Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
n
20 15 10 5 0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Figura 7.5 Influencia de la frecuencia en la respuesta de un depsito elstico amortiguado.
Figura 7.6 Patrones de desplazamiento o formas de modo de las primeras tres
frecuencias naturales (n =1,2,3) dependiendo de la profundidad (z/H) para un
depsito con 5% de amortiguamiento.
1.0
-0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
n =1
n =2
n =0
z
/
H
H
z
Superficie
Base Rocosa
Desplazamiento Normalizado
V
S
= 1500 lb/sec
= 125 lb/ft
3
= 5%
Rigid bedrock
540 ft
Figure E7. 2a
Figure E7. 2b-f
H
r
Gr
s
Gs
Roca
Suelo
Ar
Br
Bs
zr
As
zs
Razn de impedancia =0.0
0.1
0.5
KH
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
lF3l
0
0
2
4
6
8
Figura 7.7 Depsito de suelo elstico sobre una base elstica.
Figura 7.8 Efecto de la relacin de impedancia en el factor de amplificacin para el
caso de suelo no amortiguado.
540 ft
V
S
= 1500 ft/sec
= 125 lb/ft
3
= 5%
Soil
V
S
= 5000 ft/sec
= 160 lb/ft
3
= 2%
Rock
Figure E7. 3a
Figure E7. 3b-f
S
h
e
a
r
s
t
r
a
i
n
Time
Figure 7.10 Two shear strain time histories with identical peak shear strains. For the
transient motion of an actual earthquake, the effective shear strain is
usually taken as 65% of the peak strain.
(3)
(1)
(2)
(1)
eff
S
h
e
a
r
m
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
G
G
G
G
(1)
(3)
(2)
(3)
(2)
(1)
(1)
eff
(2)
(3)
(1)
D
a
m
p
i
n
g
r
a
t
i
o
,
Shear strain (log scale)
Shear strain (log scale)
Figure 7.11 Iteration toward strain-compatible shear modulus and damping ratio in equivalent linear
analysis. Using initial estimates, G
(1)
and
(1)
, the equivalent linear analysis predicts an
effective shear strain. . Because this strain is greater than those corresponding to G
(1)
and
(2),
an iteration is requerid. The next iteration uses parameters, G
(2)
and
(1)
, that are
compatible with .The equivalent linear analysis is repeated and the parameters
checked until strain-compatible value of G and are obtained.
(1)
eff
(1)
eff
Figure E7.5
x
z
s
v
ss
r
v
sr
(a)
(b)
N + 1
1
2
i
i +1
N
Figure 7.12 (a) Nomenclature for uniform soil deposit of infinite lateral extent
overlying bedrock; (b) discretization of soil deposit into N sublayers.
x
x
x + x
x
f (x + x) f(x)
F (x)
Figure 7.13 Forward-difference approximation of f(x) is given by slope of line
passing through function at x =x and x =x +x. Approximation
becomes exact as x 0.
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 7.14 Examples of common problems typically analyzed by two-dimensional
plane strain dynamic response analyses: (a) cantilever retaining wall;
(b) earth dam; (c) tunnel.
y
x
v
4
u
4
u
1
u
3
u
2
v
1
v
3
3
2
4
1
v
2
Figure 7.15 Finite-element discretization of retaining structure illustrating the degrees
of freedom of a typical four-noded element.
y
x
t
-1, 1
-1, -1 1, -1
1,1
4 3
1 2
x
4
, y
4
x
3
, y
3
x
2
, y
2
x
1
,y
1
4
3
2
1
Figure 7.16 Mapping of quadrilateral element from irregular shape in x-y
coordinate system to square shape in s-t coordinate system.
(c)
(b) (a)
Figure 7.17 Three types of finite-element mesh boundaries: (a) elementary
boundary in which zero displacements are specified; (b) local
boundary consisting of viscous dashpots; (c) lumped-parameter
consistent boundary (actual lumped parameter would consist of
more masses, springs, and dashpots than shown).
(b) (a)
Figure 7.18 Practical situation where two-dimensional ground response
analyses are used: (a) plane strain conditions can be assumed
at center of long dam, allowing (b) center section of dam to be
modeled in two dimensions.
h
+( / z) dz
x
u x
d
x
z
H
dz
B
Figure 7.19 Earth dam, showing stresses acting on an element of thickness. dz.
