2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2022.107452
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A comparative study to determine seismic response of the box culvert wing wall under influence of soil-structure interaction considering different ground motions

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 65 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Compared with the uncontrolled structure, the time histories of structural kinetic energy, elastic potential energy and structural damping energy are all significantly reduced when the optimized PTMD is attached, indicating that the optimized PTMD device has excellent energy dissipation effects on structural vibration in SSI system. The frequency content of seismic waves has a notable impact on structural response (Ozturk et al, 2022). It can be also shown that the structural energy under Tabas wave is significantly greater than that of Kobe case, implying the seismic wave with low frequency content causes large structural response.
Figure 7.The energy time histories of each component (a) Imperial wave; (b) Kern wave.
Figure 8.Structural energy comparison between controlled and uncontrolled structures (a) Tabas wave; (b) Kobe wave.
…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Compared with the uncontrolled structure, the time histories of structural kinetic energy, elastic potential energy and structural damping energy are all significantly reduced when the optimized PTMD is attached, indicating that the optimized PTMD device has excellent energy dissipation effects on structural vibration in SSI system. The frequency content of seismic waves has a notable impact on structural response (Ozturk et al, 2022). It can be also shown that the structural energy under Tabas wave is significantly greater than that of Kobe case, implying the seismic wave with low frequency content causes large structural response.
Figure 7.The energy time histories of each component (a) Imperial wave; (b) Kern wave.
Figure 8.Structural energy comparison between controlled and uncontrolled structures (a) Tabas wave; (b) Kobe wave.
…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the elastic analysis of the model, the amplitude of seismic acceleration on the bedrock surface is adjusted to 0.2 g. When the structure is subjected to elastic-dynamic analysis, the seismic propagation directions are all upward along the Z-axis and the vibration direction is the X-direction. In this case, the earthquake record is selected according to China's Code for Seismic Design of Urban Railway Structures (GB 50909-2014), and nine natural earthquake records are selected for elastic time-range calculations [29][30][31][32][33], which comprise three low-frequency earthquake records (L-1~3), three medium-frequency earthquake records (I-1~3), and three high-frequency earthquake records (H-1~3) [34][35][36]; the information of the earthquake records is shown in Table 4. The time-range curves and Fourier spectra are shown in Figure 4.…”
Section: Finite Element Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…He [24] and Mao [25] studied the dynamic characteristics of a two-stage cantilever retaining wall under a horizontal earthquake, using a shaking table model test. Kasif [26] used the 3D FEM in time domain to investigate the effects of various configurations on seismic response of the cantilever retaining walls considering soil-structure interaction. Kasif [27] adopt the FEM to study the effects of different ground motions, backfill-structure interaction and soil-structure interaction on dynamic response of a box culvert wing wall.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%