Skip to main content
Log in

Time-domain dynamic constitutive model suitable for mucky soil site seismic response

  • Technical Papers
  • Published:
Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Soil nonlinear behavior displays noticeable effects on the site seismic response. This study proposes a new functional expression of the skeleton curve to replace the hyperbolic skeleton curve. By integrating shear modulus and combining the dynamic skeleton curve and the damping degradation coefficient, the constitutive equation of the logarithmic dynamic skeleton can be obtained, which considers the damping effect in a soil dynamics problem. Based on the finite difference method and the multi-transmitting boundary condition, a 1D site seismic response analysis program called Soilresp1D has been developed herein and used to analyze the time-domain seismic response in three types of sites. At the same time, this study also provides numerical simulation results based on the hyperbolic constitutive model and the equivalent linear method. The results verify the rationality of the new soil dynamic constitutive model. It can analyze the mucky soil site nonlinear seismic response, reflecting the deformation characteristics and damping effect of the silty soil. The hysteresis loop area is more extensive, and the residual strain is evident.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adampira M, Alielahi H, Panji M, et al. (2015), “Comparison of Equivalent Linear and Nonlinear Methods in Seismic Analysis of Liquefiable Site Response Due to Near-Fault Incident Waves: A Case Study,” Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 8(5): 3103–3118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Assimaki D and Kausel E (2002), “An Equivalent Linear Algorithm with Frequency- and Pressure-Dependent Moduli and Damping for the Seismic Analysis of Deep Sites,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 22(9–12): 959–965.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boulanger RW and Ziotopoulou K (2019), “A Constitutive Model for Clays and Plastic Silts in PlaneStrain Earthquake Engineering Applications,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 127: 105832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen GX, Zhao DF, Chen WY, et al. (2019), “Excess Pore-Water Pressure Generation in Cyclic Undrained Testing,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 145(7): 04019022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen GX, Wang YZ, Zhao DF, et al. (2021), “A New Effective Stress Method for Nonlinear Site Response Analyses,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 50(6): 1595–1611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chopra AK (2000), Dynamics of Structures, 2nd Ed, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, NJ, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chu F, Shao SJ and Chen CL (2014), “Experimental Study of Dynamic Deformation and Dynamic Strength Properties of Saturated Silty Sand,” Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 33(S1): 3299–3305. (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Dafalias YF and Manzari MT (2004), “Simple Plasticity Sand Model Accounting for Fabric Change Effects,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 130(6): 622–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dellow GD, Yetton M, Massey C, et al. (2011), “Landslides Caused by the 22 February 2011 Christchurch Earthquake and Management of Landslide Risk in the Immediate Aftermath,” Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 44(4): 227–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan JM and Chang CY (1970), “Nonlinear Analysis of Stress and Strain in Soils,” Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 96(5): 1629–1653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardin BO and Drnevich VP (1972), “Shear Modulus and Damping in Soils: Design Equations and Curves,” Geotechnical Special Publication, 98(118): 667–692.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaklamanos J, Bradley BA, Thompson EM, et al. (2013), “Critical Parameters Affecting Bias and Variability in Site-Response Analyses Using KiK-net Downhole Array Data,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 103(3): 1733–1749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim JK, Koh HM, Kwon KJ, et al. (2000), “A Three-Dimensional Transmitting Boundary Formulated in Cartesian Co-Ordinate System for the Dynamics of Non-Axisymmetric Foundations,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 29(10): 1527–1546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kondner RL (1963), “Hyperbolic Stress-Strain Response: Cohesive Soils,” Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations, 89(1): 115–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lade PV and Duncan JM (1975), “Elastoplastic StressStrain Theory for Cohesionless Soils,” Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 101(10): 1037–1053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li XJ (1992), “A Method to Analyzing Seismic Response of Nonlinear Soil Layers,” South China Journal of Seismology, 12(4): 1–8. (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Li XJ and Liao ZP (1993), “Dynamic Skeleton Curve of Soil Stress-Strain Relationship for Irregular Cyclic Loading,” Earthquake Research in China, 7(4): 469–478. (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Li XJ, Liao ZP and Zhang KX (1994), “A Functional Formula of Dynamic Skeleton Curve Taking Account of Damping Effect,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 14(1): 30–35. (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Liao ZP and Yang G (1995), “Multi-Directional Transmitting Boundaries for Steady-State SH Waves,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 24(3): 361–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu T, Zhou ZH and Huo JY (2008), “1D Nonlinear Seismic Response Analysis of Soil Layers in Time Domain,” Rock and Soil Mechanics, 29(8): 2170–2176. (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin PP and Seed HB (1982), “One-Dimensional Dynamic Ground Response Analyses,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 108(7): 935–952.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masing G (1926), “Eigenspannungen und Verfestigung beim Messing,” Proceedings of Second International Congress of Applied Mechanics, Zurich, Switzerland, pp. 332–335. (in German)

