Geot Earthquake Eng Ch4-SITE-ADERS-10 PDF

4.
Seismic Ground Response
or
soil amplification of seismic
ground motions
G. Bouckovalas
Professor N.T.U.A..
July 2010.
Suggested Reading:
Steven Kramer:
George Gazetas:
Chapter 7 (7.1 & 7.2)

Chapter 4 (4.2)
SHAKE 92 Users Manual
GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011
4.1
4.1
EXAMPLES FROM (REAL) CASE HISTORIES
The examples which follow come from real seismic events and may
help fro a first qualitative as well as quantitative evaluation of soil
effects on recorded seismic ground motions. Thus, keep notes with
regard to the:
. Soil amplification coefficient
. Important soil and seismic motion parameters
C. Frequency dependence of soil amplification effects
San Francisco 1957 . . . .
Variation of peak ground acceleration and elastic response spectra

in connection GEORGE
with BOUCKOVALAS,
local soil National
conditions
at ofrecording
stations . . .
Technical University
Athes, Greece, 2011
4.2
San Francisco 1989 . . . .
75 cm/sec2
Recording at
outcropping ROCK
Recording at the surface

of earth fill on Bay mud
170 cm/sec2
Soil amplification or de-amplification ?
4.3
Soil amplification or de-amplification ?
Is this a pure soil effect?
4.4
Kobe, Japan 1995

stiff soil, amax=0.82g
loose fill,
amax=0.32g
thens, Greece 1999 . . . .
Chalandri: soil, amax=0.19g
Demokritus: rock,
amax=0.06g
4.5
N
thens, Greece
1999 . . . .
STIFF SOIL AMPLIFICATION
at Ano Liosia
municipality
Slight or
no damage
Severe damage
or collapse
Moderate damage
(%) of buildings
Cross-section N-S
100
75
50
25
0
0
DEPTH (m)
0 360 7601300
1300
1300
1300
Vs (m/sec)
20
DH5
40
60
1300
Borehole
CHT2
_
Vs,30 =697 m/sec
_
Vs,30 =613
_
_
Vs,30 =545_
V
=496
Vs,30 =500 s,30
80
Conglomerates
Clayey Marl
4.6
Mexico City 1985
geology
thickness of soil
deposits
Typical recordings on
the surface of
SOIL & ROCK
Simplified mechanism of SOIL effects

Fourier
composition
Fourier Spectrum
time
Transfer
function
Fourier Spectrum
time
Fourier
de-composition
GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece,frequency

2011
4.7
Initial Conclusions :
. Soil amplification coefficient:
(0.40-3.20) 0.6-2.0
. Important soil and seismic motion parameters:
soil & excitation characteristics
C. Frequency dependence of soil amplification effects:
amax & Sa
Quite often,
often,
Quite
the effect
effect of
of aa few
few (tens
(tens of)
of) meters
meters of
of soft
soft soil
soil
the
larger and
and more
more significant
significant than
than
isis larger
than the
the effect
effect aa few
few kilometers
kilometers of
of earth
earth crust.
crust.
than
4.8
Seismic Codes: -2000
..
:
.
()
5, () 70.
Seismic Codes: EC-8

Soil
Parameters
A
B
Deep deposits of
dense or mediumdense sand, gravel or
stiff clay with
thickness from
several tens to many
hundreds of m
TB
TC
M>5,5 M<5,5 M>5,5 M<5,5 M>5,5 M<5,5

A
1.0
1.0
0.15
0.05
0.4
0.25
1.2
1.35
0.15
0.05
0.5
0.25
1.15
1.5
0.20
0.10
0.6
0.25
1.35
1.8
0.20
0.10
0.8
0.30
1.4
1.6
0.15
0.05
0.5
0.25
Vs,30=180-360m/s
M>5.5
NSPT=15-50
Cu=70-250KPa
Se / (S*ag)
Description
B,E
C
A
1
E
0
GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University

of Athes,0.5
Greece, 2011
0
T (s)
1.5
4.9
Seismic Codes: EC-8

Soil
Parameters
A
B
Deep deposits of
dense or mediumdense sand, gravel or
stiff clay with
thickness from
several tens to many
hundreds of m
TB
TC
M>5,5 M<5,5 M>5,5 M<5,5 M>5,5 M<5,5

