) for raft footing system
v) Here trenches making less effect in adjacent building in case of raft
footing compared to isolated footing.
vi) Lateral deflections are more along X direction than y direction.

In this study trenches does not make adverse effect in the adjacent
building. It may possible with increase in size of excavation lateral deflection
increases greatly. For that case precaution must be taken for the safety of the
structure. This study is being done for the purpose that if some excavation is
needed for newly construction adjacent to a building and earthquake occurred at
the same time what will be the damage to the existing building. As Earthquake is
very rare and 11.31% is not a huge increment any temporary construction is not
needed. It is only suggested to complete the new construction as soon as
possible.
 CHAPTER

SIX

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Conclusions

In the shaking table tests in this thesis, a models structure was physically
simulated with geometric scaling factor of 1:10. A four storey frame for the
superstructure was adopted, representing the dynamic properties such as natural
frequency, number of stories, and density. Moreover, a soil container was
designed to simulate the free field soil response by minimizing the boundary
effects. Consequently, in the current shaking table tests, by adopting the same
soil properties, same superstructure, same input motions, and same test setup, a
clear comparison was provided between the structural responses for different
types of foundations (i.e. Isolated footing and Raft footing). A set of shaking
events 1940 El Centro Earthquake was applied. The physical modeling
techniques of frame structure and soil container were explained in this study in
details. This can be used to achieve accurate simulation in the 1g shaking table
test.

According to the shaking table test results, the maximum lateral deflection of
the four storey structure supported by Isolated and Raft foundations increases on
average by 11.31% and 6.65% in comparison to the structural system without
trenches respectively. Therefore, comparing different types of foundations,
Isolated foundations increase the lateral displacements of the superstructure in
comparison with the Raft foundation. The lateral displacements reduce in the
direction in which trenches were not made, comparison to the direction, trenches
were made. Consequently, the choice of the foundation type is dominant and
should be included in the investigation on the superstructure response during
shaking excitations.

6.2 Recommendations for future work

Since the purpose of this work was to study the influence of different types of
foundations on the seismic response of regular moment resisting building frames,
further numerical and experimental studies plus developing new design
procedures to consider the effect of the foundation type are recommended.
Future research work may be carried out in the following areas:

i) Further shake table test can be done considering different foundation

type mainly on floating pile foundation and Raft-pile foundation system
ii) Result of the current study can be extended considering the different
foundation characteristics such as foundation sixe, embedded length
etc.
iii) Perform further investigation by Changing the depth of foundations and
height of the model structure.
iv) Conduct a experimental study by filling water in the trench. It will show
the characteristics of response on existing structure due to rain water
accumulation in the excavation which is created for a new construction
v) Extend the experiment by changing the soil type such as hard soil, rock
soil etc. which shows the effect on the responses for different regions.