CVEEN 7330 Modeling Exercise 2c

Similar documents
1D Nonlinear Numerical Methods

2D Embankment and Slope Analysis (Numerical)

CVEEN Table of Contents

CVEEN Table of Contents

1D Analysis - Simplified Methods

Dynamic Analysis Contents - 1

1D Ground Response Analysis

1 Slope Stability for a Cohesive and Frictional Soil

USER S MANUAL. 1D Seismic Site Response Analysis Example. University of California: San Diego.

Design Spectra. Reading Assignment Course Information Lecture Notes Pp Kramer Appendix B7 Kramer

USER S MANUAL 1D Seismic Site Response Analysis Example University of California: San Diego August 30, 2017

Liquefaction Remediation

8 Displacements near the Face of an Advancing Shaft

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF PILES IN SAND BASED ON SOIL-PILE INTERACTION

13 Plastic Flow in a Punch Problem

Recent Research on EPS Geofoam Seismic Buffers. Richard J. Bathurst and Saman Zarnani GeoEngineering Centre at Queen s-rmc Canada

Non-linear and time-dependent material models in Mentat & MARC. Tutorial with Background and Exercises

1 Slope Stability for a Cohesive and Frictional Soil

7 Uniaxial Compressive Strength of a Jointed Rock Sample

Seismic Design of a Hydraulic Fill Dam by Nonlinear Time History Method

Earth Pressure Theory

Role of hysteretic damping in the earthquake response of ground

4 Undrained Cylindrical Cavity Expansion in a Cam-Clay Medium

1-160 Dynamic Analysis

2D Liquefaction Analysis for Bridge Abutment

Lecture 4 Implementing material models: using usermat.f. Implementing User-Programmable Features (UPFs) in ANSYS ANSYS, Inc.

SURFACE WAVE MODELLING USING SEISMIC GROUND RESPONSE ANALYSIS

Evaluation of 1-D Non-linear Site Response Analysis using a General Quadratic/Hyperbolic Strength-Controlled Constitutive Model

10 Slope Stability Analysis of a Rock Slope

SITE ANALYSIS USING RANDOM VIBRATION THEORY

QUAKE/W ProShake Comparison

Numerical Modeling in Geotechnical Engineering October 17,

both an analytical approach and the pole method, determine: (a) the direction of the

A study on nonlinear dynamic properties of soils

15 Drained and Undrained Triaxial Compression Test on a Cam-Clay Sample

14- Hardening Soil Model with Small Strain Stiffness - PLAXIS

USER S MANUAL 1D Seismic Site Response Analysis Example University of California: San Diego August 30, 2017

AN IMPORTANT PITFALL OF PSEUDO-STATIC FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

Example Application 12. Embankment Loading on a Cam-Clay Foundation

1 DYNAMIC ANALYSIS DYNAMIC ANALYSIS Overview

13 Dewatered Construction of a Braced Excavation

16 Rainfall on a Slope

Site Response Using Effective Stress Analysis

Verification of the Hyperbolic Soil Model by Triaxial Test Simulations

Application of pseudo-symmetric technique in dynamic analysis of concrete gravity dams

BENCHMARK LINEAR FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF LATERALLY LOADED SINGLE PILE USING OPENSEES & COMPARISON WITH ANALYTICAL SOLUTION

EVALUATION OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS IN LIQUEFIABLE SOILS

CHAPTER 6: ASSESSMENT OF A COMPREHENSIVE METHOD FOR PREDICTING PERFORMANCE

SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF AN EMBEDDED RETAINING STRUCTURE IN COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

Dynamics Manual. Version 7

5 Spherical Cavity in an Infinite Elastic Medium

Static Pile Head Impedance using 3D Nonlinear FEM Analysis

SOIL-BASEMENT STRUCTURE INTERACTION ANALYSIS ON DYNAMIC LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE ON BASEMENT WALL

Advanced Lateral Spread Modeling

A Visco-Elastic Model with Loading History Dependent Modulus and Damping for Seismic Response Analyses of Soils. Zhiliang Wang 1 and Fenggang Ma 2.

Hyperbolic Soil Bearing Capacity

Dynamic Response of EPS Blocks /soil Sandwiched Wall/embankment

Nonlinear effects in Earthquake Soil Structure Interaction of Nuclear Power Plants

Assignment 4: VBA Programming

8 Lined Circular Tunnel in an Elastic Medium with Anisotropic Stresses

APPLICATION OF 1D HYDROMECHANICAL COUPLING IN TOUGH2 TO A DEEP GEOLOGICAL REPOSITORY GLACIATION SCENARIO

13 Step-Path Failure of Rock Slopes

Chapter 3 LAMINATED MODEL DERIVATION

Geology 229 Engineering Geology. Lecture 5. Engineering Properties of Rocks (West, Ch. 6)

Figure A7 22: Micrograph of PX (a) before and (b) after heat treatment to 50ºC

On the Estimation of Earthquake Induced Ground Strains from Velocity Recordings: Application to Centrifuge Dynamic Tests