150 ft
2
1
1.5
1
Compacted clay
v
s
=1200 ft/sec
Figure E7.6
m =0
1 / 2
4 / 7
2 / 3
1
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.0
Z
H
m =0
1 / 2
4 / 7
2 / 3
1
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Z
H
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
U
1
U
2
-0.5 0.0 0.5
(b) (a)
Figure 7.20 Mode shapes for (a) first mode and (b) second mode of earth dam
response. Note rapid change of U with depth near crest of dam for
second mode at m =1 (whiplash effect). After Dakoulas and Gazetas,
1985).
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 7.21 Three situations requiring three-dimensional dynamic response or
soil-structural interaction analysis: (a) site where soil conditions
vary significantly in three dimensions: (b) earth dam in narrow
canyon: (c) site where response of soil is influenced by response
of structures (and vice vesra) and where response of one
structure may influence response of another.
Scatter-range shown only
for triangular and
rectangular geometrics
1
1.5
0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0
L / H
(T
1
)
3-D
(T
1
)
2-D
Wide trapezoidal
Rectangular
canyon
Triangular
Semicylindrical
Narrow trapezoidal
1
0.5
0
1 2 3 4 5
Mode number, n
(T
1
)
3-D
(T
1
)
2-D
Wide trapezoidal
Rectangular
Semicylindrical
Narrow trapezoidal
Trianular canyon
Figure 7.22 Effect of three-dimensional boundary effects on (a) fundamental
frequencies for different crest length/dam height ratios, and (b) natural
periods for first five modes of earth dams (L/H =2) in canyons of
different shape. (After Gazetas, 1987. Used with kind permisson from
Elsevier Science, Ltd, The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington OX5
IGB UK.).
m
C
k
u
b
(t)
G,
(a)
u
b
(t)
(b)
m
C
k
k
h
k
r
C
h
C
r
u
b
u
o
(c)
h
u
t
u
h
Figure 7.23 Compliant base model with one dynamic degree of freedom: (a) SDOF
system on an elastic soil deposit: (b) idealized discrete system in
which compliance of base is represented by translational and
rotational springs and dashpots: (c) components of motion of base and
mass.
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0
e
0.05 0.1 0.5 1 5 10
No radiation
damping
S
(b)
m =0.5
0.05 0.1 0.5 1 5 10
1.0
e
/
o
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
S
(a)
m =1
m =3
m =5
m =10
Figure 7.24 Effect of stiffness ratio and mass ratio on (a) natural frequency, and (b) damping
ratio of soil-structure systems (h =1. v =0.33, =0.025,
g
=0.05). (After Wolf.
1985).
o
/ 2 =3 Hz
o
/ 2 =4 Hz
o
/ 2 =5 Hz
u
max
20
mm
(u +u
o
+h)
max
mm
15
10
5
0
0.1 0.5 1 5 10
S
100
75
50
25
o
/ 2 =3 Hz
o
/ 2 =4 Hz
o
/ 2 =5 Hz
0.1 0.5 1 5 10
S
(a)
(b)
0
Figure 7.25 Response of equivalent soil-structure system to artificial time history
(h =1. m =3. v =0.33, =0.025,
g
=0.05): )a) maximum
structural distortion; (b) maximum displacement of mass relative to
free field )After Wolf, 1985).
u
ff
u
ff
u
ff
Figure 7.26 Direct method of soil-structure interaction analysis. Entire problem is
modeled and response to free-field motion applied at boundaries is
determined in a single step.
(a) (b)
(c)
Figure 7.27 Kinematic interaction with free-field motions indicated by dashed lines: (a)
flexural stiffness of surface foundation prevents it from following vertical
component of free-field displacement; (b) rigidity of block foundation
prevents it from following horizontal component of free-field
displacement; (c) axial stiffness of surface foundation prevents
immediately underlying soil from deforming incoherently.
(a)
(b)
Figure 7.28 Excitation of rocking vibrations in an embedded foundation by vertically
propagating s-waves: (a) at certain frequencies, the wavelength is such
that unbalanced overturning moments cause rocking; (b) at other
frequencies (and wavelengths), rocking may be suppressed.
u
b
(a)
Massless
structure
Fixed boundary
Inertial forces applied to
structure/foundation
(b)
Figure 7.29 (a) Kinematic interaction analysis and (b) inertial interaction analysis.
Mass of structure in inertial interaction analysis shown as being lumped
at the center of the structure.
F =-mu
b
u
b
Figure 7.30 Equivalent formulations of inertial interaction analysis four structures with
rigid foundation: (a) inertia forces applied to each element; (b) fondation
motion applied through frequency-dependent springs and dashpots (not
shown).