A
1.0
1.0
0.15
0.05
0.4
0.25
1.2
1.35
0.15
0.05
0.5
0.25
1.15
1.5
0.20
0.10
0.6
0.25
1.35
1.8
0.20
0.10
0.8
0.30
1.4
1.6
0.15
0.05
0.5
0.25
Vs,30=180-360m/s
M<5.5
NSPT=15-50
Cu=70-250KPa
Se / (S*ag)
Description
A,B,C,E
E
0
0
0.5
1.5
T (s)
4.10
accuracy
I.
Analytical (harmonic excitation,

uniform & elastic soil, ..)
II. Empirical (based on geological and

seismological input)
simplicity
In principle, analysis-prediction of soil effects is

possible with one of the three following methods
(with greatly different complexity, as well as,
accuracy):
III. Numerical (SHAKE, DESRA, )
4.11
4.3 ANALYTICAL METHODS

Uniform elastic soil on rigid bedrock
Uniform visco-elastic soil on rigid
bedrock
Uniform visco-elastic soil on flexible
bedrock
Non-uniform visco-elastic soil on
flexible bedrock
Elastic soil no RIGID bedrock
Vb, b, b
Vs, s, s
( Vr, r, r)
Definitions :
V=
Ts =
4H
4H
, Tb Tr =
Vs
Vb
number )
( waveof Athes,
GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical
University
Greece, 2011
V
k=
4.12
Aei (t + kz )
Bei (t kz )
u = uo e
Boundary condition : z = 0 = 0
u
i t + kz )
i t kz )
=0
= 0 Gik Ae (
+ Be (
z z = 0
for z = 0 :
it
Gik ( A B ) e it = 0 A = B
thus : u = 2 Ae
u = Aei (t + kz ) + Bei (t kz )
it
e ikz + e ikz
= 2 Ae it cos kz
2
Boundary condition : uz = H = uo e it
thus :
uo = 2 Acos kH A =
uo
2 cos kH
stationary wave with amplitude

uo = 2 A cos kz = uo
Amplification
factor:
Resonance:
Modal shapes:
cos kz
cos kH
F1 ( ) =

1
=
=L
cos kH
Tsoil
= 2n 1, n = 1,2, K
Texc
1
Tsoil
cos
2 Texc.
u
z
= cos (2n 1)
2A
H
2
cos
3
u
= cos
2A
2
cos 5
z
, n =1
H
z
, n=2
H
z
, n=3
H
4.13
|F1|
3
0
-1
u/2A
Ts/Texc
1
n= 3
z/H
n=2
n=
Amplification
factor:
|F1|
:
:
0 1
F1 ( ) =
Tsoil
Texc
motion
1
=
=L
motion cos kH
1
Tsoil
cos
2 Texc .
= 2n 1, n = 1, 2, K
u
z
= cos ( 2n 1)
2A
H
52
3
7 Ts/Texc
z
cos
, n=1
2 H
bedrock assumption
uDue to the
3RIGID
z
cos
,
n
2
=
) = (motion= )
(motion
2A
2 H
And consequently
5 z
cos
motion , n ==3motion
F1 ( ) = 2 H

motion
4.14
Visco-elastic soil on RIGID bedrock
Vb, b, b
Vs, s, s
( Vr, r, r)
Definitions for elastic
soil (=0)
Ts =
k=
Definitions for visco-elastic

soil (0)
G * = G ( 1 + 2i )
V=
V =
*
4H
4H
, Tb Tr =
Vs
Vb
T* =
( wave number )
k* =
G*
V ( 1 + i ) 0, 30
4H 4H
(1 i ) = T ( 1 i )
V*
V
V*
( 1 i ) = k ( 1 i )
According to the correspondence principle, you may use the

solution for elastic soil, with the real soil variables replaced
by the corresponding complex variables. Thus,
1
1
1
Amplification
(
)
F
=
2
factor
cos k * H cos[kH (1 i )] cos(kH ikH )
or, given that: cos( x iy ) =
F2 ( )
cos 2 x + sinh 2 y cos 2 x + y 2

1
cos kH + ( kH )
2
max F2 ( ) =
( y 0)
where = / Vs
2
1
( 2n 1)
when
Tsoil
= 2n 1
2
1
kH
n
or
(
)
2
Texc
4.15
Elastic soil
on RIGID
bedrock
Visco-elastic
soil on
RIGID
bedrock
Uniform visco-elastic soil on FLEXIBLE

bedrock
Boundary conditions:
zs
H
s,Vs
zb
z s = 0 : = Gs
u s = 2 As cos k *s z s eit
Ab ei (
t + kb* zb
Bb e (
b,Vb
i t k b* zb
u s
= 0 L u s = 2 As cos k s* z s e it
z s
zb = 0, z s = H : u s (H ) = ub (0 ) & Gs
[(
[(
)
)
u s
u
= Gb b
z s
zb
(
(
)
)
* ik s* H
* ik s* H
=
+
+
A
A
1
a
e
1
a
e
b
s
*
*
1
Bb = As 1 a * eik s H + 1 + a * e ik s H
2
]
]
sVs* sVs 1 + i s
1 + i s
a =
=
=a
*
bVb bVb 1 + i b
1 + i b
*
4.16
F3 ( ) =
F3 ( ) =
uA us (0 )
2 As
=
=
L
uB ub (0 ) Ab + Bb
1
1
cos (ks* H ) cos 2 (k H ) + ( k H )2

