Login
Register
Reset Password
Publish & Distribute
Publishing Solutions
Distribution Solutions
Subjects
Architecture and Design
Arts
Business and Economics
Chemistry
Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
Computer Sciences
Cultural Studies
Engineering
General Interest
Geosciences
History
Industrial Chemistry
Jewish Studies
Law
Library and Information Science, Book Studies
Life Sciences
Linguistics and Semiotics
Literary Studies
Materials Sciences
Mathematics
Medicine
Music
Pharmacy
Philosophy
Physics
Social Sciences
Sports and Recreation
Theology and Religion
Publications
Journals
Books
Proceedings
Publishers
Blog
Contact
Search
EUR
USD
GBP
English
English
Deutsch
Polski
Español
Français
Italiano
Cart
Home
Journals
Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica
Volume 40 (2018): Issue 2 (October 2018)
Open Access
On consistent nonlinear analysis of soil–structure interaction problems
Andrzej Truty
Andrzej Truty
| Oct 03, 2018
Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica
Volume 40 (2018): Issue 2 (October 2018)
About this article
Previous Article
Next Article
Abstract
Article
Figures & Tables
References
Authors
Articles in this Issue
Preview
PDF
Cite
Share
Article Category:
Research Article
Published Online:
Oct 03, 2018
Page range:
86 - 95
Received:
Apr 23, 2018
Accepted:
Aug 20, 2018
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2478/sgem-2018-0019
Keywords
soil–structure interaction
,
constitutive modelling
,
deep excavations
,
finite elements
© 2018 Andrzej Truty, published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.
Figure 1
Problem of coupling shear and volumetric plastic mechanisms during triaxial CD test carried out on normally or lightly overconsolidated samples.
Figure 2
OCR profiles for assumed pre-overburden pressure values qPOP.
Figure 3
Setting the initial position of the plastic surfaces of the HS model.
Figure 4
FE model of deep excavation protected with a diaphragm wall.
Figure 5
Envelope of characteristic bending moments (Cases A1 and A2) and corresponding membrane forces (Case A1 only) at the time instance when the foundation raft is installed.
Figure 6
Comparison of characteristic bending moment envelopes (Case A1 only) based on all time instances registered until the last excavation step and then until the time instance at which the foundation raft is installed.
Figure 7
Comparison of wall deflections (Cases A1 and A2) at the time instance corresponding to the last excavation step (dashed lines) and at the time instance when the foundation raft is installed (solid lines).
Figure 8
Checking the ULS condition at any point of the structure by projecting the stress resultant pairs {Nxx, Mxx · γ̃} on the domain bound by the N – M interaction diagram.
Figure 9
Envelope of characteristic bending moments (Case B1) and corresponding membrane forces at the time instance when the foundation raft is installed.
Figure 10
Comparison of characteristic bending moment envelopes based on all time instances registered until the last excavation step (B1∗) and then until the time instance at which the foundation raft is installed (B1).
Figure 11
Comparison of wall deflections at the time instance corresponding to the last excavation step (dashed lines) (Cases A1∗, B1∗ and B2∗) and at the time instance when the foundation raft is installed (solid lines) (Cases A1, B1 and B2).
Figure 12
Envelope of characteristic bending moments (Case B2) and corresponding membrane forces at the time instance when the foundation raft is installed.
Preliminary design of reinforcement in the wall based on the results achieved for Case A1.
Depth range, m
A
s1
, cm
2
/m
A
s2
, cm
2
/m
–7
12.5
12.5
–10
25.0
12.5
–18
50.0
12.5
–20
12.5
12.5
–26
12.5
18.75
Preview