Search

Publisher Copyright: © 2021 American Chemical Society. All rights reserved. Copyright: Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved. Thermal atomic layer etching (ALEt) of amorphous Al2O3 was performed by alternate exposures of niobium pentafluoride (NbF5) and carbon tetrachloride (CCl4). The ALEt of Al2O3 is observed at temperatures from 380 to 460 °C. The etched thickness and the etch rate were determined using spectroscopic ellipsometry and verified by X-ray reflectivity. The maximum etch rate of about 1.4 Å/cycle and a linear increase of the removed film thickness with the number of etch cycles were obtained at a temperature of 460 °C. With the help of density functional theory calculations, an etch mechanism is proposed where NbF5 converts part of the Al2O3 surface into an AlF3 or aluminum oxyfluoride layer, which upon reacting with CCl4 is converted into volatile halide-containing byproducts, thus etching away the converted portion of the material. Consistent with this, a significant surface fluorine content of about 55 at. % was revealed when the elemental depth profile analysis of a thick NbF5-Treated Al2O3 layer was performed by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. The surface morphology of the reference, pre-, and postetch Al2O3 surfaces was analyzed using atomic force microscopy and bright-field transmission electron microscopy. Moreover, it is found that this process chemistry is able to etch Al2O3 selectively over silicon dioxide (SiO2) and silicon nitride (Si3N4).

The effects of soil-structure interaction (SSI) are investigated through careful interpretation of available data from instrumented buildings and recently performed forced vibration experiments on instrumented buildings and test structures. Conventional engineering practice typically ignores soil-structure interaction (SSI) during evaluation of the seismic demand on buildings based on the perception that consideration of SSI will reduce demands on structures and ignoring SSI effects will cause seismic demands to be conservatively biased. I show that it is not always conservative to ignore SSI effects. Analysis of field performance data is undertaken to provide deeper insights into SSI phenomena ranging from kinematic effects on foundation ground motions to mobilized foundation stiffness and damping across a wide range of frequencies and loading levels. These data are interpreted to evaluate strengths and limitations of engineering analysis procedures for SSI. Foundation damping incorporates the combined effects of energy loss due to waves propagating away from the vibrating foundation in translational and rotational modes (radiation damping), as well as hysteretic action in the soil (material damping). Previous foundation damping models were developed for rigid circular foundations on homogenous halfspace and were often expressed using confusing or incomplete functions. Starting from first principles, we derive fundamental expressions for foundation damping in which foundation impedance components representing radiation damping and the soil hysteretic damping ratio appear as variables, providing maximum flexibility to the analyst. We utilize these general expressions with impedance solutions for rectangular-footprint foundations to: (1) compare predicted foundation damping levels with those from field case histories and (2) develop new foundation damping relationships for application in the building code (NEHRP Provisions). Ground motions at the foundation levels of structures differ from those in the free-field as a result of inertial and kinematic interaction effects. Inertial interaction effects tend to produce narrow-banded ground motion modification near the fundamental period of the soil-structure system, whereas kinematic effects are relatively broad-banded but most significant at high frequencies. Kinematic interaction effects can be predicted using relatively costly finite element analyses with incoherent input or simplified models. The simplified models are semi-empirical in nature and derived from California data. These simplified models are the basis for seismic design guidelines used in the western United States, such as ASCE-41 and NIST (2012). We compile some available data from building and ground instrumentation arrays in Japan for comparison to these two sets of models. We demonstrate that the model predictions for the sites under consideration are very similar to each other for modest foundation sizes (equivalent radii under about 50 m). However, the data show that both approaches overestimate the transfer function ordinates relative to those from a subset of the Japanese buildings having pile foundations. The misfit occurs at frequencies higher than the first-mode resonant frequency and appears to result from pile effects on kinematic interaction that are not accounted for in current models.A complete model of a soil-foundation-structure system for use in response history analysis requires modification of input motions relative to those in the free-field to account for kinematic interaction effects, foundation springs and dashpots to represent foundation-soil impedance, and a structural model. The recently completed NIST (2012) report developed consistent guidelines for evaluation of kinematic interaction effects and foundation impedance for realistic conditions. We implement those procedures in seismic response history analyses for two instrumented buildings in California, one a 13-story concrete-moment frame building with two levels of basement and the other a 10-story concrete shear wall core building without embedment. We develop three-dimensional baseline models (MB) of the building and foundation systems (including SSI components) that are calibrated to reproduce observed responses from recorded earthquakes. SSI components considered in the MB model include horizontal and vertical springs and dashpots that represent the horizontal translation and rotational impedance, kinematic ground motion variations from embedment and base slab averaging, and ground motion variations over the embedment depth of basements. We then remove selected components of the MB models one at a time to evaluate their impact on engineering demand parameters (EDPs) such as inter-story drifts, story shear distributions, and floor accelerations. We find that a "bathtub" model that retains all features of the MB approach except for depth-variable motions provides for generally good above-ground superstructure responses, but biased demand assessments in subterranean levels. Other common approaches using a fixed-based representation can produce poor results.To expand the data inventory of response histories to evaluate SSI, we performed forced vibration testing of a well-instrumented steel and reinforced concrete structure that has removable bracing. The testing was performed at three sites with varying soil conditions. I describe testing at one of the sites located in Garner Valley, California. During testing at this site an adjacent structure and local concrete slab were also instrumented in addition to the test structure. I describe the testing setup, schemes, instrumentation, and data processing techniques. The data are analyzed to evaluate the stiffness and damping associated with the foundation-soil interaction, revealing linear-elastic behavior at low forcing levels characterized by smaller stiffnesses and both lower and higher damping than is predicted by classical models. Nonlinear behavior at stronger shaking levels includes pronounced reductions of stiffness and changes in damping. Interestingly, kinematic interaction effects observed on an adjacent slab excited principally by surface waves were of a similar character to expectations from analytical models for body wave excitation from earthquakes. If verified, these results could lead to site- and foundation-specific test methods for evaluating kinematic interaction effects.