s
s s
= F2 ( )
However, in practice it is more

important to know the ratio
UA/U:
F4 ( ) =
F4 ( ) =
uA 2 As
=
L
u 2 Ab
1
1
cos (ks* H ) + ia*s sin(ks* H ) cos 2 (k H ) + ( k H )2

s
s s
2 T
s = s + as exc .
Ts
as =
sVs
bVb
, Vb , as 0, s s,
:
1
F4 ( ) =
= F3 ( )
1
2 2
2
)
cos (ks Hof )Athes,
+ (Greece,
s ks H
2011
4.17
Important soil and excitation parameters affecting

soil amplification . . .
F4 ( ) =
1
1
cos (ks* H ) + ia*s sin(ks* H ) cos 2 (k H ) + ( k H )2

s
s s
s = s +
where :
as
Texc .
,
Ts
as =
sVs
bVb
Problem parameters:
ks H =
Vs
s = s +
Ts
2 Texc
T
as s
Texc
2
Ts Texc
1
s
as =
T
sVs Tb
( b )
Texc
bVb TS
4.18
4.4 EMPIRICAL METHODS
Analysis of damage from previous earthquakes

Correlation to (surface) geology
Attenuation relationships for max, Vmax, .
Correlation to shear wave velocity VS
Seismic Codes
Semi-analytical relationships
Damage analysis from previous earthquakes:

San Francisco iso-seismal map
From the 1906 earthquake
4.19
Atte
n
m , uation R
ax V
elati
max ,
onsh
.
ip s
for
Correlations to (surface) geology:

ification
Factors of average spectral ampl
4.20
Recent Seismic Codes: .. EC - 8

3
M>5.5
M<5.5
2
Se / (S*ag)
Se / (S*ag)
B,E
C
A
1
A,B,C,E
0.5
1.5
0.5
T (s)
Ground
type
S1
S2
1.5
T (s)
TB
TC
M>5,5
M<5,5
M>5,5
M<5,5
M>5,5
M<5,5
1.0
1.0
0.15
0.05
0.4
0.25
1.2
1.35
0.15
0.05
0.5
0.25
1.15
1.5
0.20
0.10
0.6
0.25
1.35
1.8
0.20
0.10
0.8
0.30
1.4
1.6
0.15
0.05
0.5
0.25
Parameters
Description of stratigraphic profile
Rock or other rock-like geological
formation, including at most 5 m of
weaker material at the surface
Deposits of very dense sand, gravel, or
very stiff clay, at least several tens of m
in thickness, characterised by a gradual
increase of mechanical properties with
depth
Deep deposits of dense or mediumdense sand, gravel or stiff clay with
thickness from several tens to many
hundreds of m
Deposits of loose-to-medium
cohesionless soil (with or without some
soft cohesive layers), or of
predominantly soft-to-firm cohesive soil
A soil profile consisting of a surface
alluvium layer with Vs,30 values of type
C or D and thickness varying between
about 5 m and 20 m, underlain by stiffer
material with Vs,30 > 800 m/s
Deposits consisting or containing a
layer at least 10 m thick of soft
clays/silts with high plasticity index (PI
> 40) and high water content
Deposits of liquefiable soils, of sensitive
clays, or any other soil profile not
included in types A E or S1
Vs,30 (m/s)
NSPT
(blows/30cm)
cu (kPa)
> 800
360 800
> 50
> 250
180 360
15 - 50
70 - 250
< 180
< 15
< 70
< 100
(indicative)
10 - 20
4.21
Soil Factors Soil Categories EC 8 Effect of VS,30

