SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Challenge Journal of Structural Mechanics / 2017 / Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 2

Modelling of non-linear seismic ground response using elasto-plastic constitutive framework within a finite element soil column model

Azeddine CHEHAT
Zamila HARİCHANE
Amina SADOUKİ
Pages
72–80
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

They likewise highlight the important roles that play the spatial and material shear modulus variation in the prediction of the seismic soil responses.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The prediction of seismic ground response is conditioned by the knowledge of each material behavior of soil deposits.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Obtained re-sults proved the efficiency of the proposed methodology and the predictive capability of the elaborated elastoplastic model which captures both small- and large-strain be-haviors.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:They likewise highlight the important roles that play the spatial and material shear modulus variation in the prediction of the seismic soil responses.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

The prediction of seismic ground response is conditioned by the knowledge of each material behavior of soil deposits. The recourse to plasticity criterion to simulate cy-clic behavior of soils under seismic loading is becoming more realistic. In this study, an elasto-plastic constitutive equation is cast within the framework of one dimen-sional finite element (FE) soil column model to account for the spatial and material nonlinearity of the secant shear modulus. To account of the spatial non linearity, shear modulus is written in terms of rigid base shear modulus and height of the soil column, while for material nonlinearity, the shear modulus degradation is deducted by the application of the isotropic evolution of the Von Misès criterion. Obtained re-sults proved the efficiency of the proposed methodology and the predictive capability of the elaborated elastoplastic model which captures both small- and large-strain be-haviors. They likewise highlight the important roles that play the spatial and material shear modulus variation in the prediction of the seismic soil responses.

🔖

Cite This Article

CHEHAT, A., HARİCHANE, Z., SADOUKİ, A. (2017). Modelling of non-linear seismic ground response using elasto-plastic constitutive framework within a finite element soil column model. Challenge Journal of Structural Mechanics, Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 2, 72–80. https://ajindex.com/articles/145885

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Abdel-Ghaffar A, Koh AS (1981). Longitudinal vibration of non-homo-geneous earth dams. Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, 9(3), 279-305.
  2. Afra H, Pecker A (2002). Calculation of free field response spectrum of a nonhomogeneous soil deposit from bed rock response spectrum. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 22(2), 157–65.
  3. Bathe KJ (1996). Finite Element Procedures. Library of Congress Cata-loging-in-Publication Data. Chopra A (2012). Dynamics of structures: Theory and applications to earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall. Dakoulas P, Gazetas G (1985). A class of inhomogeneous shear models for seismic response of dams and embankments. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 4, 166-182.
  4. Dunne F, Petrinic N (2006). Introduction to computational plasticity. Oxford University Press.
  5. Elgamal AW (1991). Shear hysteretic elasto-plastic earthquake re-sponse of soil systems. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dy-namics, 20(4), 371-387.
  6. Gu Q, Conte J P, Elgamal A, Yang Z (2009). Finite element response sensitivity analysis of multi-yield-surface J2 plasticity. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 198(30–32), 2272–2285.
  7. Harichane Z, Chehat A, Sadouki A (2011a). Viscoelastoplastic earth-quake shear hysteretic response of geomaterials. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 16 (Bund. M), 1566 -1582. Harichane Z, Chehat A, Afra H (2011b). Post-elastic behavior of soil profiles under earthquake excitations. Electronic Journal of Ge-otechnical Engineering, 16 (Bund. P), 1471 -1485. Harichane Z, Afra H, Bahar R (2012). Experimental validation of an identification procedure of soil profile characteristics from free field acceleration records. International Journal of Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, 3(1), 1-17.
  8. Hashash YMA, Park D (2001). Non-linear one-dimensional seismic ground motion propagation in the Mississippi embayment. Engi-neering Geology, 62(1–3), 185–206.
  9. Hashash YMA, Park D (2002). Viscous damping formulation and high frequency motion propagation in non-linear site response analysis. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 22, 611-624.
  10. Kaklamanos J, Baise LG, Thompson EM, Dorfmann L (2015). Compari-son of 1D linear, equivalent-linear, and nonlinear site response models at six KiK-net validation sites. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 69, 207-219.
  11. Khellafi MA, Harichane Z, Afra H, Sadouki A (2013). A case study of ac-celerometric records analysis of May 21st, 2003, Boumerdes (Alge-ria) earthquake. Interna