Upload
others
View
6
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Hypothesis Computational Platform ESS Case Study Summary
The Plastic Domain Decomposition forSoil Foundation Structure Interaction
Computations
Boris Jeremic and Guanzhou Jie
Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of California, Davis, U.S.A.
Jeremic Computational Geomechanics Group
The Plastic Domain Decomposition for Soil Foundation Structure Interaction Computations
Hypothesis Computational Platform ESS Case Study Summary
Outline
HypothesisESS System Evolution
Computational PlatformSoftware ComponentHardware Component
ESS Case StudyHigh Fidelity, 3D ModelsBehavior for Short Period MotionsBehavior in Long Period Motions
Summary
Jeremic Computational Geomechanics Group
The Plastic Domain Decomposition for Soil Foundation Structure Interaction Computations
Hypothesis Computational Platform ESS Case Study Summary
ESS System Evolution
ESS HypothesisI NEHRP-94 seismic code states that: ”These [seismic]
forces therefore can be evaluated conservatively withoutthe adjustments recommended in Sec. 2.5 [i.e. for SSinteraction effects]”.
I Flexibility (elastic) of foundations and soils modifiesdynamic properties of the SS system (Gazetas andMylonakis)
I Reduction in stiffness (elasto–plasticity) of the SS systemmodifies those dynamic properties even more so
I Earthquake intensity increase, SS system period iselongated
I Earthquake period and SS period might (will) coincide
Jeremic Computational Geomechanics Group
The Plastic Domain Decomposition for Soil Foundation Structure Interaction Computations
Hypothesis Computational Platform ESS Case Study Summary
ESS System Evolution
ESS System Energy Balance
I Energy balance: input (seismic) and dissipated (inelasticity,radiation, coupling) will control the fate of ESS system
I If energy dissipation > input ⇒ probably small damage
I If energy dissipation < input ⇒ probably large damage
Jeremic Computational Geomechanics Group
The Plastic Domain Decomposition for Soil Foundation Structure Interaction Computations
Hypothesis Computational Platform ESS Case Study Summary
ESS System Evolution
Modeling ESS SystemI Structural response is a function of a tightly coupled triad
of dynamic characteristic ofI EarthquakeI SoilI Structure
I Use detailed numerical models to analyze prototypemodels
I Detailed numerical models require advancement inI Modeling techniquesI Computational (software) methodologyI Computer hardware (accessible parallel computers)
Jeremic Computational Geomechanics Group
The Plastic Domain Decomposition for Soil Foundation Structure Interaction Computations
Hypothesis Computational Platform ESS Case Study Summary
Software Component
Parallel Elastic–Plastic Finite Element Computations
I Current Parallel FEM areI Well developed for elastic FEMI Undeveloped for elastic–plastic FEMI Well developed for homogeneous distributed memory
parallel (DMP) computers,I Undeveloped for multiple performance (multi–generation)
DMPsI Need: dynamic computational load balancing for
I multiple element types,I multiple material modelsI multiple compute node performancesI multiple network performances
Jeremic Computational Geomechanics Group
The Plastic Domain Decomposition for Soil Foundation Structure Interaction Computations
Hypothesis Computational Platform ESS Case Study Summary
Software Component
Plastic Domain Decomposition (PDD) Method
I Multi-objective optimization problem (minimize both theinter-processor communications, the data redistributioncosts and create balanced partitions)
I computational load balancing adds overheadToverhead := Tcomm + Tregen
I Tcomm data communication load depending on networkconditions.
I Tregen model regeneration for new partitioning, application(model) dependent
Jeremic Computational Geomechanics Group
The Plastic Domain Decomposition for Soil Foundation Structure Interaction Computations
Hypothesis Computational Platform ESS Case Study Summary
Software Component
PDD Optimization ModelI Computional load among CPUs
Tj :=∑nel
i=1 ElemCompLoad [i], j = 1, ..., nCPU
I Goal: minimize maximum compute time (slowest CPU)Tmax := max(Tj) j = 1, ..., nCPU
I Total compute time (not wall clock time) Tsum := sum(Tj)
I Best execution time (perfect load balancing) Tbest :=Tsum/nCPU, ⇒ Tj ≡ Tbest for each j = 1, ..., nCPU
I Best performance gain Tgain := Tmax − Tbest
I Computational load balancing is beneficial iffTgain ≥ Toverhead = Tcomm + Tregen
Jeremic Computational Geomechanics Group
The Plastic Domain Decomposition for Soil Foundation Structure Interaction Computations
Hypothesis Computational Platform ESS Case Study Summary
Software Component
PDD Implementation
I ParMETIS dynamic graph partitioning libraries (Karypis etal.)