  • Muravskii G (2005), “On Description of Hysteretic Behaviour of Materials,” International Journal of Solids and Structures, 42(9–10): 2625–2644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prevost JH and Keane CM (1990), “Shear Stress-Strain Curve Generation from Simple Material Parameters,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 116(8): 1255–1263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pyke RM (1979), “Non-linear Soil Models for Irregular Cyclic Loadings,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 105(6): 715–726.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ray RP and Woods RD (1988), “Modulus and Damping Due to Uniform and Variable Cyclic Loading,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 114(8): 861–876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roscoe KH, Thurairajah A and Schofield AN (1963), “Yielding of Clays in States Wetter Than Critical,” Geotechnique, 13(1): 211–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenblueth E and Newmark NM (1971), Fundamentals of Earthquake Engineering, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, NJ, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruan B, Zhao DF, Chen GX, et al. (2017), “A New Effective Stress Method Using the Integration Algorithm of the Modified Davidenkov Constitutive Model and the Byrne Pore Pressure Increment Model, and Validation and Calibration,” Journal of Basic Science and Engineering, 25(5): 956–966.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruan B, Zhao K, Wang SY, et al. (2019), “Numerical Modeling of Seismic Site Effects in a Shallow Estuarine Bay (Suai Bay, Shantou, China),” Engineering Geology, 260(3): 105233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song CM and Wolf JP (1997), “The Scaled Boundary Finite-Element Method—Alias Consistent Infinitesimal Finite-Element Cell Method — for Elastodynamics,” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 147(3): 329–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sugito M, Goda H and Masuda T (1994), “Frequency Dependent Equi-Linearized Technique for Seismic Response Analysis of Multi-Layered Ground,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 493(III-27): 49–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun J, Gong MS and Tao XX (2013), “Dynamic Shear Modulus of Undisturbed Soil Under Different Consolidation Ratios and Its Effects on Surface Ground Motion,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 4(12): 561–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun R and Yuan XM (2020), “A Holistic Equivalent Linear Method for Site Response Analysis,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 141: 106476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tafili M and Triantafyllidis T (2020), “Cyclic and Monotonic Response of Silts and Clays: Experimental Analysis and Constitutive Modelling,” European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, 27(2): 2303–2312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trifunac MD (2016), “Site Conditions and Earthquake Ground Motion–A Review,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 90: 88–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang W, Liu BD, Zhou ZH, et al. (2010), “Equivalent Linear Method Considering Frequency Dependent Stiffness and Damping,” Rock and Soil Mechanics, 31(12): 3928–3933. (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang ZQ, Xie JF and Shi ZJ (1983), Introduction to Earthquake Engineering Geology, Beijing: Seismological Press, China.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf JP and Song CM (2000), “The Scaled Boundary Finite-Element Method–A Primer: Derivations,” Computers and Structures, 78(1–3): 191–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yao EL, Wang SY, Ruan B, et al. (2019), “Numerical Study on Site Response Considering Ground Motion Spatial Variation,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 127(12): 361–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yniesta S, Brandenberg SJ and Shafiee A (2017), “ARCS: A One Dimensional Nonlinear Soil Model for Ground Response Analysis,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 102(11): 75–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Y, Zhao K, Peng YJ, et al. (2022), “Dynamic Shear Modulus and Damping Ratio Characteristics of Undisturbed Marine Soils in the Bohai Sea, China,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 21(2): 297–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhuang HY and Chen GX (2006), “A Viscous-Plastic Model for Soft Soil Under Cyclic Loadings,” Geotechnical Special Publication, 343–350.

Download references

Acknowledgment

This work was supported by the Major Program of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (52192675) and the 111 Project of China under Grant No. D21001.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Qing Dong or Xiaojun Li.

Additional information

Supported by: Major Program of the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 52192675 and the 111 Project of China under Grant No. D21001

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dong, Q., Chen, S., Jin, L. et al. Time-domain dynamic constitutive model suitable for mucky soil site seismic response. Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib. 23, 1–13 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-024-2222-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-024-2222-3

Keywords

Navigation