Abstract
It is documented that some confusions about ground motion input and artificial boundary condition in present seismic analysis affect engineering anti-seismic security evaluation, and that different treatment effects on security are so lack of verification that they are must be checked, discussed and made clear to get consensus. A study was conducted with a typical example with large FEM software ANSYS and comparison was made between the results of various ground motion input and boundary treatment methods and those of theoretical correct analysis. Study shows that ground motion input and artificial boundary condition is greatly correlative and that correct results can’t be got unless ground motion input and artificial boundary condition can be treated and matched properly.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