I PETSc solvers (Balay et al.)
I UCD upgraded OpenSees analysis model (Jie andJeremic, McKenna)
I UCD CompGeoMech libraries (elements, material models,algorithms,...)
I Scalable to a large number of CPUs (2–1024 or more)
I Performance tuning and production runs on my clusterGeoWulf (UCD), LongHorn (TACC) and DataStar (SDSC)
Jeremic Computational Geomechanics Group
The Plastic Domain Decomposition for Soil Foundation Structure Interaction Computations
Hypothesis Computational Platform ESS Case Study Summary
Software Component
Simple PDD ExampleI FEM model for soil
foundation Interaction(4,938 Elements,17,604 DOFs)
I Elastic–plastic soilI Mild evolution of
elastic–plastic zoneI Minimizing data
redistributionI Allowing higher
tolerance for edge-cutI Imbalance tolerance 5 %
Jeremic Computational Geomechanics Group
The Plastic Domain Decomposition for Soil Foundation Structure Interaction Computations
Hypothesis Computational Platform ESS Case Study Summary
Software Component
2 CPU PDD Partitioning–Repartitioning Example
Jeremic Computational Geomechanics Group
The Plastic Domain Decomposition for Soil Foundation Structure Interaction Computations
Hypothesis Computational Platform ESS Case Study Summary
Software Component
4 CPU PDD Partitioning–Repartitioning Example
Jeremic Computational Geomechanics Group
The Plastic Domain Decomposition for Soil Foundation Structure Interaction Computations
Hypothesis Computational Platform ESS Case Study Summary
Software Component
8 CPU PDD Partitioning–Repartitioning Example
Jeremic Computational Geomechanics Group
The Plastic Domain Decomposition for Soil Foundation Structure Interaction Computations
Hypothesis Computational Platform ESS Case Study Summary
Software Component
Speedup Overview
0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72 80 88 96 104 112 120 1280
8
16
24
32
40
48
56
64
72
80
88
96
104
112
120
128
Number of CPUs
Par
alle
l Sp
eed
up Theoretic
al Speedup
398,721 DOFs (125,225 Elements)
118,275 DOFs (36,037 Elements)
68,451 DOFs (20,476 Elements)
32,091 DOFs (9,297 Elements)
17,604 DOFs (4,938 Elements)
Jeremic Computational Geomechanics Group
The Plastic Domain Decomposition for Soil Foundation Structure Interaction Computations
Hypothesis Computational Platform ESS Case Study Summary
Software Component
Speedup Overview
1 1632 64 128 256 5121
16
32
64
128
256
Number of CPUs
Par
alle
l Sp
eed
up
Theo
retic
al S
peed
up398,721 DOFs (125,225 Elements)
118,275 DOFs (36,037 Elements)
68,451 DOFs (20,476 Elements)
32,091 DOFs (9,297 Elements)
17,604 DOFs (4,938 Elements)
Jeremic Computational Geomechanics Group
The Plastic Domain Decomposition for Soil Foundation Structure Interaction Computations
Hypothesis Computational Platform ESS Case Study Summary
Hardware Component
Parallel Supercomputer GeoWulf
I Distributed memory parallel computer
I Multiple generation compute nodes and networks
I Very cost effective!
I Same architecture as large parallel supercomputers(SDSC, TACC, EarthSimulator...)
I Local design, construction, available at all times!
