Study on the Influence of a Rubber-Modified Soil Isolation Layer on the Isolation Performance of Frame Structures with Different Foundation Forms
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. ABAQUS Finite Element Calculation Model
Model Construction
3. Ground Motion Record Selection and Input
3.1. Ground Motion Record Selection
3.2. Ground Motion Record Input
3.3. Calculation Scheme
4. Calculation Results and Analysis
4.1. Influence of Base Contact Area on Isolation Effect
4.1.1. Acceleration Response Analysis of the Top Layer of the Structure
- (1)
- Common points: the shape, duration, and time of the peak acceleration curve of vertex acceleration for the two foundation forms are similar. This indicates that different foundation forms have no influence on the shape, duration, and peak time of the acceleration curve of the frame structure when the ground motion record used as input is the same.
- (2)
- Different points: there are notable differences in the peak value of the peak acceleration–time history curve of the structure under the varying foundation form working conditions. The peak value of the acceleration–time history curve for the structure with the raft foundation is lower compared to that with the strip foundation, implying that the structure with the raft foundation exhibits a more effective seismic mitigation effect. The findings demonstrate that increasing the contact area between the base and the rubber-particle-modified soil isolation layer enhances the damping performance of the frame structure.
4.1.2. Comparison of the Column Height–Maximum Displacement Curve
- (1)
- Common point: the change trend of the column height–maximum displacement curve is consistent under both foundation forms, where displacement increases with a rise in column height. Additionally, the maximum displacement of the observation column decreases with an increase in the thickness of the rubber-particle-modified soil isolation layer for both foundation forms. This indicates that increasing the thickness of the rubber-particle-modified soil isolation layer is effective in reducing the maximum displacement of the frame structure.
- (2)
- Different points: there is a noticeable gap between the curves of column height and maximum displacement for the two foundation forms with the same thickness of the rubber-particle-improved soil layer. The maximum displacement of the frame structure with the raft foundation at the same height is smaller than that of the frame structure with the strip foundation. This observation suggests that augmenting the contact area between the base and the rubber-particle-improved soil isolation layer effectively diminishes the maximum displacement of the frame structure. Furthermore, as the thickness of the rubber-particle-modified soil isolation layer increases, the gap between the column height–maximum displacement curves for the two foundation forms widens. This highlights that the influence of the contact area between the different foundations and the rubber-particle-modified soil isolation layer on the height–maximum displacement of the frame structure columns becomes more pronounced.
4.1.3. Column Height—Maximum Shear Stress Curve
- (1)
- Common point: the trend in the interlayer shear curve is consistent for both foundation forms, where the maximum shear stress decreases with increasing height. Furthermore, the interlayer shear stress decreases with an increase in the thickness of the rubber-particle-modified soil isolation layer, suggesting that augmenting the thickness of the rubber-particle-modified soil layer effectively reduces the maximum shear stress of the frame structure.
- (2)
- Different point: in the rubber-modified soil isolation layer of the same thickness, the interlayer shear stress of the raft foundation frame structure is smaller than that of the strip foundation frame structure. This indicates that increasing the contact area between the base and the rubber-modified soil isolation layer can effectively reduce the interlayer shear stress of the frame structure. With an increase in the thickness of the rubber-modified soil isolation layer, the distance between the interlayer shear stress curves for the two foundation forms also increases. This indicates that increasing the thickness of the rubber-modified soil isolation layer can amplify the difference in contact areas between different substrates.
4.2. Influence of Isolation Layer Thickness on Isolation Effect
4.2.1. Acceleration Response Analysis of the Top Layer of the Structure
- (1)
- Common points: under both foundation forms (raft foundation and strip foundation), the shape, duration, and peak acceleration–time history curve of frame structures with varying thicknesses of the rubber-particle-modified soil isolation layer are similar. The peak acceleration–time history curve of frame structures with a rubber-particle-modified soil isolation layer is smaller than that of frame structures without a rubber-particle-modified soil isolation layer.
- (2)
- Different points: the peak value of the peak acceleration–time history curve of the frame structure gradually decreases with an increase in the thickness of the rubber-particle-modified soil isolation layer. This indicates that increasing the thickness of the rubber-particle-improved soil isolation layer effectively reduces the peak acceleration of the frame structure, enhancing its isolation effect. It is evident from the figure that the peak acceleration–time history curve of the frame structure with a 0.6 m and 0.8 m thick rubber-particle-modified soil isolation layer is significantly lower than that of the frame structure with a 0.4 m rubber-particle-modified soil isolation layer. However, the distinction between the peak acceleration–time history curves of the frame structures with a 0.6 m and 0.8 m thick rubber-particle-modified soil isolation layer is not pronounced.
