Journals / International Advanced Researches and Engineering Journal / 2021 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 2

Numerical assessment of the performance of different constitutive models used to predict liquefiable soil behavior

Pages
260–267
Publication Date
2022-10-19
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)

It is also observed that dissimilarities in the predictions of the numerical simulations are more obvious for OpenSees simulations with respect to DeepSoil ones.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Liquefaction has caused severe damages to structures such as excessive settlements, tilting, lateral spreading etc., all over the world during many past earthquakes.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this study, a series of nonlinear effective stress analyses are carried out using the DeepSoil and OpenSees opensource software with Modified Kondner–Zelasko (MKZ) and Pressure Dependent Multi Yield02 (PDMY02) constitutive models to evaluate their capabilities in terms of predicting liquefiable soil behavior.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It is also observed that dissimilarities in the predictions of the numerical simulations are more obvious for OpenSees simulations with respect to DeepSoil ones.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:DeepSoil · Liquefaction · MKZ Model

Abstract

Liquefaction has caused severe damages to structures such as excessive settlements, tilting, lateral spreading etc., all over the world during many past earthquakes. Hence, the efficient prediction of liquefiable soil behavior is crucial for liquefaction-induced hazard evaluation of existing structures and the design of new structures in seismically active regions. In this study, a series of nonlinear effective stress analyses are carried out using the DeepSoil and OpenSees opensource software with Modified Kondner–Zelasko (MKZ) and Pressure Dependent Multi Yield02 (PDMY02) constitutive models to evaluate their capabilities in terms of predicting liquefiable soil behavior. The performance of the models has been evaluated by comparing the results between the numerical predictions and a centrifuge study from literature in terms of excess pore water pressures, acceleration-time histories, spectral accelerations, lateral displacements and maximum profile responses at specific depths. The results clearly illustrate that the excess pore water pressure predictions from nonlinear analyses are reasonably close to centrifuge measurements, but the accelerations and lateral displacements are slightly different. It is also observed that dissimilarities in the predictions of the numerical simulations are more obvious for OpenSees simulations with respect to DeepSoil ones.

🔖

Cite This Article

DEMİR, S. (2022). Numerical assessment of the performance of different constitutive models used to predict liquefiable soil behavior. International Advanced Researches and Engineering Journal, Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 2, 260–267. https://ajindex.com/articles/539315

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Kramer, S. and A. Elgamal, Modeling soil liquefaction hazards for performance based earthquake engineering. Report 2001/13, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. University of California, Berkeley, 2001. p.165
  2. Kramer, S.L., Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice-Hall Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics Series. 1996, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson 653
  3. Popescu, R. and J.H. Prevost, Centrifuge validation of a numerical model for dynamic soil liquefaction. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 1993. 12(2): p. 73-90
  4. Byrne, P.M., Park, S.S., Beaty, M., Sharp, M., Gonzalez, L. and Abdoun, T., Numerical modeling of liquefaction and comparison with centrifuge tests. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 2004. 41(2): p. 193-211
  5. Taiebat, M., H. Shahir, and A. Pak, Study of pore pressure variation during liquefaction using two constitutive models for sand. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2007. 27(1): p. 60-72
  6. Ramirez, J., et al., Site response in a layered liquefiable deposit: evaluation of different numerical tools and methodologies with centrifuge experimental results. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2018. 144(10): p. 1-22
  7. Demir, S. and P. Özener, Estimation of Liquefaction with UBC3D-PLM Model: A Centrifuge Test Example. Teknik Dergi, 2019. 30(5): p. 9421-9442
  8. Prevost, J.H., A simple plasticity theory for frictional cohesionless soils. International Journal of Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 1985. 4(1): p. 9-17
  9. Matasović, N. and M. Vucetic, Cyclic characterization of liquefiable sands. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1993. 119(11): p. 1805-1822
  10. Beaty, M. and P.M. Byrne, An Effective Stress Model for Pedicting Liquefaction Behaviour of Sand. in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics III. 1998. ASCE. pp. 766-777
  11. Yang, Z., A. Elgamal, and E. Parra, Computational model for cyclic mobility and associated shear deformation. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2003. 129(12): p. 1119-1127
  12. Dafalias, Y.F. and M.T. Manzari, Simple plasticity sand model accounting for fabric change effects. Journal of Engineering mechanics, 2004. 130(6): p. 622-634
  13. Petalas, A. and V. Galavi, Plaxis Liquefaction Model UBC3DPLM. Plaxis Report, 2013
  14. Ziotopoulou, K. and R. Boulanger, Calibration and implementation of a sand plasticity plane-strain model for earthquake engineering applications. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Enginee