Comparison Between Two Approaches for Non-linear FEM Modelling of the Seismic Behaviour of a Coupled Soil–Structure System

Massimino, Maria Rossella; Abate, Glenda; Corsico, Sebastiano; Louarn, R.

doi:10.1007/s10706-018-0737-y

Cited by 24 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…3 Many researchers investigated fully coupled soil-structure isolation systems [4][5][6][7] and proposed exploiting the soil's nonlinear behavior and its deformability as a means of natural passive isolation mechanism. 8,9 Although rocking isolation mechanisms have been proven quite successful in the attenuation of motions through soil yielding below the foundations, foundation rocking, uplift, and sliding, [10][11][12] the residual differential settlement after a strong earthquake that requires a realignment of the structure afterward can be considered a drawback. To overcome this challenge, geotechnical seismic isolation (GSI) 13 emerged as a new technique for protecting the structures in earthquake-prone areas.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Large‐scale field testing of geotechnical seismic isolation of structures using gravel‐rubber mixtures

Pitilakis

Anastasiadis

Vratsikidis

et al. 2021

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present the results of a large-scale experimental campaign performed on the prototype structure of EuroProteas in Thessaloniki, Greece, to assess the effectiveness of gravel-rubber mixture (GRM) layers underneath shallow foundations as a means of geotechnical seismic isolation (GSI). We found that the geotechnical seismic isolation of structures is optimized by increasing the rubber content of the soil rubber mixture up to 30% per mixture weight. Although the effectiveness of the GSI systems has been investigated numerically and in small-scale experiments, this paper seeks to fill the gap in the lack of full-scale experimental studies on this subject. Three soil pits were excavated and backfilled with GRM of different rubber content per weight to serve as foundation soil for the structure. A large number of instruments were installed on the structure, the foundation, the soil surface, and inside the gravel-rubber mixture layers beneath the foundation to fully monitor the GSI-structure systems' response in three dimensions. The experimental investigation included ambient noise, free-and forced-vibration tests. Our results showed that a geotechnical seismic isolation layer composed of a gravel-rubber mixture with 30% rubber content per weight effectively isolates the structure. Even 0.5m thickness (i.e., B/6 of the foundation width) of the GSI system is successfully cutting off practically all emitted waves at a (horizontal or vertical) distance of B/6 from the foundation. A significant reduction in the GSI-structure system's stiffness was apparent, leading to a rocking-dominant response. The rise in the system's damping and the substantial energy dissipation inside the GRM layer highlight its effectiveness as a geotechnical seismic isolation system.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Large‐scale field testing of geotechnical seismic isolation of structures using gravel‐rubber mixtures

Pitilakis

Anastasiadis

Vratsikidis

et al. 2021

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Local site response analyses, as well as dynamic soil-structure interaction analyses, have been performed in Catania area (Sicily, Italy), which is recognized as a typical Mediterranean city at high seismic risk [35][36][37][38][39][40].…”

Section: Site Response Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

New Stress Reduction Factor for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction in the Coastal Area of Catania (Italy)

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, a study concerning the soil liquefaction potential in the city of Catania is presented. The stress-based liquefaction analysis framework for cohesionless soil includes a function that describes fundamental aspects of dynamic site response, i.e., the shear stress reduction coefficient, rd, which depends on several factors (depth; earthquake and ground motion characteristics; dynamic soil properties). Various relationships of rd are reported in literature because of the importance of assessment of CSR. Herein, new variations of rd with depth have been obtained using different deterministic earthquake scenarios as input motion. The relationships are based on large numbers of site response analyses for different site conditions. The new relationships obtained have been used for the evaluation of the liquefaction potential in the area of the Catania Harbour. The liquefaction resistance has been evaluated by the horizontal stress index (KD) from seismic dilatometer Marchetti tests (SDMTs). Various correlations were developed to estimate the CRR from KD, expressed in form of CRR-KD curves to differentiate between liquefiable and non-liquefiable zones. In this study three different CRR-KD curves have been used.

show abstract

“…The seismic response of the TSS system described in Section 2 was modeled by the ADINA code [31,32], widely used by the authors in dynamic analyses [15,[33][34][35][36][37]. Figure 2 shows the mesh used, including the boundary conditions and the seismic input at the base of the model (bedrock).…”

Section: General Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Shear Wave Velocity and Non-Linearity of Soil in the Seismic Response of a Coupled Tunnel-Soil-Above Ground Building System

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The presence of tunnels close to aboveground structures may modify the response of these structures, while the contrary is also true, the presence of aboveground structures may modify the dynamic response of tunnels. In this context, the dynamic properties of the soil through which the aboveground and underground structures are “connected” could play an important role. The paper reports dynamic FEM (Finite Element Method) analyses of a coupled tunnel-soil-above ground structure system (TSS system), which differ in regards to the soil shear wave velocity and in turns for the damping ratio, in order to investigate the role of these parameters in the full-coupled TSS system response. The analyses were performed using three different seismic inputs. Moreover, the soil non-linearity was taken into account adopting two different constitutive models: i) an equivalent linear visco-elastic model, characterized by degraded soil shear moduli and damping ratios, according to suggestions given by EC8 in 2003; and ii) a visco-elasto-plastic constitutive model, characterized by isotropic and kinematic hardening and a non-associated flow rule. The seismic response of the system was investigated in the time and frequency domains, in terms of: acceleration ratios; amplification ratios and response spectra; and bending moments in the tunnel.

show abstract

Comparison Between Two Approaches for Non-linear FEM Modelling of the Seismic Behaviour of a Coupled Soil–Structure System

Cited by 24 publications

References 29 publications

Large‐scale field testing of geotechnical seismic isolation of structures using gravel‐rubber mixtures

Large‐scale field testing of geotechnical seismic isolation of structures using gravel‐rubber mixtures

New Stress Reduction Factor for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction in the Coastal Area of Catania (Italy)

The Role of Shear Wave Velocity and Non-Linearity of Soil in the Seismic Response of a Coupled Tunnel-Soil-Above Ground Building System

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About