4.2.2. Comparison of Column Height–Peak Absolute Displacement
- (1)
- Common points: the trend in the column height–maximum displacement curve for each thickness of the rubber-particle-modified soil isolation layer is consistent across both foundation types, with displacement increasing with height.
- (2)
- Different points: with the increase in the thickness of the rubber-particle-modified soil isolation layer, the lateral horizontal displacement at the same height gradually decreases. When the thickness of the rubber-particle-modified soil isolation layer is less than 0.6 m, the lateral horizontal displacement of the frame structure decreases significantly. However, when the thickness of the rubber-particle-modified soil isolation layer is greater than or equal to 0.6 m, the lateral horizontal displacement of the frame structure decreases slightly. The results demonstrate that increasing the thickness of the rubber-particle-modified soil isolation layer effectively reduces the lateral horizontal displacement of the frame structure. When the thickness of rubber-particle-modified soil isolation layer reaches 0.6 m, the damping effect approaches a limit, and further increasing the thickness of the rubber-particle-modified soil isolation layer only slightly reduces the lateral horizontal displacement of the frame structure.
4.3. Influence of Ground Motion Intensity on the Isolation Effect
4.3.1. Acceleration Response Analysis of the Top Layer of the Structure
- (1)
- Common points: when applying ground motion records of varying intensities to the frame structure, both with and without a 0.4 m thick rubber-particle-modified soil isolation layer, the shape, duration, and time of the peak acceleration–time history curve are similar. However, the peak acceleration of the frame structure with a rubber-particle-modified soil isolation layer is consistently lower than that of the frame structure without a rubber-particle-modified soil isolation layer.
- (2)
- Different points: as the intensity of the input ground motion record increases, the peak acceleration of both the frame structure without the rubber-particle-modified soil isolation layer and the frame structure with the 0.4 m thick rubber-particle-modified soil isolation layer also increases. With an increase in the intensity of the input ground motion record, the frame structure with a rubber-particle-modified soil isolation layer experiences a smaller rise in peak acceleration compared to the structure without a rubber-particle-modified soil isolation layer. The disparity in vertex acceleration is most pronounced at the peak of peak acceleration. This suggests that a heightened ground motion intensity amplifies the peak acceleration of the frame structure. However, the frame structure with a rubber-particle-modified soil isolation layer exhibits lower peak acceleration and a superior damping effect.
4.3.2. Column Height—Maximum Displacement and Maximum Shear Stress
4.4. Influence of Ground Motion Spectrum Characteristics on the Isolation Effect
Comparison of Fourier Spectrum Curves
- (1)
- Image comparison results: the Fourier spectrum of the structural response closely aligns with that of the input ground motion. However, there is a disparity between the Fourier spectrum of the input artificial ground motion record and the structural response. The fundamental frequency in the Fourier spectrum related to the vertex acceleration–time history of the frame structure is similar for ground motion records with comparable spectral characteristics. However, there is a discernible difference in the Fourier amplitude corresponding to the fundamental frequency. Specifically, the Fourier amplitude when subjected to artificial ground motion records is higher than the corresponding amplitude under the influence of the Friuli ground motion records and San Fernando ground motion records.
- (2)
- The observed discrepancy may be attributed to the distinctive Fourier curve shape of the input artificial ground motion record, which diverges from the Fourier spectrum of the structural response. Due to absence of a rubber-particle-modified soil isolation layer, the frame structure experiences a heightened seismic response, accumulating internal damage and generating cracks. This, in turn, leads to a reduction in the natural frequency. Additionally, under the influence of the three ground motion records, both the Fourier spectrum of the structural response and the Fourier spectrum of the input ground motion decrease. This occurs because the presence of the rubber-particle-modified soil isolation layer creates a milder soil–structure interaction, resulting in reduced nonlinear residual deformation of the soil and a corresponding decrease in the amplitude of the fundamental frequency.
5. Conclusions
- (1)
- Through a comparison of the peak acceleration–time history curve and the column height–maximum displacement curve of a frame structure with a raft foundation and a strip foundation, it is concluded that a larger contact area between the foundation and the rubber-modified soil layer, especially with thicknesses of 0.4 m, 0.6 m, and 0.8 m, leads to an enhanced isolation effect of the rubber-modified soil.