800
800
Vb=800m/s
Vb=1200m/s
Vb=1200
m/s
Vb=800 m/s
700
700
600
Vs,30 (m/sec)
VVs,30
(m/sec)
s,30 (m/s)
600
500
400
300
400
300
C
D
200
100
500
A
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
C
D
200
100
80
A
0
10
20
30
H (m)
H
(m)
40
50
1.8
70
80
EC8
Vb=800m/s
1.7
1.6
60
HH (m)
(m)
1.5
Vb=1200m/s
1.4
Average
1.3
1.2
1.1
(M > 5.5)
1
0.9
800
800
Vb=800m/s
Vb=1200m/s
700
700
600
600
Vs,el (m/sec)
Vs,el (m/sec)
VS (m/s)
Vb=800 m/s
500
400
300
500
400
300
C
D
200
100
Vb=1200 m/s
A
0
E
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
C
D
200
80
100
A
0
E
10
20
H (m)
30
40
H (m)
60
70
80
H (m)
1.8
EC8
Vb=800m/s
1.7
1.6
50
H (m)
1.5
Vb=1200m/s
1.4
Average
1.3
1.2
(M > 5.5)
1.1
1
0.9GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011
4.22
800
800
Vb=1200m/s
Vb=1200
m/s
700
600
600
Vs,el (m/sec)
700
500
400
A1
A2
300
200
100
500
400
A1
A2
300
A2
0
E
10
20
40
50
60
70
200
D
30
100
80
A2
0
E
10
20
H (m)
D
30
40
50
60
70
80
H (m)
H (m)
H (m)
1.8
EC8
1.7
VS (m/s)
Vs,el (m/sec)
Vb=800m/s
Vb=800
m/s
1.6
Suggested
1.5
Vb=800m/s
1.4
Vb=1200m/s
1.3
Average
1.2
(M > 5.5)
1.1
1
0.9
A1
A2
4.23
(Bouckovalas & Papadimitriou, 2003)
IDEALIZED conditions
REAL conditions
linear visco-elastic soil
nonlinear visco-elastic soil

A
s , s , V s
Ts= 4H / Vs
B
layer i: si , si , Vsi
B
linear visco-elastic SEISMIC BEDROCK
b , b , Vb , Tb= 4H / Vb
T = Te
Te
(Bouckovalas & Papadimitriou, 2003)
IDEALIZED conditions
REAL conditions
linear visco-elastic soil
nonlinear visco-elastic soil
s , s , V s
Ts= 4H / Vs
B
layer i: si , si , Vsi
B
linear visco-elastic SEISMIC BEDROCK
b , b , Vb , Tb= 4H / Vb
Soil Amplification =
motion at A
motion at C
4.24
Database with more than 700

SHAKE-type analyses
Site Characteristics
, 45
1 -0
0 ,4
0 ,1
,3 4
6- 0
0, 2
5 -0
,2 1
, 07
1 -0
0 ,0
45
-5
4
4 .5
5
6
24
1
2. 5
3 .5
0-6
100
1 .5
00
0 .5
00
200
0-4
0-3
0-2
15
25
35
75
0
n = 0.524
45
60
0
40
8
60
>8
00
10
3
200
65
0
120
00
Vs = 50700 m/s
<1
0
55
0
400
100
0
00
Vb = 1001000 m/s
200
300
-24
abmax = 0.010.45g
15
0
60
65
-10
0
60
0-5
120
30
- 35
10
-15
20
- 25
-0.
8
H = 3.5240 m
1.0
-1.
5
0.6
-0.
5
0.4
0.0
4-0
120
.1
0.2
-0.
3
Ts = 0.043.33 s
Excitation Characteristics
(V s,o )1.3
ov
er
es
ti m
by at
50 ion
%
2
1
perfect
agreement
1.04
0.1
0.03
un
de
r
by est
33 ima
% tio
(a max)
Ts = Ts,o 1+ 5330
TS : sec
best fit relation:
(predictions)
Step 1: Non-linear Soil Period, Ts
0.1
TS : sec
2 3
(data)
4.25
Step 2: Amplification of peak

ground acceleration, Aa
Data
Tb/TS = 0.05 - 0.40

n = 0.5 - 2
a bmax = 0.41 - 0.45
1.5
Aa
best fit
relation
0.5
0
0
[1 (T /T ) ]
e
2 2
C1 = 1.2 a b max
1 + C1 (Ts /Te )2
Ts / Te
best fit relation:

Aa =
) 0.17 1 + n n
T
C 2 = 1.05 + 0.57 b
Ts
+ C22 (Ts /Te )2
Step 3: Amplification of normalized

Elastic Response Spectra, ASa*
0
1.75
-0.4
0.4
1.5
excitation 2
0
-0.4
fit relation:
time
Sa (g)
1.2
ASa * =
excitation 1
12
(sec)
0.9
ASa* = ASa / Aa
a (g)
a (g)
0.4
common
2 2 abmax=20.3g
1 (Tstr /Ts )
+ B2 (Tstr /Ts )2
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
Tstr (sec)
B1 = ASa ,r *
ASa,r*
0.75
0.5
2
0.6 1 + B1 (Tstr /Ts )
0.3
ASa,p*
fit relation
1.25
1.6
0.25
0
0.01
B2 =
0.1
(1 + ASa ,r * )
A
Tstr / TS
Saof, pAthes, Greece, 2011

