2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.finel.2010.09.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Finite element model updating effects on nonlinear seismic response of arch dam–reservoir–foundation systems

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
18
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 56 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
0
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, a FE model is usually obtained based on simplified assumptions that it may not truly represent all the physical aspects of an actual structure. Hence, the constructed FE model may result in significant differences in some dynamic response predictions (Bayraktar, Sevim, Altunisik, & Turker, 2010;Bayraktar, Altunisik, Sevim, & Turker, 2011), and these differences can be largely manifested in a nonlinear dynamic analysis (Bayraktar, Sevim, & Can Altunisik, 2011). As commonly known, these discrepancies originate from the uncertainties in the assumptions of structural material properties, geometries, boundary conditions and contributions from non-structural elements in the real structures.…”
Section: Please Scroll Down For Articlementioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, a FE model is usually obtained based on simplified assumptions that it may not truly represent all the physical aspects of an actual structure. Hence, the constructed FE model may result in significant differences in some dynamic response predictions (Bayraktar, Sevim, Altunisik, & Turker, 2010;Bayraktar, Altunisik, Sevim, & Turker, 2011), and these differences can be largely manifested in a nonlinear dynamic analysis (Bayraktar, Sevim, & Can Altunisik, 2011). As commonly known, these discrepancies originate from the uncertainties in the assumptions of structural material properties, geometries, boundary conditions and contributions from non-structural elements in the real structures.…”
Section: Please Scroll Down For Articlementioning
confidence: 99%
“…In order to prevent concrete dams from causing secondary disasters during or after earthquakes, it is necessary to execute seismic safety check at regular intervals, and the usual approach is to evaluate the aseismic strength of dam body through the comparison between earthquake failure threshold and structural dynamic analysis result . Whether results of structural dynamic analysis are accurate depends on many factors, among which whether preset dynamic parameters of dam materials are consistent with the objective reality is dominant . Dynamic parameters of a concrete dam include elastic modulus, dynamic Poisson's ratio, and damping, which are usually obtained from dynamic tests of the concrete on site .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[1][2][3] Whether results of structural dynamic analysis are accurate depends on many factors, among which whether preset dynamic parameters of dam materials are consistent with the objective reality is dominant. 4,5 Dynamic parameters of a concrete dam include elastic modulus, dynamic Poisson's ratio, and damping, which are usually obtained from dynamic tests of the concrete on site. 6 However, due to complexities of geometry, material composition and boundary condition, real dynamic parameter values are not exactly the same as test results.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An optimum number of modes also depends on the frequency content of the selected excitation. The three dimensional (3D) dynamic analyses of important complex flexible structures, such as arch dams, usually require the determination of a larger number of eigenvalues and eigenvectors [9][10][11][12][13]. This is especially true when the applied excitation has a higher level of power spectral density and a wide range of dominant frequencies of the Fourier amplitude spectrum.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%