The state of practice in soil-structure interaction modelling in New Zealand

IF 0.8 Q4 ENGINEERING, GEOLOGICAL
T. Hnat, Christopher McGann, L. Wotherspoon
{"title":"The state of practice in soil-structure interaction modelling in New Zealand","authors":"T. Hnat, Christopher McGann, L. Wotherspoon","doi":"10.5459/bnzsee.1609","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The current state of practice in soil-structure interaction (SSI) modelling in New Zealand was investigated through an industry-wide questionnaire. This used a mixed methods, sequential explanatory research design involving the collection of quantitative and qualitative questionnaire data, as well as follow-up focus groups. Several statistically significant relationships were observed for SSI modelling approaches between different engineering fields, company sizes, and years of experience.\nThe key findings from this study suggest that there is no consensus on the best SSI analysis methods, modelling strategies, or guidelines to be used. Overall, fixed base analysis remains the most popular method across all company sizes and number of years of industry experience. Engineers from large companies reported higher consideration for SSI modelling and use of performance-based design for design projects, which perhaps reflects the scale and complexity of projects carried out in those companies. However when SSI is considered, analyses are typically limited to nonlinear vertical springs under the foundation as part of a dynamic analysis. Use of SSI for buildings is typically limited to seismic assessments and complex or otherwise high importance structures. However, bridge engineers routinely used pushover analyses with linear and nonlinear springs and dynamic analyses with nonlinear springs, in contrast with the rest of the industry.\nThere is further room to improve on the quality of communication and interaction between structural and geotechnical engineers. A lack of specific guidance on when SSI should be considered was reported, alongside broader training issues to ensure that structural and geotechnical engineers fundamentally understand the requirements and input/output needs of each role.","PeriodicalId":46396,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.1609","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, GEOLOGICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The current state of practice in soil-structure interaction (SSI) modelling in New Zealand was investigated through an industry-wide questionnaire. This used a mixed methods, sequential explanatory research design involving the collection of quantitative and qualitative questionnaire data, as well as follow-up focus groups. Several statistically significant relationships were observed for SSI modelling approaches between different engineering fields, company sizes, and years of experience. The key findings from this study suggest that there is no consensus on the best SSI analysis methods, modelling strategies, or guidelines to be used. Overall, fixed base analysis remains the most popular method across all company sizes and number of years of industry experience. Engineers from large companies reported higher consideration for SSI modelling and use of performance-based design for design projects, which perhaps reflects the scale and complexity of projects carried out in those companies. However when SSI is considered, analyses are typically limited to nonlinear vertical springs under the foundation as part of a dynamic analysis. Use of SSI for buildings is typically limited to seismic assessments and complex or otherwise high importance structures. However, bridge engineers routinely used pushover analyses with linear and nonlinear springs and dynamic analyses with nonlinear springs, in contrast with the rest of the industry. There is further room to improve on the quality of communication and interaction between structural and geotechnical engineers. A lack of specific guidance on when SSI should be considered was reported, alongside broader training issues to ensure that structural and geotechnical engineers fundamentally understand the requirements and input/output needs of each role.
新西兰土壤-结构相互作用模型的实践现状
通过一份全行业问卷调查了新西兰土壤-结构相互作用(SSI)建模的现状。这采用了混合方法,顺序解释性研究设计,包括收集定量和定性问卷数据,以及后续重点小组。SSI建模方法在不同的工程领域、公司规模和多年经验之间存在一些统计上显著的关系。这项研究的关键发现表明,对于要使用的最佳SSI分析方法、建模策略或指南,还没有达成共识。总的来说,固定基数分析仍然是所有公司规模和多年行业经验中最受欢迎的方法。来自大公司的工程师报告说,他们更重视SSI建模,并在设计项目中使用基于性能的设计,这可能反映了这些公司实施项目的规模和复杂性。然而,当考虑SSI时,作为动力分析的一部分,分析通常仅限于基础下的非线性垂直弹簧。建筑物SSI的使用通常仅限于地震评估和复杂或其他高度重要的结构。然而,与行业其他部门相比,桥梁工程师通常使用线性和非线性弹簧的pushover分析以及非线性弹簧的动力学分析。在结构工程师和岩土工程师之间的沟通和互动质量方面还有进一步的改进空间。据报道,除了更广泛的培训问题外,还缺乏关于何时应考虑SSI的具体指导,以确保结构和岩土工程师从根本上了解每个角色的要求和输入/输出需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
17.60%
发文量
14
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信