- (2)
- In the frame structure with artificial ground motion records as input, by comparing the peak acceleration–time history curve and maximum column–displacement angle for four finite element models with rubber-particle-modified soil layers of 0 m, 0.4 m, 0.6 m, and 0.8 m thickness, it is concluded that as the thickness of the rubber-modified soil layer increases, the isolation effect of the structure improves. The increase in the isolation effect is no longer significant when the thickness exceeds 0.6 m.
- (3)
- Different ground motion records with varying peak accelerations were applied to the finite element model. Once comparisons were made between the peak acceleration–time history curve of the structure, the column height-maximum displacement curve, and the column height–maximum shear stress curve, it was concluded that the peak acceleration of the frame structure increased with an increased peak acceleration of the ground motion records. Laying a rubber-particle-modified soil isolation layer can reduce the amplitude of the peak acceleration of the frame structure with an increase in the intensity of the input ground motion record.
- (4)
- Three different types of ground motion records were utilized as inputs for the finite element models, each with the same peak acceleration. The Fourier spectrum of the frame structure’s response to these three ground motion records was then compared with the Fourier spectrum curve of the input seismic motion. It was concluded that ground motion records with abundant low frequencies resulted in an intense structural dynamic response and higher Fourier amplitude. The soil–structure interaction was smoother when rubber particles were installed, and the Fourier spectrum amplitude of the structure was lower than that of the input seismic motion.
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Soltani, A.; Deng, A.; Taheri, A.; Sridharan, A. Swell-Shrink-Consolidation Behavior of Rubber-Reinforced Expansive Soils. Geotech. Test. J. 2019, 42, 761–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raeesi, R.; Soltani, A.; King, R.; Disfani, M.M. Field performance monitoring of waste tire-based permeable pavements. Transp. Geotech. 2020, 24, 100384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akbarimehr, D.; Eslami, A.; Esmail, A. Geotechnical behaviour of clay soil mixed with rubber waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 271, 122632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akbarimehr, D.; Rahai, A.; Eslami, A.; Karakouzian, M. Deformation Characteristics of Rubber Waste Powder-Clay Mixtures. Sustainability 2023, 15, 12384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saparudin, N.A.; Kasim, N.; Abu Taib, K.; Azahar, W.N.I.W.; Kasim, N.A.; Ali, M. Improvement of Problematic Soil Using Crumb Rubber Tyre. IIUM Eng. J. 2022, 23, 72–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sadek, D.M.; El-Attar, M.M. Structural behavior of rubberized masonry walls. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 89, 174–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.; Chai, S.Q.; Cai, D.B.; Wang, W.; Li, X.P.; Liu, J.H. Experimental study on shear mechanical properties of improved loess based on rubber particle incorporation and EICP technology. Front. Earth Sci. 2023, 11, 127012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, T.L.; Dong, C.S.; Fu, Z.P.; Li, S. Study on Seismic Response and Damping Performance of Tunnels with Double Shock Absorption Layer. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2022, 26, 2490–2508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Srijit, B.; Aniruddha, S.; Reddy, G.R. Performance of sand and shredded rubber tire mixture as a natural base isolator for earthquake protection. Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib. 2015, 14, 683–693. [Google Scholar]
