Open Access

On consistent nonlinear analysis of soil–structure interaction problems

Andrzej Truty

Andrzej Truty

Instytut Geotechniki, Wydział Inżynierii Środowiska, Politechnika KrakowskaNew York, USA
Search for this author on
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Truty, Andrzej
  
Oct 03, 2018
On consistent nonlinear analysis of soil–structure interaction problems's Cover Image
About this article
Previous Article
Next Article
Cite
Download Cover
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
© 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.
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.
OCR profiles for assumed pre-overburden pressure values qPOP.

Figure 3

Setting the initial position of the plastic surfaces of the HS model.
Setting the initial position of the plastic surfaces of the HS model.

Figure 4

FE model of deep excavation protected with a diaphragm wall.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
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, mAs1, cm2/mAs2, cm2/m
–712.512.5
–1025.012.5
–1850.012.5
–2012.512.5
–2612.518.75
Language:
English
Publication timeframe:
4 times per year
Journal Subjects:
Geosciences, Geosciences, other, Materials Sciences, Composites, Porous Materials, Physics, Mechanics and Fluid Dynamics
Journal RSS Feed