Seismic response of underground reservoir structures in sand: Evaluation of Class-C and C1 numerical simulations using centrifuge experiments

Validation of a three‐dimensional constitutive model for nonlinear site response and soil‐structure interaction analyses using centrifuge test data

“…Figures and compare, respectively, the bending strains obtained numerically and measured experimentally at the location of SG8 and the spatial variation of the maximum bending strains along the north wall. Strains predicted by NLV and EL are generally in very good agreement with experimental data for all the tests, which are both superoir in this respect strains predicted by Deng et al using the PDMY model.…”

“…In nonlinear numerical simulations, frictional contact elements are used to consider the potential effects of the soil‐structure interface sliding on the distribution of the lateral earth pressure on the structures. The friction coefficient of the interface is computed using, which agrees with typical values used in engineering practice (see, eg, one study) and was also used by Deng et al Figure displays the distribution of the maximum dynamic (ie, total minus static) and total lateral earth pressures along the north walls of the specimens. As seen, the NLV and contact models are successful in capturing the experimentally measured lateral earth pressures, especially for the stiff specimen and strong input motions for which the EL model has a poor performance.…”

“…As seen, the NLV and contact models are successful in capturing the experimentally measured lateral earth pressures, especially for the stiff specimen and strong input motions for which the EL model has a poor performance. The NLV model also outperforms the PDMY model used by Deng et al, who only reported results for low‐intensity (Northridge‐L) base motions.…”

“…Deng et al explored the capability of the so‐called PDMY model, which is a pressure‐dependent multi‐yield‐surface plasticity model, in predicting the response of the specimen structures and the far‐field soil. The PDMY model has 20 material parameters, great majority of which are not directly calibrated but have judiciously chosen “assumed” values.…”

“…For verification, we make comparisons of one‐dimensional (1D) wave propagation analysis results with those obtained using with DEEPSOIL, which is a site‐response analysis software that features well‐accepted 1D model(s) of the hysteretic behavior of well‐confined soils under low‐to‐moderate (shear) strains (see, for example, Vucetic and Matasovic). Next, we explore the capability of this soil model in predicting responses measured during the tests by Hushmand et al In this, we also make comparisons with numerical results obtained by Deng et al and Esmaeilzadeh Seylabi, who used the PDMY and equivalent linear soil models, respectively.…”