Jeremic Computational Geomechanics Group
The Plastic Domain Decomposition for Soil Foundation Structure Interaction Computations
Hypothesis Computational Platform ESS Case Study Summary
Hardware Component
GeoWulf: Parallel Supercomputer Architecture
node
01−
02
node
03−
04no
de05
−06
node
07−
08
node
09−
10
node
11−
12
node
13−
14
node
15−
16
node
17−
18
node
21−
22
node
19−
20
node
23−
24
com
pute
rse
rvic
e
com
pute
rco
ntro
ller
com
pute
rco
ntro
ller console
outside worldInternet
MPI DedicatedGigabit Switch
RAIDServer Gigabit Switch
PFS, admin...
Jeremic Computational Geomechanics Group
The Plastic Domain Decomposition for Soil Foundation Structure Interaction Computations
Hypothesis Computational Platform ESS Case Study Summary
Hardware Component
GeoWulf: Demistifying Parallel Supercomputing
Jeremic Computational Geomechanics Group
The Plastic Domain Decomposition for Soil Foundation Structure Interaction Computations
Hypothesis Computational Platform ESS Case Study Summary
Hardware Component
GeoWulf: Local Development
Jeremic Computational Geomechanics Group
The Plastic Domain Decomposition for Soil Foundation Structure Interaction Computations
Hypothesis Computational Platform ESS Case Study Summary
High Fidelity, 3D Models
Detailed 3D FEM Model (one of)
Jeremic Computational Geomechanics Group
The Plastic Domain Decomposition for Soil Foundation Structure Interaction Computations
Hypothesis Computational Platform ESS Case Study Summary
High Fidelity, 3D Models
Model ComponentsI Soils: elastic–plastic solids (yield land potential surface
Drucker-Prager, kinematic hardening Armstrong-Frederick)(UCD: Jie and Jeremic)
I Structure non–linear beam–column elements (fiberelement) (UCB: Fenves, UW: Eberhardt)
I Piles: non–linear beam–column elements (fiber element)(UCD: Jie and Jeremic)
I Two types of soil: stiff soil (UT, UCD), soft soil (Bay Mud)
I Use of the Domain Reduction Method (DRM) (Bielak et al.)for seismic input into FEM model
Jeremic Computational Geomechanics Group
The Plastic Domain Decomposition for Soil Foundation Structure Interaction Computations
Hypothesis Computational Platform ESS Case Study Summary
High Fidelity, 3D Models
Modeling Issues
I Construction process
I Deconvolution of given surface ground motions
I No artificial damping (only mat. dissipation, radiation)
I Element size issues (filtering of frequencies)
elem. # elem. size fcutoff min. Gep/Gmax γ
12K 1.00 m 10 Hz 1.0 <0.5 %15K 0.90 m >3 Hz 0.08 <1.0 %
150K 0.30 m 10 Hz 0.08 <1.0 %500K 0.15 m 10 Hz 0.02 <5.0 %
Jeremic Computational Geomechanics Group
The Plastic Domain Decomposition for Soil Foundation Structure Interaction Computations
Hypothesis Computational Platform ESS Case Study Summary
High Fidelity, 3D Models
Northridge and Kocaeli Input Motions
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
−2
0
2
Time (s)
Acc
eler
atio
n (m
/s2 ) Acceleration Time Series − Input Motion (NORTHRIDGE EARTHQUAKE, 1994)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60−0.2
0
0.2
Time (s)
Dis
plac
emen
t (m
) Displacement Time Series − Input Motion (NORTHRIDGE EARTHQUAKE, 1994)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
−2
0
2
Time (s)
Acc
eler
atio
n (m
/s2 ) Acceleration Time Series − Input Motion (TURKEY KOCAELI EARTHQUAKE, 1999)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35−0.4
−0.2
0
0.2
Time (s)
Dis
plac
emen
t (m
) Displacement Time Series − Input Motion (TURKEY KOCAELI EARTHQUAKE, 1999)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
1
2
Period (s)Fou
rier
Am
plitu
de (
m/s
2 )
