Guidance on conducting 2D linear viscoelastic site response analysis using a finite element code

Carolina Volpini, John Douglas, Andreas Hvidtfelt Nielsen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Various software packages are available to conduct one-dimensional (1D) and two-dimensional (2D) site response analyses (SRAs). In this article, a finite element program is tested with the purpose of assessing the importance of several aspects on the obtained results and verifying the software. Abaqus (Dassault Systèmes) is compared with the 1D SRA software STRATA (Kottke & Rathje, 2008) for simple 1D models to understand the influence of the boundary conditions; as being a 1D SRA program, STRATA does not require vertical boundary conditions. For Abaqus the subroutine by Nielsen (2006, 2014) is used to implement free-field boundary conditions. In addition, we test the influence of mesh dimension and Rayleigh damping as well as the importance of buffer-zone width. 2D SRAs with Abaqus and FLAC3D (Itasca Consulting Group, 2012), which is commonly used for geotechnical analyses, are compared as part of the assessment. Similar results are obtained from the two programs but Abaqus is preferred as it is more efficient for linear elastic analyses than FLAC3D, which, on the contrary, performs well for soil presenting strongly non-linear behaviour and effective stress. We demonstrate that reliable results can be achieved, not only for simple uniform sites but also for complex sites with multiple layers and dipping stratigraphy.
LanguageEnglish
Number of pages27
JournalJournal of Earthquake Engineering
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - 5 Jan 2019

Fingerprint

response analysis
boundary condition
Boundary conditions
software
Stratigraphy
field margin
Subroutines
buffer zone
effective stress
Software packages
damping
stratigraphy
Damping
Soils
programme
code
soil

Keywords

  • one-dimensional
  • two-dimensional
  • site response analysis
  • free-field boundary conditions
  • damping

Cite this

@article{21f1e334d8694dcea31dbb4961e21baf,
title = "Guidance on conducting 2D linear viscoelastic site response analysis using a finite element code",
abstract = "Various software packages are available to conduct one-dimensional (1D) and two-dimensional (2D) site response analyses (SRAs). In this article, a finite element program is tested with the purpose of assessing the importance of several aspects on the obtained results and verifying the software. Abaqus (Dassault Syst{\`e}mes) is compared with the 1D SRA software STRATA (Kottke & Rathje, 2008) for simple 1D models to understand the influence of the boundary conditions; as being a 1D SRA program, STRATA does not require vertical boundary conditions. For Abaqus the subroutine by Nielsen (2006, 2014) is used to implement free-field boundary conditions. In addition, we test the influence of mesh dimension and Rayleigh damping as well as the importance of buffer-zone width. 2D SRAs with Abaqus and FLAC3D (Itasca Consulting Group, 2012), which is commonly used for geotechnical analyses, are compared as part of the assessment. Similar results are obtained from the two programs but Abaqus is preferred as it is more efficient for linear elastic analyses than FLAC3D, which, on the contrary, performs well for soil presenting strongly non-linear behaviour and effective stress. We demonstrate that reliable results can be achieved, not only for simple uniform sites but also for complex sites with multiple layers and dipping stratigraphy.",
keywords = "one-dimensional, two-dimensional, site response analysis, free-field boundary conditions, damping",
author = "Carolina Volpini and John Douglas and Nielsen, {Andreas Hvidtfelt}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "5",
doi = "10.1080/13632469.2019.1568931",
language = "English",
journal = "Journal of Earthquake Engineering",
issn = "1363-2469",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Guidance on conducting 2D linear viscoelastic site response analysis using a finite element code

AU - Volpini,Carolina

AU - Douglas,John

AU - Nielsen,Andreas Hvidtfelt

PY - 2019/1/5

Y1 - 2019/1/5

N2 - Various software packages are available to conduct one-dimensional (1D) and two-dimensional (2D) site response analyses (SRAs). In this article, a finite element program is tested with the purpose of assessing the importance of several aspects on the obtained results and verifying the software. Abaqus (Dassault Systèmes) is compared with the 1D SRA software STRATA (Kottke & Rathje, 2008) for simple 1D models to understand the influence of the boundary conditions; as being a 1D SRA program, STRATA does not require vertical boundary conditions. For Abaqus the subroutine by Nielsen (2006, 2014) is used to implement free-field boundary conditions. In addition, we test the influence of mesh dimension and Rayleigh damping as well as the importance of buffer-zone width. 2D SRAs with Abaqus and FLAC3D (Itasca Consulting Group, 2012), which is commonly used for geotechnical analyses, are compared as part of the assessment. Similar results are obtained from the two programs but Abaqus is preferred as it is more efficient for linear elastic analyses than FLAC3D, which, on the contrary, performs well for soil presenting strongly non-linear behaviour and effective stress. We demonstrate that reliable results can be achieved, not only for simple uniform sites but also for complex sites with multiple layers and dipping stratigraphy.

AB - Various software packages are available to conduct one-dimensional (1D) and two-dimensional (2D) site response analyses (SRAs). In this article, a finite element program is tested with the purpose of assessing the importance of several aspects on the obtained results and verifying the software. Abaqus (Dassault Systèmes) is compared with the 1D SRA software STRATA (Kottke & Rathje, 2008) for simple 1D models to understand the influence of the boundary conditions; as being a 1D SRA program, STRATA does not require vertical boundary conditions. For Abaqus the subroutine by Nielsen (2006, 2014) is used to implement free-field boundary conditions. In addition, we test the influence of mesh dimension and Rayleigh damping as well as the importance of buffer-zone width. 2D SRAs with Abaqus and FLAC3D (Itasca Consulting Group, 2012), which is commonly used for geotechnical analyses, are compared as part of the assessment. Similar results are obtained from the two programs but Abaqus is preferred as it is more efficient for linear elastic analyses than FLAC3D, which, on the contrary, performs well for soil presenting strongly non-linear behaviour and effective stress. We demonstrate that reliable results can be achieved, not only for simple uniform sites but also for complex sites with multiple layers and dipping stratigraphy.

KW - one-dimensional

KW - two-dimensional

KW - site response analysis

KW - free-field boundary conditions

KW - damping

UR - https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueqe20

U2 - 10.1080/13632469.2019.1568931

DO - 10.1080/13632469.2019.1568931

M3 - Article

JO - Journal of Earthquake Engineering

T2 - Journal of Earthquake Engineering

JF - Journal of Earthquake Engineering

SN - 1363-2469

ER -