10
4.26
Peak Spectral Amplification, ASa,p*

8
Data
n= 0.5 - 1
Tb/TS= 0.05-0.3
a bmax =0.40-0.45g
ASa,p*
best fit
relation
best fit
relation:
0
0
0.058
Ts
Ts
1 + 0.318
1
,
T
T
e
e
ASa , p* = 1.318 + D s 1 , 1 s 4
Te
Te
Ts
+
1
318
3
D
4
.
,
Te
TS / Te
T
D = 0.279 b
Ts
0.504
n 0.613
Residual Spectral Amplification, ASa,r*

8
Data
n=0.5 - 1.5
Tb/TS= 0.05-0.4
a bmax = 0.01-0.45g
ASa,r*
best fit
relation:
best fit
relation
0
0
T /T
10
s
e
Ts
Ts
1
,
1 0.302
T
T
e
e
0.474
Tb
Ts
Ts
F = 0.189
n0.406
ASa,r * = 0.698+ F 1 , 1 6
Te
Ts
Te
Ts
.
F
,
0
698
5
6
+

Te
4.27
VERIFICATION CASE STUDY

3 sites during the Northridge 1994 earthquake (Mw=6.7)
San Gabriel
Mts
Pacoima
Reservoir
LDF
RRS
Santa Susana Mts

HWY 180
Hansen
Dam
SFY
SAN FERNANDO VALLEY
HWY 170
Northridge
Epicenter
I-405
Verdugo
Mts
I-5
HWY 101
HWY 101
Santa Monica Mts
0 1
3 miles
Soil conditions at recording sites

0
LDF
RRS
Gravel
10
depth (m)
20
SFY
Silt
Silt
sand gravel
Fine
Sand
30
Silt
Sand Gravel
300
600
900
10
LDF
Clay Silt
40
VS,o (m/s)
Silt-Sand
Stone
20
LDF: bedrock site
30
40
50
RRS
SFY
50
Gravel
60
60
RRS
soil sites
SFY
Dense
Sand
70
80
70
Dense
Sand
very hard
silt stone
80

(Gibbs et al. 1999,
Cultrera et al. 1999)
4.28
Site response at SFY (Arleta Fire Station)

Approx. Relations
vs Records
S a so il (g )
0
0.01
0.1
Approx. Relations
vs Numer. Predictions
Num. Predictions
vs Records
2
0
0.01
Tstr (sec)
0.1
0
0.01
Tstr (sec)
0.1
Tstr (sec)
Site response at RRS (Rinaldi Receiving Station)

2
0
0.01
0
0.01
0
0.01
S a soil (g)
Approx. Relations
vs Numer. Predictions
Num. Predictions
vs Records
Approx. Relations
vs Records
0.1
Tstr (sec)
0.1
Tstr (sec)
0.1
Tstr (sec)
Approx. Relations Numerical Predictions

4.29
Homework 4.1:
Soil effects in Lefkada, Greece (2003) earthquake
The accompanying figures provide the basic data with regard to the recent
(2003) strong motion recording in the island of Lefkada:
-Acceleration time histories and elastic response spectra (5% structural
damping) from the two horizontal seismic motion recordings on the ground
surface.
damping) for the two horizontal seismic motion recordings on the surface of
the outcropping bedrock, as computed with a non-linear numerical analysis
-Soil profile at the recording site.
Using the semi-analytical relationships, COMPUTE the ground surface spectral
accelerations, at 5-6 representative structural periods, using the seismic
recordings at the outcropping bedrock as input.
Compare with the actual recordings and comment on causes of any observed
differences.
(NOTE: Choose the LONG component of seismic motion for your computations)
LONG
Surface
0,42 Surface
Out.Bedrock
Out.Bedrock
0,34
0.4
TRANS
a(g)
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
0.4
a(g)
0.2
0
-0.2
0,20
-0.4
0,35
0
10
15
Time (s)
20
25 0
10
15
Time (s)
20
25
4.30
Sa(g)
TRANS
LONG
1.8
1.2
0.6
0
2.5
ASa
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
Tstr (s)
0.4
0.8
1.2
Tstr (s)
1.6
Soil profile at the recording site