Acceleration Frequency Content − Input Motion (NORTHRIDGE EARTHQUAKE, 1994)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
0.2
0.4
Period (s)Fou
rier
Am
plitu
de (
m)
Displacement Frequency Content − Input Motion (NORTHRIDGE EARTHQUAKE, 1994)
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 200
2
4
Period (s)Fou
rier
Am
plitu
de (
m/s
2 )
Acceleration Frequency Content − Input Motion (TURKEY KOCAELI EARTHQUAKE, 1999)
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 200
2
4
Period (s)Fou
rier
Am
plitu
de (
m)
Displacement Frequency Content − Input Motion (TURKEY KOCAELI EARTHQUAKE, 1999)
Jeremic Computational Geomechanics Group
The Plastic Domain Decomposition for Soil Foundation Structure Interaction Computations
Hypothesis Computational Platform ESS Case Study Summary
High Fidelity, 3D Models
Simulation Results
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
−0.2
−0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Time (s)
Dis
plac
emen
t (m
)
SSS CCC SSC CCS SCS CSC SCC CSS Freefield Input Motion
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
−0.2
−0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Time (s)
Dis
plac
emen
t (m
)
SSS CCC SSC CCS SCS CSC SCC CSS
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
−0.2
−0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Time (s)
Dis
plac
emen
t (m
)
SSS CCC SSC CCS SCS CSC SCC CSS Freefield Input Motion
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
−0.2
−0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Time (s)
Dis
plac
emen
t (m
)
SSS CCC SSC CCS SCS CSC SCC CSS
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
−0.2
−0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Time (s)
Dis
plac
emen
t (m
)
SSS CCC SSC CCS SCS CSC SCC CSS Freefield Input Motion
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
−0.2
−0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Time (s)
Dis
plac
emen
t (m
)
SSS CCC SSC CCS SCS CSC SCC CSS
0 10 20 30 40 50 60−3
−2
−1
0
1
2
3
Time (s)
Acc
eler
atio
n (m
/s2 )
SSS CCC SSC CCS SCS CSC SCC CSS
0 10 20 30 40 50 60−3
−2
−1
0
1
2
3
Time (s)
Acc
eler
atio
n (m
/s2 )
SSS CCC SSC CCS SCS CSC SCC CSS
0 10 20 30 40 50 60−3
−2
−1
0
1
2
3
Time (s)
Acc
eler
atio
n (m
/s2 )
SSS CCC SSC CCS SCS CSC SCC CSS
0 10 20 30 40 50 60−3
−2
−1
0
1
2
3
Time (s)
Acc
eler
atio
n (m
/s2 )
SSS CCC SSC CCS SCS CSC SCC CSS
0 10 20 30 40 50 60−3
−2
−1
0
1
2
3
Time (s)
Acc
eler
atio
n (m
/s2 )
SSS CCC SSC CCS SCS CSC SCC CSS
0 10 20 30 40 50 60−3
−2
−1
0
1
2
3
Time (s)
Acc
eler
atio
n (m
/s2 )
SSS CCC SSC CCS SCS CSC SCC CSS
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Period (s)
Fou
rier
Am
plitu
de (
m)
SSS CCC SSC CCS SCS CSC SCC CSS Freefield Input Motion
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50
0.5
1
1.5
Period (s)
Fou
rier
Am
plitu
de (
m/s
2 )
SSS CCC SSC CCS SCS CSC SCC CSS Freefield Input Motion
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Period (s)
Fou
rier
Am
plitu
de (
m)
SSS CCC SSC CCS SCS CSC SCC CSS Freefield Input Motion
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
Period (s)
Fou
rier
Am
plitu
de (
m/s
2 )
SSS CCC SSC CCS SCS CSC SCC CSS Freefield Input Motion
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Period (s)
Fou
rier
Am
plitu
de (
m)
SSS CCC SSC CCS SCS CSC SCC CSS Freefield Input Motion
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
Period (s)
Fou
rier
Am
plitu
de (
m/s
2 )
SSS CCC SSC CCS SCS CSC SCC CSS Freefield Input Motion
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50
1
2
3
4
5
Period (s)
Fou
rier
Am
plitu
de (
m/s
2 )
