1988
DOI: 10.1016/s0267-7261(88)80005-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Approximate formulas for dynamic stiffnesses of rigid foundations

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
128
0
9

Year Published

1999
1999
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 221 publications
(148 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
1
128
0
9
Order By: Relevance
“…Table 1 provides the comparison of ISoBEM results for normalized static stiffness of rigid square footing on halfspace, for all three oscillation modes, with the empirical formulas from Pais & Kausel [7]. In Table 2, results for the horizontal static stiffness of a two-layer soil profile (v 1 = v 2 = 0.4) are compared against those obtained from Ahmad & Rupani [13].…”
Section: Convergence and Accuracy Of Bem Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Table 1 provides the comparison of ISoBEM results for normalized static stiffness of rigid square footing on halfspace, for all three oscillation modes, with the empirical formulas from Pais & Kausel [7]. In Table 2, results for the horizontal static stiffness of a two-layer soil profile (v 1 = v 2 = 0.4) are compared against those obtained from Ahmad & Rupani [13].…”
Section: Convergence and Accuracy Of Bem Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the other hand, the available solutions regarding the dynamic impedance of footings on non-liquefiable soil usually assume linear or equivalent-linear elastic soil behavior and perfect contact between footing and soil [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. Moreover, soil-foundation interaction is approached by means of an equivalent spring-dashpot system connected with the footing, as shown in Fig.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To this end, two different approaches were implemented: (i) a standard substructure approach, according to which the FIM motion is computed from a pure kinematic interaction and then the inertial interaction problem is addressed taking into account the mass of both the structure and the foundation; and (ii) a hybrid substructure approach, according to which the FIM motion is derived from a quasi-kinematic interaction and then the inertial interaction problem is solved including the sole mass of the structure. In both approaches, the expressions provided by Pais & Kausel [22] were used to compute the dynamic impedances for the embedded foundation.…”
Section: Interpretation Of Cosmos Building Earthquake Recordingsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Its dynamic stiffness parameter, d 11 , is plotted in Figure 13. It is observed that none of the initial stiffness, yield stress and post-yielding stiffness dominates individually the global trend of the nonlinear radiation curve family.…”
Section: Figure 11mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…strip foundation on elastic half-space [2,3] and on visco-elastic soil layer [4,5], circular foundation on elastic halfspace [6,7] and on visco-elastic half-space [8], rectangular foundation on elastic halfspace or layered medium [9,10], and cylindrical and rectangular embedded foundations [11]. Gazetas [12] and Mylonakis et al [13] compiled an extensive set of graphs and tables for dynamic stiffness of foundations with a variety of geometries and linear soil conditions.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%