The pore water pressure above the tunnel is observed to be positive that results into negative ru, excess pore water pressure ratios.
The pore water pressure above the tunnel is observed to be positive under dynamic loading that results into negative ru, excess pore water pressure ratios. What could be the reason? kindly help me
On using PM4silt for clay and using Undrained A and for sandy soils (PM4sand) Undrained A.is it correct to use this combination while studying for liquefaction analysis?
On using PM4silt for clay and using Undrained A and for sandy soils (PM4sand) Undrained A.is it correct to use this combination while studying for liquefaction analysis?
Since PM4sand and PM4 silt models are advanced constitutive models for dynamic analysis. I have read in one journal that for static analysis, they used Mohr-coulomb. Can we change the model after static analysis in one project? IS it possible?
Since PM4sand and PM4 silt models are advanced constitutive models for dynamic analysis. I have read in one journal that for static analysis, they used Mohr-coulomb. Can we change the model after static analysis in one project? IS it possible?
Why liquefied points are observed in soil while using advanced constitutive models PM4sand and PM4silts before seismic loading?
Why liquefied points are observed in soil while using advanced constitutive models PM4sand and PM4silts before seismic loading? The liquefied points were observed in static phase only
Regarding liquefied points observed in static stage using PM4silt and PM4sand models
I am currently working on a liquefaction analysis using the PM4Silt and PM4Sand models for a layered soil model in PLAXIS 2D. However, I have encountered an issue where the liquefied points are observed in the static stage only before the dynamic analysis…