Software Verification

June 22, 2016 Youssef M. A. Hashash

Version default Titre : Opérateur DEFI_SOL_EQUI Date : 07/07/2015 Page : 1/9 Responsable : DEVESA Georges Clé : U Révision : ae6111c5654c

ON THE PREDICTION OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS FROM TWO PILE TESTS UNDER FORCED VIBRATIONS

RESPONSE SPECTRUM METHOD FOR EVALUATING NONLINEAR AMPLIFICATION OF SURFACE STRATA

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF ARKANSAS TEST SERIES PILE #2 USING OPENSEES (WITH LPILE COMPARISON)

Dynamics: Domain Reduction Method. Case study

Lab 1: Dynamic Simulation Using Simulink and Matlab

DYNAMIC RESPONSE APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

Hand Calculations of Rubber Bearing Seismic Izolation System for Irregular Buildings in Plane

Reciprocal of the initial shear stiffness of the interface K si under initial loading; reciprocal of the initial tangent modulus E i of the soil

3-D FINITE ELEMENT NONLINEAR DYNAMIC ANALYSIS FOR SOIL-PILE-STRUCTURE INTERACTION

Effect of structural design on fundamental frequency of reinforced-soil retaining walls

Dynamic Analysis of Pile Foundations: Effects of Material Nonlinearity of Soil

Settlement and Bearing Capacity of a Strip Footing. Nonlinear Analyses

Two-Dimensional Site Effects for Dry Granular Soils

NON-LINEAR ANALYSIS OF SOIL-PILE-STRUCTURE INTERACTION UNDER SEISMIC LOADS

Spread footing settlement and rotation analysis

Complex geology slope stability analysis by shear strength reduction

Lecture 7. Pile Analysis

Soil Properties - II

Numerical Approach to Predict the Strength of St. Peter Sandstone Pillars acted upon by Vertical Loads A case study at Clayton, IA, USA.

Piles in Lateral Spreading due to Liquefaction: A Physically Simplified Method Versus Centrifuge Experiments

Effects of Surface Geology on Seismic Motion

Geometric Nonlinear Analysis of a Cantilever Beam

Modeling seismic wave propagation during fluid injection in a fractured network: Effects of pore fluid pressure on time-lapse seismic signatures

10 Steady-State Fluid Flow with a Free Surface

Using the Timoshenko Beam Bond Model: Example Problem

Example-3. Title. Description. Cylindrical Hole in an Infinite Mohr-Coulomb Medium

Software Verification

Dynamic Analyses of an Earthfill Dam on Over-Consolidated Silt with Cyclic Strain Softening

DETERMINATION OF PERFORMANCE POINT IN CAPACITY SPECTRUM METHOD

QUASI-3D DYNAMIC FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF SINGLE PILES AND PILE GROUPS

NUMERICAL ANALYSIS OF A PILE SUBJECTED TO LATERAL LOADS

Transcription:

CVEEN 7330 Modeling Exercise 2c Table of Contents Table of Contents... 1 Objectives:... 2 FLAC Input:... 2 DEEPSOIL INPUTS:... 5 Required Outputs from FLAC:... 6 Required Output from DEEPSOIL:... 6 Additional Calculations and Discussion:... 6 FLAC Helps... 7 Seismosignal Helps... 9 FLAC Solution:... 10 DEEPSOIL Solution:... 14 Required Calculations and Discussion:... 20 FLAC Source Code... 21 DEEPSOIL Input File Printout... 22 1

Objectives: This modeling exercise compares the nonlinear dynamic results for a 1D homogeneous soil column form FLAC with hysteretic damping to those of DEEPSOIL using modified hyperbolic model. FLAC is a 2D nonlinear dynamic code. DEEPSOIL is a 1D nonlinear code. Thus, we will develop a 1D FLAC model and compare the results with DEEPSOIL output for a simple ground response analysis using a homogenous sand profile. FLAC Input: To develop the FLAC 1D model, we will use an example file and modify it. The example project file is found in: C:\Program Files\Itasca\flac500\Options\3-Dynamic\ op_03_12.prj Geometry: 20 m high model by 1 m width. Boundary Conditions: Fix all elements in the y direction Model Type: 2

Elastic with hysteretic damping Hysteretic damping model (use default model (2 parameter model) with following properties (default -3.325 0.823) (see pink lines in Figures 3.27 and 3.28 below, which represent the default model parameters of -3.325 and 0.823) Elastic Material Properties: density = 2000 kg/m 3 shear modulus = 0.97e8 N/m 2 = 97 MPa bulk modulus = 2e8 N/m 2 = 200 Mpa Input Acceleration Time History: Taft Record (unscaled) (obtained from course website) 3