SSS CCC SSC CCS SCS CSC SCC CSS Freefield Input Motion
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50
2
4
6
8
10
Period (s)
Fou
rier
Am
plitu
de (
m/s
2 )
SSS CCC SSC CCS SCS CSC SCC CSS Freefield Input Motion
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50
1
2
3
4
5
6
Period (s)
Fou
rier
Am
plitu
de (
m/s
2 )
SSS CCC SSC CCS SCS CSC SCC CSS Freefield Input Motion
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Period (s)
Fou
rier
Am
plitu
de (
m/s
2 )
SSS CCC SSC CCS SCS CSC SCC CSS Freefield Input Motion
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Period (s)
Fou
rier
Am
plitu
de (
m/s
2 )
SSS CCC SSC CCS SCS CSC SCC CSS Freefield Input Motion
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50
2
4
6
8
10
Period (s)
Fou
rier
Am
plitu
de (
m/s
2 )
SSS CCC SSC CCS SCS CSC SCC CSS Freefield Input Motion
0 10 20 30 40 50 60−4000
−3000
−2000
−1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
Time (s)
Mom
ent (
kN*m
)
SSS CCC SSC CCS SCS CSC SCC CSS
0 10 20 30 40 50 60−4000
−3000
−2000
−1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
Time (s)
Mom
ent (
kN*m
)
SSS CCC SSC CCS SCS CSC SCC CSS
0 10 20 30 40 50 60−4000
−3000
−2000
−1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
Time (s)
Mom
ent (
kN*m
)
SSS CCC SSC CCS SCS CSC SCC CSS
0 10 20 30 40 50 60−4000
−3000
−2000
−1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
Time (s)
Mom
ent (
kN*m
)
SSS CCC SSC CCS SCS CSC SCC CSS
0 10 20 30 40 50 60−4000
−3000
−2000
−1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
Time (s)
Mom
ent (
kN*m
)
SSS CCC SSC CCS SCS CSC SCC CSS
0 10 20 30 40 50 60−4000
−3000
−2000
−1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
Time (s)
Mom
ent (
kN*m
)
SSS CCC SSC CCS SCS CSC SCC CSS
Jeremic Computational Geomechanics Group
The Plastic Domain Decomposition for Soil Foundation Structure Interaction Computations
Hypothesis Computational Platform ESS Case Study Summary
Behavior for Short Period Motions
Northridge Input Motions
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
−2
0
2
Time (s)
Acc
eler
atio
n (m
/s2 ) Acceleration Time Series − Input Motion (NORTHRIDGE EARTHQUAKE, 1994)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60−0.2
0
0.2
Time (s)
Dis
plac
emen
t (m
) Displacement Time Series − Input Motion (NORTHRIDGE EARTHQUAKE, 1994)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
1
2
Period (s)Fou
rier
Am
plitu
de (
m/s
2 )
Acceleration Frequency Content − Input Motion (NORTHRIDGE EARTHQUAKE, 1994)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
0.2
0.4
Period (s)Fou
rier
Am
plitu
de (
m)
Displacement Frequency Content − Input Motion (NORTHRIDGE EARTHQUAKE, 1994)
Jeremic Computational Geomechanics Group
The Plastic Domain Decomposition for Soil Foundation Structure Interaction Computations
Hypothesis Computational Platform ESS Case Study Summary
Behavior for Short Period Motions
Short Period E.: Left Bent, Structure and Soil, Disp.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
−0.2
−0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Time (s)
Dis
plac
emen
t (m
)
SSS CCC SSC CCS SCS CSC SCC CSS
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
−0.2
−0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Time (s)
Dis
plac
emen
t (m
)
SSS CCC SSC CCS SCS CSC SCC CSS Freefield Input Motion
Jeremic Computational Geomechanics Group
The Plastic Domain Decomposition for Soil Foundation Structure Interaction Computations
Hypothesis Computational Platform ESS Case Study Summary
Behavior for Short Period Motions
Short Period E.: Left Bent, Structure and Soil, Acc.Sp.
