Dynamic response of a geotechnical rigid model container with absorbing boundaries

One of the major challenges encountered in earthquake geotechnical physical modelling is to determine the effects induced by the artificial boundaries of the soil container on the dynamic response of the soil deposit. Over the past years, the use of absorbing material for minimising boundaries effects has become an increasing alternative solution, yet little systematic research has been carried out to quantify the dynamic performance of the absorbing material and the amount of energy dissipated by it. This paper aims to examine the effects induced by the absorbing material on the dynamic response of the soil, and estimate the amount of energy reduced by the absorbing boundaries. The absorbent material consisted of panels made of commercially available foams, which were placed on both inner sides of end-walls of the soil container. These walls are perpendicular to the shaking direction. Three types of foam with different mechanical properties were used in this study. The results were obtained from tests carried out using a shaking table and Redhill 110 sand for the soil deposit. It was found that a considerably amount of energy was dissipated, in particular within the frequency range close to the resonance of the soil deposit. This feature suggests that the presence of foams provides a significant influence to the dynamic response of the soil. The energy absorbed by the boundaries was also quantified from integrals of the Power Spectral Density of the accelerations. It was found that the absorbed energy ranged between a minimum of 41% to a maximum of 92% of the input levels, depending mainly on the foam used in the test. The effects provided by the acceleration levels and depth at which the energy was evaluated were practically negligible. Finally, practical guidelines for the selection of the absorbing material are provided.

[1]  Berrak Teymur.  The significance of boundary conditions in dynamic centrifuge modelling , 2002 .

[2]  Fabrizio Scarpa,et al.  Stiffness and energy dissipation in polyurethane auxetic foams , 2008 .

[3]  J. Carlos Santamarina,et al.  Seismic monitoring short-duration events : liquefaction in 1g models , 2007 .

[4]  Ricardo Dobry,et al.  Simplified procedures for estimating the fundamental period of a soil profile , 1976 .

[5]  Julius S. Bendat,et al.  Engineering Applications of Correlation and Spectral Analysis , 1980 .

[6]  F. N. Frenkiel,et al.  Waves In Layered Media , 1960 .

[7]  Ahmed Elgamal,et al.  Seismic response of adjacent dense and loose saturated sand columns , 2002 .

[8]  Robert H. Scanlan,et al.  Dynamic stress wave reflections/attenuation: Earthquake simulation in centrifuge soil models , 1985 .

[9]  Nicholas A Alexander,et al.  Economic MEMS based 3-axis water proof accelerometer for dynamic geo-engineering applications , 2012 .

[10]  Xiangwu Zeng,et al.  Design and performance of an equivalent-shear-beam container for earthquake centrifuge modelling , 1996 .

[11]  M. Biot.  Theory of Propagation of Elastic Waves in a Fluid‐Saturated Porous Solid. I. Low‐Frequency Range , 1956 .

[12]  S. Kramer.  Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering , 1996 .

[13]  S. P. Gopal Madabhushi,et al.  A model study on the effects of input motion on the seismic behaviour of tunnels , 2011 .

[14]  I. M. Idriss,et al.  Seismic Response of Horizontal Soil Layers , 1968 .

[15]  Charles Wang Wai Ng,et al.  Centrifuge modeling of loose fill embankment subjected to uni-axial and bi-axial earthquakes , 2004 .

[16]  K. L. Fishman,et al.  Laboratory study of seismic free-field response of sand , 1995 .

[17]  Herbert Kolsky,et al.  Stress Waves in Solids , 2003 .

[18]  Robert V. Whitman,et al.  Initial Results from a Stacked Ring Apparatus for Simulation of a Soil Profile , 1981 .

[19]  C. B. Crouse,et al.  Centrifuge liquefaction tests in a laminar box , 1988 .

[20]  Domenico Lombardi.  Dynamics of pile-supported structures in seismically liquefiable soils , 2013 .

[21]  Jeramy C. Ashlock,et al.  Physical characteristics of dynamic vertical–horizontal-rocking response of surface foundations on cohesionless soils , 2011 .

[22]  H. Saunders.  Book Reviews : Engineering Applications of Correlatidn and Spectral Analysis: J.S. Bendat and A.G. Piersol John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, 1980 , 1981 .

[23]  Subhamoy Bhattacharya,et al.  Model Container Design for Soil-Structure Interaction Studies , 2012 .

[24]  Subhamoy Bhattacharya,et al.  Modal analysis of pile‐supported structures during seismic liquefaction , 2014 .

[25]  M. Biot.  Theory of Propagation of Elastic Waves in a Fluid-Saturated Porous Solid. II. Higher Frequency Range , 1956 .

[26]  R. K. Brown,et al.  MODELING FREE-FIELD CONDITIONS IN CENTRIFUGE MODELS , 1990 .

[27]  Rv Whitman,et al.  Effect of boundary conditions upon centrifuge experiments using ground motion simulation , 1986 .

[28]  Ahmed Elgamal,et al.  Dynamic Response of Saturated Dense Sand in Laminated Centrifuge Container , 2005 .

[29]  Douglas Thorby,et al.  Structural Dynamics and Vibration in Practice: An Engineering Handbook , 2008 .

[30]  Spg Madabhushi,et al.  Experimental study of boundary effects in dynamic centrifuge modelling , 2003 .

[31]  Roderic S. Lakes,et al.  Viscoelastic measurement techniques , 2004 .

[32]  Scott Michael Olson,et al.  Evaluation of reliquefaction resistance using shaking table tests , 2011 .

[33]  Ronald Y. S. Pak,et al.  Wave absorbing-boundary method in seismic centrifuge simulation of vertical free-field ground motion , 2012 .

[34]  M. Ashby,et al.  Cellular solids: Structure & properties , 1988 .

[35]  Massimo Ruzzene,et al.  Auxetic compliant flexible PU foams: static and dynamic properties , 2005 .

[36]  R. Clough,et al.  Dynamics Of Structures , 1975 .