4

DEEPSOIL INPUTS: Type of Analysis Nonlinear Total Stress Metric Pressure-Dependent Hyperbolic Model: Masing Criteria Input Properties by Modulus Geometry: 20 m deep soil model with 20 1-m thick sand layers. Material Properties: density = 19.62 kn/m 3 (2000 kg/m 3 ) shear modulus = 0.97e8 N/m 2 = 97 Mpa = 97000 kpa Shear modulus reduction curves from table below User-Defined 11 points Use the points that corresponds to the pink lines in Figure 3.27 and Figure 3.28 (see below) Shear strain (%) G/Gmax Damping (%) 0.0001 1 0.1 0.0003 1 0.3 0.001 0.98 0.7 0.003 0.90 2.6 0.01 0.76 5.1 0.03 0.60 7.8 0.1 0.41 12 0.3 0.27 27 1 0.10 36 3 0.035 53 10 0.011 56 Bedrock Properties Rigid 5

Input Acceleration Time History: Taft Record (unscaled from course website) Required Outputs from FLAC: 1. Acceleration time history at base of model (node i = 1) 2. Acceleration time history at middle of model (node i=11) 3. Acceleration time history at top of model (node i=21) 4. Shear stress versus shear strain time history for middle of model (between nodes j=11 and j=10) 5. Surface acceleration response spectrum (5 percent damped) as a function of period. (Use Seismosignal and the results from no. 3 above). 6. Printout of source code for FLAC model. Required Output from DEEPSOIL: 1. Acceleration time history at base of model (layer 20) 2. Acceleration time history at middle of model (layer 10) 3. Acceleration time history at top of model (layer 1) 4. Shear stress/effective vertical stress versus shear strain time history for middle of model (in layer 10) 5. Surface acceleration response spectrum (5 percent damped) as a function of period. (Use Seismosignal and the results from no. 3 above). 6. Printout of DEEPSOIL input profile (*.dp) file Additional Calculations and Discussion: 1. Calculate the fundamental period of the 20 m thick soil column using Eq. (7.16) in Kramer. 2. Compare the maximum shear strain that develops in the middle of the layers for the FLAC and DEEPSOIL results. Discuss how well the maximum shear strains compare for both layers for both models. 3. Make a composite plot of the surface response spectra for both FLAC and DEEPSOIL. Discuss how well the response spectra compare. 6

FLAC Helps 1. Since you are using the dynamic option of FLAC, you must configure the dynamic extension with the following command: conf dyn ext 5 2. You need to generate a 1D soil column that is 1 m wide by 20 m high: grid 1 20 3. Use will be using an elastic model with hysteretic damping in FLAC to compare with DEEPSOIL. The elastic model with hysteretic damping is involved with: model elastic ini dy_damp hyst default 3.325 0.823 (The default hysteretic damping model in FLAC produces shear modulus and damping curves that are given Figures 3.27 and 3.28 (see pink lines). 4. You must fix the nodes in the y direction to not allow vertical movement. We only want horizontal movement so that an SH wave can propagate. fix y 5. To read in the Taft acceleration time history and apply it to the base of the model, your FLAC code should have his read 100 taft_flac.acc apply xacc 9.81 his 100 j = 1 apply yvel 0.0 j = 1 The taft_flac.acc file must be present in the same directory as the flac model. It has already been formatted to be read into flac and is found on the course website. (Note that the 9.81 multiplier in the second line is applied to the Taft record to convert the record from acceleration (g) to acceleration (m/s). You must use units that are consistent with the FLAC analysis (m, s, N, Pa, etc.) (Note also that the command apply yvel 0.0 j = 1 prevents rocking of the model along the grid point j = 1.) 6. Shear strain is not directly calculated by FLAC, so you have to create code to do so. The following subroutine needs to be in your code: 7

def strain1 deltay = 1; one m vertical spacing between nodes strain1 = (xdisp(1,11) - xdisp(1,10))/deltay end 7. Time history plots of acceleration, shear stress and shear strain can be created using the following commands: his 1 dytime his 2 sxy i 1 j 10 his 3 strain1 his 4 xacc i 1 j 1 his 5 xacc i 1 j 11 his 6 xacc i 1 j 21 8. We want the FLAC output to be at an even timestep for plotting in Seismosignal. This can be done by the following command: set dydt = 0.0008 This sets the time increment to eight ten- thousandths of a second. This small timestep is also required for numerical stability. 9. We are now ready to add the command to start solving. Most of the strong motion ends after about 74 seconds, so we will solve for only the first 74 seconds of the acceleration time history. This is done with the following command: solve dytime 74 10. After solving, we want to output the surface acceleration time history from FLAC so that we can create a response spectrum in Seismosignal: set hisfile surface.his his write 6 vs 1 save model.sav This creates a file called surface.his for the output and stores the results of history 6 (acceleration at surface) versus history 1 (dynamic time). The last line in the code saves the FLAC model and all output as a file called model.sav 8

Seismosignal Helps Note that the time increment for acceleration time history in surface.his is 8 x10-3 seconds. When you read surface.his into Seismosignal, use should use the following parameters (see below). Remember also that acceleration time history from surface.his is in units of m/s 2 and not g. To convert this FLAC file to units of g, you can use the scaling factor. In the above screen shot the scaling factor has been set to 0.10194, which is equal to 1 / 9.81. Once you have successfully read the time history into Seismosignal, you should create a 5 percent damped, elastic, pseudo-acceleration response spectrum in Seismosignal for the time history for comparison with DEEPSOIL. 9