- Hazarika, H.; Kohama, E.; Sugano, T. Underwater Shake Table Tests on Waterfront Structures Protected with Tire Chips Cushion. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008, 134, 1706–1719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alhan, C.; Gavin, H. A parametric study of linear and non-linear passively damped seismic isolation systems for buildings. Eng. Struct. 2004, 26, 485–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- D’Amato, M.; Gigliotti, R.; Laguardia, R. Seismic isolation for protecting historical buildings: A case study. Front. Built Environ. 2019, 5, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amorosi, A.; Boldini, R.; Elia, R. Parametric study on seismic ground response by finite element modelling. Comput. Geotech. 2010, 37, 515–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schanze, E.; Schanze, E.; Gomez, M.; Lopez, A. Numerical study of the seismic response of an instrumented building with underground stories. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 3190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adampira, M.; Derakhshandi, M.; Ghalandarzadeh, A. Experimental study on seismic response characteristics of liquefiable soil layers. J. Earthq. Eng. 2021, 25, 1287–1315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cui, G.Y.; Wei, H.H.; Ning, M.Q.; Zhang, J.J. Analysis on influence of thickness of shock absorption layer on shock absorption effect of urban shallow-buried rectangular tunnel. J. Saf. Sci. Technol. 2020, 16, 137–142. [Google Scholar]
- Li, S.T.; Bao, X.; Liu, J.B.; Wang, F.; Wang, D. Improvement research on the stability of explicit integration algorithms with 3D viscoelastic artificial boundary elements. Eng. Comput. 2023, 40, 494–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brunet, S.; Llera, D.L.C.J.; Kausel, E. Non-linear modeling of seismic isolation systems made of recycled tire-rubber. Soil. Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2016, 85, 134–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quan, D.Z.; Chai, S.B.; Wang, Y.L.; Fan, Z.S.; Bu, Y.H. 3-D Numerical Simulation of Seismic Response of the Induced Joint of a Subway Station. Buildings 2023, 13, 1244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, Y.; Shi, X.L.; Wang, Y.H.; Zhang, Y.C.; Jin, N. Experiment Scheme Design for Rural Isolation Masonry Structure with Shaking Table. Technol. Earthq. Disaster Prev. 2016, 11, 297–305. [Google Scholar]
- Cao, W.L.; Zhou, Z.Y.; Wang, Q.; Dong, H.Y.; Zhang, J.W. Experimental study on base vibration isolation and anti-seismic masonry structure in rural areas by shaking table test. J. Vib. Shock 2011, 30, 209–213. [Google Scholar]
- GB 55008-2021; General Code for Concrete Structures. China Planning Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2021.
- Du, X.L.; Zhao, M.; Wang, J.T. Artificial stress boundary conditions for near field wave simulation. J. Mech. 2006, 1, 49–56. [Google Scholar]
- Du, X.L.; Zhao, M. Seismic response analysis method of arch dam based on viscoelastic boundary. J. Water Conserv. 2006, 9, 1063–1069. [Google Scholar]
- Zhao, M.; Gao, Z.D.; Du, X.L.; Wang, J.J.; Zhong, Z.L. Response spectrum method for seismic soil-structure interaction analysis of underground structure. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2019, 17, 5339–5363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Material | Density (kg/m3) | Modulus of Elasticity (MPa) | Poisson’s Ratio | Damping Ratio |
---|---|---|---|---|
Concrete | 2500 | 32,500 | 0.2 | 0.05 |
Foundation soil | 1960 | 109.87 | 0.26 | 0.05 |
Rubber-modified soil | 1460 | 50 | 0.49 | 0.3 |
Steel reinforcement bar | 7850 | 206,000 | 0.3 | 0.04 |
Project Status | Type of Foundation | Ground Motion Record | Seismic Isolation Layer Thickness | Project Status | Type of Foundation | Ground Motion Record | Seismic Isolation Layer Thickness |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Raft foundation | Friuli | 0 m | 13 | Strip foundation | Friuli | 0 m |
2 | Raft foundation | Friuli | 0.4 m | 14 | Strip foundation | Friuli | 0.4 m |
3 | Raft foundation | Friuli | 0.6 m | 15 | Strip foundation | Friuli | 0.6 m |
4 | Raft foundation | Friuli | 0.8 m | 16 | Strip foundation | Friuli | 0.8 m |
5 | Raft foundation | San Fernando | 0 m | 17 | Strip foundation | San Fernando | 0 m |
6 | Raft foundation | San Fernando | 0.4 m | 18 | Strip foundation | San Fernando | 0.4 m |
7 | Raft foundation | San Fernando | 0.6 m | 19 | Strip foundation | San Fernando | 0.6 m |