VS (m/sec)
NSPT
0 10 20 30 40 50
100
200
300
400
(%)
500
CL
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
10
2.0
0.8
4.0
6.0
SC
G/Gmax
CH
8.0
ML
MARL
(CL)
>50
30
>50
>50
H = 24m
30.0
3
2
15
20
Seismic
bedrock
0.4
0.2
(%)
12.0
Depth (m)
10
0.6
25
>50
>50
30
>50
Vb = 450m/s
20
1
10
2
3
4.31
4.4 NUMERICAL METHODS
NON-LINEAR
TIME DOMAIN ANALYSIS
EQUIVALENT LINEAR
FREQUENCY DOMAIN ANALYSIS
EQUIVALENT-LINEAR ANALYSIS
(also known as complex response method in the frequency domain)
Response
(1)
(i)
Excitation
at the
outcropping
or at the
buried
i, Goi, oi
b, Gb (b=0)
hi
at the
free ground surface
or at the
inter-face between
layers
4.32
This numerical method is essentially based on the

analytical solution for . . .
NONUNIFORM (layered) visco-elastic soil on flexible
bedrock.
motion at layer m
u1
1
m
m+1
z1
um
1, V1, 1
zm
m, Vm, m
um = Am eik m zm + Bm e ik m zm eit
um+1
zm+1 m+1, Vm+1, m+1
zm=0:
zm=hm:
m = Gm*
*
*
um
= iGm* k m* Am eik m zm Bm e ik m zm eit
z m
um ,o = ( Am + Bm )eit
m ,o = iGm* k m* ( Am Bm )eit
um ,h = Am eik m hm + Bm e ik m hm eit
*
m,h = iG k Am e
* *
m m
ik m* hm
Bm e
ik m* hm
)e
i t
Boundary constraints at the free ground surface

1,0 = 0 A1 = B1
u1 = 2 A1 cos k1* z1e it
1 = 2 A1 (iG1*k1* )sin k1* z1eit
Boundary constraints between layers

um +1, 0 = um ,hm Am +1 + Bm +1 = Am e ik m hm + Bm e ik m hm
*
m +1, 0 = m ,h
*
*
k m* Gm*
Am +1 Bm +1 = * * Am eik m hm Bm e ikm hm
k m +1Gm +1
and finally
1
1
ikm* hm
ikm* hm
*
*
Am+1` = Am (1 + am ) e
+ Bm (1 am ) e
mVm*
2
2
*
am =
*
*
1
1
m+1Vm*+1
ikm hm
ikm hm
*
*
Bm+1` = Am (1 GEORGE
am ) eBOUCKOVALAS,
Bm (1Technical
e of Athes, Greece, 2011
+ National
+ amUniversity
4.33
)
2
2
Sequential application, from the free ground

surface (i=1) to deeper layers (i=m)
*
*
1
1
A1 ( 1 + a1* ) e ik1 h1 + A1 ( 1 a1* ) e ik1 h1
2
2
= A1 ( cos k1* h1 + ia1* sin k1* h1 )
i=1
A2 =
or,
briefly
A2 = f1 ( k1*h1 ) A1
*
*
1
1
A1 ( 1 a1* ) e ik1 h1 + A1 ( 1 + a1* ) e ik1 h1
2
2
= A1 ( cos k1* h1 ia1* sin k1* h1 )
B2 =
i=2
B2 = g1 ( k1*h1 ) A1
*
*
1
1
A2 1 + a2* eik 2 h2 + B2 1 a2* e ik 2 h2
2
2
*
*
1
1
= A1 a1 1 + a2* eik 2 h2 + 1 1 a2* e ik2 h2

2
2
A3 =
or,
briefly
A3 = f 2 ( k1*h1 , k2*h2 ) A1
*
*
1
1
B3 = A1 a1 1 a2* eik 2 h2 + 1 1 + a2* e ik 2 h2

2
2
B3 = g 2 ( k1*h1 , k2*h2 ) A1
Am=1fm-1(k1*h1, k2*h2,, km*hm)
i=m
Bm=A1gm-1(k1*h1, k2*h2,, km*hm)
Considering that 1=1, the soil amplification factor

becomes:
u
A1 + B1
2
F3 ( ) = A =
=
uB
Am + Bm
f m 1 + gm 1
F4 ( ) =
uA
u
= A
uB
u
uB'
F4 ( ) = F3 ( ) cos 2 ( kb H ) + ( b kb H )
(uB uB)
4.34
The basic input data required for this type of analysis

are the following:
Acceleration time history for the seismic excitation.
The elastic shear modulus Go,b and the specific mass
density b of the seismic bedrock
The depth and the thickness of each soil layer i
The elastic shear modulus Go,i and the specific mass
density i of each soil layer i
Experimental curves describing the variation of the
shear modulus and hysteretic damping ratios with cyclic
shear strain amplitude (G/Go- and - curves)
Go
1
G < Go ()
-c
earthquake
cyclic
loading
1
4 .
shear modulus
degradation
hysteretic energy
loss
4.35
Experimental curves for the G/Go- and - relations
(Vucetic & Dobry, 1991)
1.0
25
PI = 0
0.8
15
OCR = 1-15
0.2
(I
p =0
)
30
% 15
50
SA
ND
0.4
PI=200
100
50
30
15
OCR = 1-8
(%)
0.6
0)
(I p=
G
Gmax
ND
SA
G/Gmax
20
10
100
200
0.0
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
10-4
10
100
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
10
(%)
c%
%
c(%)
Effect of soil type (through IP PI)
Effect of effective consolidation stress