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50
2
4
6
8
10
Period (s)
Fou
rier
Am
plitu
de (
m/s
2 )
SSS CCC SSC CCS SCS CSC SCC CSS
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50
1
2
3
4
5
Period (s)
Fou
rier
Am
plitu
de (
m/s
2 )
SSS CCC SSC CCS SCS CSC SCC CSS Freefield Input Motion
Jeremic Computational Geomechanics Group
The Plastic Domain Decomposition for Soil Foundation Structure Interaction Computations
Hypothesis Computational Platform ESS Case Study Summary
Behavior for Short Period Motions
Short Period E.: Left Bent, Structure and Soil, M.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60−4000
−3000
−2000
−1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
Time (s)
Mom
ent (
kN*m
)
SSS CCC SSC CCS SCS CSC SCC CSS
0 10 20 30 40 50 60−4000
−3000
−2000
−1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
Time (s)
Mom
ent (
kN*m
)
SSS CCC SSC CCS SCS CSC SCC CSS
Jeremic Computational Geomechanics Group
The Plastic Domain Decomposition for Soil Foundation Structure Interaction Computations
Hypothesis Computational Platform ESS Case Study Summary
Behavior for Short Period Motions
Short Period E.: Left Bent, Bending Moments
0 5 10 15 20 25−4000
−3000
−2000
−1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
Time (s)
Mom
ent (
kN*m
)
SSS CCC
Jeremic Computational Geomechanics Group
The Plastic Domain Decomposition for Soil Foundation Structure Interaction Computations
Hypothesis Computational Platform ESS Case Study Summary
Behavior for Short Period Motions
Short Period E.: Left Bent, Free Field vs Real Disp.
0 5 10 15 20 25
−0.1
−0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
Time (s)
Dis
plac
emen
t (m
)
SSS CCC Freefield Input Motion
Jeremic Computational Geomechanics Group
The Plastic Domain Decomposition for Soil Foundation Structure Interaction Computations
Hypothesis Computational Platform ESS Case Study Summary
Behavior in Long Period Motions
Kocaeli Input Motions
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
−2
0
2
Time (s)
Acc
eler
atio
n (m
/s2 ) Acceleration Time Series − Input Motion (TURKEY KOCAELI EARTHQUAKE, 1999)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35−0.4
−0.2
0
0.2
Time (s)
Dis
plac
emen
t (m
) Displacement Time Series − Input Motion (TURKEY KOCAELI EARTHQUAKE, 1999)
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 200
2
4
Period (s)Fou
rier
Am
plitu
de (
m/s
2 )
Acceleration Frequency Content − Input Motion (TURKEY KOCAELI EARTHQUAKE, 1999)
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 200
2
4
Period (s)Fou
rier
Am
plitu
de (
m)
Displacement Frequency Content − Input Motion (TURKEY KOCAELI EARTHQUAKE, 1999)
Jeremic Computational Geomechanics Group
The Plastic Domain Decomposition for Soil Foundation Structure Interaction Computations
Hypothesis Computational Platform ESS Case Study Summary
Behavior in Long Period Motions
Long Period E.: Left Bent, Bending Moments.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35−4000
−3000
−2000
−1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
Time (s)
Mom
ent (
kN*m
)
SSS CCC
Jeremic Computational Geomechanics Group
The Plastic Domain Decomposition for Soil Foundation Structure Interaction Computations
Hypothesis Computational Platform ESS Case Study Summary
Behavior in Long Period Motions
Long Period E.: Left Bent, Structure and Soil, Disp.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35−0.8
−0.6
−0.4
−0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Time (s)
Dis
plac
emen
t (m
)
SSS CCC
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35−0.8
−0.6
−0.4
−0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Time (s)
Dis
plac
emen
t (m
)
SSS CCC Freefield Input Motion
Jeremic Computational Geomechanics Group
The Plastic Domain Decomposition for Soil Foundation Structure Interaction Computations
Hypothesis Computational Platform ESS Case Study Summary
Summary
I High fidelity numerical models of ESS systems
I High performance computational tools (software andhardware) developed and available
I Matching Triad: Earthquake, Soil and Structure (ESS)interaction determines possible benefits or detriments
I Program sources and tools available in public domain(GPL) at Author’s web site
Jeremic Computational Geomechanics Group
The Plastic Domain Decomposition for Soil Foundation Structure Interaction Computations