Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Effect of Cyclic Soil Model on Seismic Site Response Analysis
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Effect of Cyclic Soil Model on Seismic Site Response Analysis
Lee, Jinsun; Noh, Gyeongdo;
  PDF(new window)
Nonlinear soil behavior before failure under dynamic loading is often implemented in a numerical analysis code by a mathematical fitting function model with Masing`s rule. However, the model may show different behavior with an experimental results obtained from laboratory test in damping ratio corresponding secant shear modulus for a certain shear strain rage. The difference may come from an unique soil characteristics which is unable to implement by using the existing mathematical fitting model. As of now, several fitting models have been suggested to overcome the difference between model and real soil behavior but consequence of the difference in dynamic analysis is not reviewed yet. In this paper, the effect of the difference on site response was examined through nonlinear response history analysis. The analysis was verified and calibrated with well defined dynamic geotechnical centrifuge test. Site response analyses were performed with three mathematical fitting function models and compared with the centrifuge test results in prototype scale. The errors on peak ground acceleration between analysis and experiment getting increased as increasing the intensity of the input motion. In practical point of view, the analysis results of accuracy with the fitting model is not significant in low to mid input motion intensity.
Site response analysis;Numerical analysis;Nonlinear behavior of soil;Damping ratio;Shear modulus;
 Cited by
비선형 유효응력해석을 이용한 1995 Kobe 지진시 케이슨 안벽의 거동 평가,이진선;노경도;

한국지진공학회논문집, 2016. vol.20. 6, pp.401-412 crossref(new window)
Dokainish, M. A. and Subbaraj, K. (1989), A survey of direct time-integration methods in computational strucural dynamics-I, Explicit methods, Computers and Structures, Vol. 32, No. 6, pp. 1371-1386. crossref(new window)

Hardin, B. O. and Drnevich, V. P. (1972), Shear modulus and damping in soils: design equation and curves Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 98, No. 7, pp. 667-691.

Iai, S. (2001), Seismic performance-based design of port structures and simulation techniques, In International Workshop on Earthquake Simulation in Geotechnical Engineering, pp. 1-12.

Idriss, I. M. (1993), Assessment of Site Response Analysis Procedure, NIST, GCR, pp. 95-667.

Itasca (2011), FLAC (Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua) 3D Version 4.0 dynamic analysis manual, Itasca Consulting Group, Minneapolis, MN., pp. 52-59.

Kalkan, E. and Luco, N. (2011), Special issue on earthquake ground-motion selection and modification for nonlinear dynamic analysis of structures. Journal of structural engineering ASCE, Vol. pp. 137-277.

Kuhlemeyer, R. L. and Lysmer, J. (1973), Finite element method accuracy for wave propagation problems, J Soil Mech Found Eng, Div ASCE, Vol. 99, No. 5, pp. 421-427.

Lee, J. S. (2013), Appropriate input earthquake motion for the verification of seismic response analysis by geotechnical dynamic centrifuge test, EESK, J Earthquake Eng, Vol. 17, No. 5, pp. 209-217. crossref(new window)

Lysmer, J. and Kuhlemeyer, R. L. (1969), Finite dynamic model for infinite media, J Eng Mech, Vol. 95, No. 4, pp. 859-877.

Masing, G. (1926), Eigenspannungen und verfestigung beim messing, In: Proceedings of the second international congress of applied mechanics, pp. 332-335.

Mejia, L. H. and Dawson, E. M. (2006), Earthquake deconvolution for FLAC, Proceedings of 4th International FLAC Symposium on Numerical Modeling in Geomechanics, Madrid, Spain, ISBN 0-9767577-0-2, pp. 4-10,

Newmark, N. M. (1965), Effects of earthquakes on dams and embankments, Geotechnique, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 139-160. crossref(new window)

Nozu, A., Ichii, K. and Sugano, T. (2004), Seismic design of port structures, J, of Japan Association for Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 195-208. crossref(new window)

Park, D. and Hashash, M. A. (2004), Soil damping formulation in nonlinear time domain site response analysis, J of earthquake engineering, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 249-274.

Phillips, C. and Hashash, Y. M. A. (2009), Damping formulation for nonlinear 1D site response analyses, Soil dynamics and earthquake engineering, Vol. 29, pp. 1143-1158. crossref(new window)

Prevost, J. H. (1982), Two-surface versus multi-surface plasticity theories: a critical assessment, International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, Vol. 6, pp. 323-338. crossref(new window)

Purzin, A. M. and Shiran, A. (2000), Effects of the constitutive relationship on seismic response of soils. part I. Constitutive modelling of cyclic behavior of soils, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 19, pp. 305-318. crossref(new window)

Pyke, R. M. (1979), Nonlinear soil models for irregular cyclic loadings, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 105, No. 6, pp. 715-726.

Schofield, A. N. (1980), Cambridge geotechnical centrifuge operations, Twentieth Rankine Lect Geotech, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 227-268. crossref(new window)

Streeter, V. L., Wylie, E. B. and Richart, F. E. (1974), Soil motion computations by characteristics method, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 100, pp. 247-263.

Stewart, J. P., Hashash, Y. M. A., Matasovic, N., Pyke, R., Wang, Z. and Yang, Z. (2008), Benchmarking of nonlinear geotechnical ground response analysis procedures, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Peer Report. pp. 1-175.

Subbaraj, K. and Dokainish, M. A. (1989), A survey of direct time-integration methods in computational strucural dynamics-II, Implicit methods, Computers and Structures, Vol. 32, No. 6, pp. 1387-1401. crossref(new window)

Yingwei, W. U. and Prakash, S. (2000), Seismic displacements of rigid retaining walls on submergence, 12th World conference on earthquake engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, Paper No. 0562.