on the G/Go- and - relations
G
Gmax
( )
= K ( , PI ) 'm
(Ishibashi 1992)
m ( ,PI ) mo
0.000102 + n ( PI ) 0.492
K ( , PI ) = 0.5 1 + tanh ln
0.0
6
1.404
0.000556
3.37 10 PI
1.3
=
m ( , PI ) mo = 0.272 1 tanh ln
exp
0.0145
PI
n
PI
(
)
7
1.976

7.0 10 PI
5
1.115
GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece,
2011
2.7 10 PI
0.4
PI = 0
0 < PI 15
15 < PI 70
PI > 70
4.36
Solution Sequence
1st Step: Fourier analysis (transform) of the seismic
excitation into harmonic components
2nd Step: Gl=Go,l l=
3rd Step: Computation of transfer functions Fi,j for each soil
layer and each harmonic excitation component
4th Step: Computation of ground response for each harmonic
excitation component
5th Step: Inverse Fourier analysis (transform) of the harmonic
ground response components for the computation of
the seismic ground response
6th Step: Computation of maximum shear strain amplitude
max at the middepth of each soil layer
7th Step: Computation of the shear modulus G and damping ratio
values which correspond to 2/3 max.
4.37
4.4 NUMERICAL METHODS
NON-LINEAR
TIME DOMAIN ANALYSIS
EQUIVALENT LINEAR
FREQUENCY DOMAIN ANALYSIS
NON-LINEAR ANALYSIS
(time domain analysis)
response
1
hi
i, Goi, oi
The basic input data include:

Acceleration time history
for the seismic excitation.
excitation
The elastic shear modulus Go,b and the specific mass density b
of the seismic bedrock
The depth and the thickness of each soil layer i
The elastic shear modulus Go,i and the specific mass density i
of each soil layer i
The shear stress-strain relationship (-) for monotonic and
cyclic loading of each soil layer
4.38
The layered soil profile is discretized and simulated

as a system of lamped masses and visco-elastic
springs . . .
The layered soil profile is discretized and simulated

as a system of lamped masses and visco-elastic
springs . . .
&& + KX = MU
&&
MX
b
M 1
with M =
M2
Mn
K1
K
K = 1
0
K1
K1 + K 2
K2
K 2 + K3
K3
0
K2
0
0
K3
O
4.39
Solution of the previous differential equation is

achieved with time integration, for given initial
conditions and a given time history of base
excitation Ub(t).
Given that G=f( ), it is evident that also =f(U).
Hence, we deal with a non-linear differential equation,
which has to be solved incrementally, in very small time
steps (small enough to ensure convergence).
Regardless of the solution algorithm, it is mandatory to
define the shear stress-strain relationship (-) which
controls the dynamic response (loading-unloadingreloading) of each soil layer.
In fact, the accuracy of the numerical predictions is very
sensitive to the adopted - relationsip, a fact that most
users either are not aware of or . choose to overlook.
VERY SIMPLE
HYSTERETIC MODELS
() lastic perfectly plastic
*
m
c
1
G
c
-m
loading:
Unloading from (c,c):

where *=-c,
-m = G m
-*m * = * G *m
*=-c m*=m+|c|
4.40

Loop for m
u
G/Go=1.0
=0
Loop for m
m
G o
= ,
m Go
Go =
o
G=
1
1 4 m ( o ) 2
o
=
= 1
=
4 4 1 m

2
2
G
1
= 0 ~ 0.65
Go
Comparison with
experimental data
1.0
0.8
0.6
G
Gmax
0.4
OCR = 1-15
0.2
PI=200
100
50
30
15
0.0
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
10
100
c%
(%)
RAPID degradation of
shear modulus G . . .
25
PI = 0
15
and, even worst, RAPID &

EXTREME increase of the
critical damping ratio
(%)
20
30
OCR = 1-8
50
% 15
100
10
5
What are the consequences of
these differences for the
0
prediction of the seismic ground
10-2
10-1
10-3
10-4
response?
%
c(%)
200
100
10
4.41
() Bi-linear elastoplastic
(a) || ||
o
c
c =
Go
c o
c =
loading
unloading
reloading
G/Go=1
=0
(b) || ||
loading : o =
c
= +
G1