8 | Raft foundation | San Fernando | 0.8 m | 20 | Strip foundation | San Fernando | 0.8 m |
9 | Raft foundation | Artificial ground motion record | 0 m | 21 | Strip foundation | Artificial ground motion record | 0 m |
10 | Raft foundation | Artificial ground motion record | 0.4 m | 22 | Strip foundation | Artificial ground motion record | 0.4 m |
11 | Raft foundation | Artificial ground motion record | 0.6 m | 23 | Strip foundation | Artificial ground motion record | 0.6 m |
12 | Raft foundation | Artificial ground motion record | 0.8 m | 24 | Strip foundation | Artificial ground motion record | 0.8 m |
Seismic Isolation Layer Thickness | Peak Acceleration of Strip Foundation (m/s2) | Peak Acceleration of Raft Foundation (m/s2) | Reduction of Peak Acceleration (%) |
---|---|---|---|
0 m | 3.26 | 3.24 | 0.6 |
0.4 m | 2.87 | 2.69 | 6.2 |
0.6 m | 2.54 | 2.32 | 8.6 |
0.8 m | 2.26 | 2.03 | 10.1 |
Seismic Isolation Layer Thickness | Maximum Displacement of Strip Foundation (m) | Maximum Displacement of Raft Foundation (m) | Maximum Displacement Difference (m) |
---|---|---|---|
0 m | 0.0374 | 0.0364 | 0.0010 |
0.4 m | 0.0332 | 0.0312 | 0.0020 |
0.6 m | 0.03 | 0.0266 | 0.0034 |
0.8 m | 0.0278 | 0.0238 | 0.0040 |
Type of Foundation | Peak Acceleration (m/s2) | Reduction (%) | Peak Acceleration (m/s2) | Reduction (%) | Peak Acceleration (m/s2) | Reduction (%) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
No Seismic Isolation Layer Thickness | 0.4 m Seismic Isolation Layer Thickness | No Seismic Isolation Layer Thickness | 0.6 m Seismic Isolation Layer Thickness | No Seismic Isolation Layer Thickness | 0.8 m Seismic Isolation Layer Thickness | ||||
Raft foundation | 4.8772 | 2.6089 | 46.5 | 4.8772 | 2.3577 | 51.65 | 4.8772 | 2.254 | 53.78 |
Strip foundation | 4.9233 | 2.707 | 45.01 | 4.9233 | 2.4712 | 49.8 | 4.9233 | 2.367 | 51.92 |
Displacement Angle of the Structure (%) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Type of Foundation | No Seismic Isolation Layer Thickness | 0.4 m Seismic Isolation Layer Thickness | 0.6 m Seismic Isolation Layer Thickness | 0.8 m Seismic Isolation Layer Thickness |
Raft foundation | 0.61 | 0.468 | 0.423 | 0.415 |
Strip foundation | 0.62 | 0.486 | 0.434 | 0.428 |
Ground Motion Record Intensity | Peak Acceleration of No Seismic Isolation Layer Thickness (m/s2) | Peak Acceleration of 0.4 m Seismic Isolation Layer Thickness (m/s2) | Reduction (%) |
---|---|---|---|
0.1 g | 3.24 | 2.69 | 16.97 |
0.2 g | 4.8772 | 2.6089 | 46.5 |
0.4 g | 10.13 | 4.96 | 51.03 |
Peak Acceleration of Ground Motion Record | Maximum Displacement of Observation Columns in Structures without Isolation Layers (m) | Maximum Displacement of Observation Column for 0.4 m Isolation Layer Structure (m) | Reduction (%) |
---|---|---|---|
0.1 g | 0.0364 | 0.0312 | 14.28 |
0.2 g | 0.0423 | 0.0356 | 15.83 |
0.4 g | 0.0485 | 0.0403 | 16.9 |
Peak Acceleration of Ground Motion Record | Maximum Shear Stress of Observed Column in Structures without Isolation Layers (Pa) | Maximum Shear Stress of Observed Column with 0.4 m Isolation Layer Structure (Pa) | Reduction (%) |
---|---|---|---|
0.1 g | 22765 | 21674 | 4.79 |
0.2 g | 26694 | 22348 | 16.28 |
0.4 g | 32267 | 26549 | 17.72 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Chai, S.; Chen, Y.; Cai, D.; Wang, W.; Chen, Q.; Liu, J. Study on the Influence of a Rubber-Modified Soil Isolation Layer on the Isolation Performance of Frame Structures with Different Foundation Forms. Buildings 2023, 13, 2584. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13102584
Chai S, Chen Y, Cai D, Wang W, Chen Q, Liu J. Study on the Influence of a Rubber-Modified Soil Isolation Layer on the Isolation Performance of Frame Structures with Different Foundation Forms. Buildings. 2023; 13(10):2584. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13102584
Chicago/Turabian StyleChai, Shaoqiang, Yong Chen, Dongbo Cai, Wei Wang, Qihao Chen, and Jinhao Liu. 2023. "Study on the Influence of a Rubber-Modified Soil Isolation Layer on the Isolation Performance of Frame Structures with Different Foundation Forms" Buildings 13, no. 10: 2584. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13102584