Soil-structure interaction (SSI) analysis evaluates the collective response anddynamic interplay of three linked systems: the structure, the foundation, and the soil underlying and surrounding the foundation. Problems associated with practical application of SSI for building structures are rooted in a poor understanding of fundamental SSI principles. Implementation in practice is hindered by a literature that is difficult to understand, and codes and standards that contain limited guidance and, in some cases, are proprietary. A recent report published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) provides a mechanism for advancing the state of practice in SSI for practicing engineers. It offers a synthesis of the body of SSI literature, distilled into a concise narrative and harmonized under a consistent set ofvariables and units. Techniques are described by which SSI phenomena such as foundation-soil compliance and damping (inertial interaction), and foundation-to-free-field ground motion change (kinematic interaction) can be evaluated in engineering practice. Specific recommendations for modeling these and other seismic soil-structure interaction effects on building structures are provided. The resulting recommendations are illustrated and tested though simulations of two example buildings with earthquake recordings.

A complete model of a soil-foundation-structure system for use in response history analysis requires modification of input motions relative to those in the free-field to account for kinematic interaction effects, foundation springs and dashpots to represent foundation-soil impedance, and a structural model. The recently completed ATC-83 project developed consistent guidelines for evaluation of kinematic interaction effects and foundation impedance for realistic conditions. We implement those procedures in seismic response history analyses for two instrumented buildings in California, one a 13-story concrete-moment frame building with two levels of basement and the other a 10-story concrete shear wall core building without embedment. We develop three-dimensional baseline models (MB) of the building and foundation systems (including SSI components) that are calibrated to reproduce observed responses from recorded earthquakes. SSI components considered in the MB model include horizontal and vertical springs and dashpots that represent the horizontal translation and rotational impedance, kinematic ground motion variations from embedment and base slab averaging, and ground motion variations over the embedment depth of basements. We then remove selected components of the MB models one at a time to evaluate their impact on engineering demand parameters (EDPs) such as inter-story drifts, story shear distributions, and floor accelerations. We find that a “bathtub” model that retains all features of the MB approach except for depth-variable motions provides for generally good above-ground superstructure responses, but biased demand assessments in subterranean levels. Other common approaches using a fixed-based representation can produce poor results.

Ground motions at the foundation levels of structures differ from those in the free-field as a result of inertial and kinematic interaction effects. Inertial interaction effects tend to produce narrow-banded ground motion modification near the fundamental period of the soil-structure system, whereas kinematic effects are relatively broad-banded and concentrated at high frequencies. Kinematic interaction effects can be predicted using relatively costly finite element analyses with incoherent input or simplified models. The simplified models are semi-empirical in nature and derived from California data. These simplified models are the basis for seismic design guidelines used in the western United States, such as ASCE-41 and a pending report published by NIST. We compile some available data from building and ground instrumentation arrays in Japan for comparison to these two sets of models. We demonstrate that the model predictions for the sites under consideration are very similar to each other for modest foundation sizes (equivalent radii under about 50 m). However, the data show that both approaches overestimate the transfer function ordinates relative to those from Japanese data. This indicates that the semi-empirical models currently in use are conservative relative to these data sets. We speculate as to possible causes for the observed discrepancies.