2019
DOI: 10.1007/s11803-019-0519-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The plurality effect of topographical irregularities on site seismic response

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Some of the best-known numerical approaches to assess the seismic response of topographic features can be categorized as follows: i) Finite difference method (FDM), which is a method with computational efficiency and simple code structure, however, could present difficulties with the modeling of irregular geometry, (Oprsal 2002;Republic 2007;Blanch 2012). ii) Finite element method (FEM), which can accurately capture the effect of complex topographies, such as mountainous areas, without refining the grid resolution, but has several disadvantages such as the need for huge power of calculation and the need to apply numerical damping (Amorosi et al 2010;Jahromi and Karkhaneh 2019). iii) Boundary element method (BEM), direct (DBEM) (Chaillat et al 2012;Kamalian et al 2003a, b;Mogi and Kawakami 2007;Sohrabibidar et al 2010), and indirect (IBEM) (Griffiths and Bollinger 1979;Sánchez-Sesma et al 1993;Gil-Zepeda et al 2003;Lee 2013): the reduction of problem dimensionality is the most important advantage of BEM, it means that only boundary line and surface domain are discretized for twodimensional plane and 3D program, respectively.…”
Section: Numerical Modelingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some of the best-known numerical approaches to assess the seismic response of topographic features can be categorized as follows: i) Finite difference method (FDM), which is a method with computational efficiency and simple code structure, however, could present difficulties with the modeling of irregular geometry, (Oprsal 2002;Republic 2007;Blanch 2012). ii) Finite element method (FEM), which can accurately capture the effect of complex topographies, such as mountainous areas, without refining the grid resolution, but has several disadvantages such as the need for huge power of calculation and the need to apply numerical damping (Amorosi et al 2010;Jahromi and Karkhaneh 2019). iii) Boundary element method (BEM), direct (DBEM) (Chaillat et al 2012;Kamalian et al 2003a, b;Mogi and Kawakami 2007;Sohrabibidar et al 2010), and indirect (IBEM) (Griffiths and Bollinger 1979;Sánchez-Sesma et al 1993;Gil-Zepeda et al 2003;Lee 2013): the reduction of problem dimensionality is the most important advantage of BEM, it means that only boundary line and surface domain are discretized for twodimensional plane and 3D program, respectively.…”
Section: Numerical Modelingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several studies demonstrated that local seismic effects, due to soil properties and topography configuration, can significantly affect the response of structures (Jahromi and Karkhaneh 2019;Panzera et al 2018). Thus, to understand if the different response of the buildings in the historic centre of Norcia and Campi Alto were affected by different amplification factors, the results of a seismic microzonation study, carried out after the 2016 earthquake by SGA (Studio Geologi Associati -Perugia-Italy), is depicted in Fig.…”
Section: Historical Sequence Of Earthquakes In Norcia and Campi Altomentioning
confidence: 99%