An important pitfall of pseudo-static finite element analysis

Stavroula Kontoe, Loizos Pelecanos, David Potts

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Finite Element (FE) pseudo-static analysis can provide a good compromise between simplified methods of dynamic analysis and time domain analysis. The pseudo-static FE approach can accurately model the in situ, stresses prior to seismic loading (when it follows a static analysis simulating the construction sequence) is relatively simple and not as computationally expensive as the time domain approach. However this method should be used with caution as the results can be sensitive to the choice of the mesh dimensions. In this paper two simple examples of pseudo-static finite element analysis are examined parametrically, a homogeneous slope and a cantilever retaining wall, exploring the sensitivity of the pseudo-static analysis results on the adopted mesh size. The mesh dependence was found to be more pronounced for problems with high critical seismic coefficients values (e.g. gentle slopes or small walls), as in these cases a generalised layer failure mechanism is developed simultaneously with the slope or wall mechanism. In general the mesh width was found not to affect notably the predicted value of critical seismic coefficient but to have a major impact on the predicted movements.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)41-50
JournalComputers and Geotechnics
Volume48
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2013

Fingerprint

Static analysis
Finite element method
Time domain analysis
Retaining walls
Dynamic analysis
mesh size
retaining wall
in situ stress
failure mechanism
dynamic analysis
analysis
method

Cite this

An important pitfall of pseudo-static finite element analysis. / Kontoe, Stavroula; Pelecanos, Loizos; Potts, David.

In: Computers and Geotechnics, Vol. 48, 03.2013, p. 41-50.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{bcd36a5e68c44e64992f4fb9fdcb52e4,
title = "An important pitfall of pseudo-static finite element analysis",
abstract = "Finite Element (FE) pseudo-static analysis can provide a good compromise between simplified methods of dynamic analysis and time domain analysis. The pseudo-static FE approach can accurately model the in situ, stresses prior to seismic loading (when it follows a static analysis simulating the construction sequence) is relatively simple and not as computationally expensive as the time domain approach. However this method should be used with caution as the results can be sensitive to the choice of the mesh dimensions. In this paper two simple examples of pseudo-static finite element analysis are examined parametrically, a homogeneous slope and a cantilever retaining wall, exploring the sensitivity of the pseudo-static analysis results on the adopted mesh size. The mesh dependence was found to be more pronounced for problems with high critical seismic coefficients values (e.g. gentle slopes or small walls), as in these cases a generalised layer failure mechanism is developed simultaneously with the slope or wall mechanism. In general the mesh width was found not to affect notably the predicted value of critical seismic coefficient but to have a major impact on the predicted movements.",
author = "Stavroula Kontoe and Loizos Pelecanos and David Potts",
year = "2013",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1016/j.compgeo.2012.09.003",
language = "English",
volume = "48",
pages = "41--50",
journal = "Computers and Geotechnics",
issn = "0266-352X",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - An important pitfall of pseudo-static finite element analysis

AU - Kontoe, Stavroula

AU - Pelecanos, Loizos

AU - Potts, David

PY - 2013/3

Y1 - 2013/3

N2 - Finite Element (FE) pseudo-static analysis can provide a good compromise between simplified methods of dynamic analysis and time domain analysis. The pseudo-static FE approach can accurately model the in situ, stresses prior to seismic loading (when it follows a static analysis simulating the construction sequence) is relatively simple and not as computationally expensive as the time domain approach. However this method should be used with caution as the results can be sensitive to the choice of the mesh dimensions. In this paper two simple examples of pseudo-static finite element analysis are examined parametrically, a homogeneous slope and a cantilever retaining wall, exploring the sensitivity of the pseudo-static analysis results on the adopted mesh size. The mesh dependence was found to be more pronounced for problems with high critical seismic coefficients values (e.g. gentle slopes or small walls), as in these cases a generalised layer failure mechanism is developed simultaneously with the slope or wall mechanism. In general the mesh width was found not to affect notably the predicted value of critical seismic coefficient but to have a major impact on the predicted movements.

AB - Finite Element (FE) pseudo-static analysis can provide a good compromise between simplified methods of dynamic analysis and time domain analysis. The pseudo-static FE approach can accurately model the in situ, stresses prior to seismic loading (when it follows a static analysis simulating the construction sequence) is relatively simple and not as computationally expensive as the time domain approach. However this method should be used with caution as the results can be sensitive to the choice of the mesh dimensions. In this paper two simple examples of pseudo-static finite element analysis are examined parametrically, a homogeneous slope and a cantilever retaining wall, exploring the sensitivity of the pseudo-static analysis results on the adopted mesh size. The mesh dependence was found to be more pronounced for problems with high critical seismic coefficients values (e.g. gentle slopes or small walls), as in these cases a generalised layer failure mechanism is developed simultaneously with the slope or wall mechanism. In general the mesh width was found not to affect notably the predicted value of critical seismic coefficient but to have a major impact on the predicted movements.

UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2012.09.003

U2 - 10.1016/j.compgeo.2012.09.003

DO - 10.1016/j.compgeo.2012.09.003

M3 - Article

VL - 48

SP - 41

EP - 50

JO - Computers and Geotechnics

JF - Computers and Geotechnics

SN - 0266-352X

ER -