G1
unloading from c , c :
* = c
* = c G =
* = 2
G
= +
Go
G1
Go
= G
G Go
= +
= Go
G1
+
Go
G1
=
Go
G1
o G1 G1
+
1 G of Athes,
Go National
Go 2011
GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS,
Greece,
Technical University
o
G
Go
4.42
1
4
2(-)
2 ( ) 2
2 ( ) 2
cos ( + ) =
( cos cos sin sin )
cos cos
cos cos
= 4 ( ) ( 1 tan tan )
G1
tan = G1
4
1
(
)

Go
1
tan = tan ( 90 ') = cot ' =

Go
G
= 4 ( ) 1 1
Go
1
E =
2
0.25
o
G
1 1 1
Go
2
=
G1 o G1
+ 1
Go Go
G1/G0= 0.25
0.2
(%)
(%)
G
4( ) 1 1
1
Go =
=
1
4
2
2 G
G
= 1 o 1 1
G Go
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0.1
/
/
10
100
4.43
Comparison with
experimental data
What are the consequences of

the observed deviations for the
prediction of seismic ground
response?
(%)
SIMPLE
HYSTERETIC MODELS
() The hyperbolic model
Go
1
1+
Go
Go
monotonic
loading - unloading
Go
1
1
= 1 + G
Go ( o m )
The above relation for the G/Go ratio is more or

less valid regardless of the unloading-reloading
scheme which will be chosen to simulate cyclic
4.44
loading (see the following paragraphs)
Cycllic unloading reloading according to MASING (1926)
(it is popular as it always leads to closed and symmetric loops)

*
*=-c
*=-c
Go*=Go
m*=2m
-m
=
*
1
1*-1*
2*-2*
dE
=
*
1
c =
c =
*
G
*
Go
2
Go 1 c
2 m
c
Go
1
c
1
2 m
Go ( c )
G
1 + o c
2 m
Go 1 c
m
*
1
2 m
1
dE
* 1
*
*
= 2 1 =
=
* 1 c
d *
Go
1 2
m
m
2 m
* 2 m
=
=
*
Go 2 m
2 m 2 *
2
2
*
* 2 m 2 m c 2 + m
=
Go (2 m * )( m c )
m
4.45
* 2 c )
(
* m
d
=
d * Go ( m c ) 2 m *
2 m
=
Go ( m c )
2 c
* ( * 2 c )
2 m
d *
c2
1
1 c2
1
= c c =
=
2
2 G 2

Go 1 c
m
1 2
4
G
=
= ( 1 + 2 ) + ( 2 + ) ln
=
4
Go
2
G
1
2
ln
Go
1
with a = m
Go
G
1
=
Go 1 + 1
Cyclic unloading reloading according to PYKE (1979)
(it may be simpler, but does not provide closed and symmetric
hysteresis loops)
*
* = c
* = c
Go* = Go
=m + c =m1+
m
*
m
-m
4.46
Representative hysteresis loops for the hyperbolic model

with unloading-relaoding according to Masing and according
to Pyke
HYPERBOLIC
MODEL &
PYKE
HYPERBOLIC
MODEL &
MASING
Cyclic unloading reloading according to PYKE (1979)

*
* = c
* = c
Go* = Go
m* = m + c = m 1 +
c
c =
Go
c
m
1
c
1

m 1 + c
m
-m
Go ( c )
c =
Go
c
1 +
GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011 m + c

4.47
c
similarly . . .
G
a 2 (a + 2 )
=
Go a 2 + 4a + 2
2
2
+ 1 4C1
2
2

C
C
C
a
C
a
+
+
+
2
2
ln
1
ln
1
+
1
2
1
2
C
a
C
a
2 C1a + 2
1
2
a=
m 1
Go
1
a +1
1
2a + 4
C2 = 1
+ 2
a + 1 a + 4a + 2
C1 = 1 +
Comparison with experimental data
What are the consequences

of the observed deviations
for the prediction of seismic
ground response?
4.48
(b) Ramberg-Osgood (1943)

Monotonic loading
w 1
1

1 + 1
=
1
Gmax a y

y = 0.64

for
=
1 + 0.5625
Gmax
1
w=2
Unloading-reloading
* = c
* = c
G
=
Gmax
1* = 2 1
=
1
w 1
1 + 1 c
ay
1
2 w 1
G
1
w + 1 Gmax
a y = 0.64 G
1
=
w=2
Gmax 1 + 0.56 c
1GG
3
max
Representative hysteresis loop for Ramberg-Osgood model
4.49
Comparison with experimental data
Fair agreement with the experimental data is possible, both for G/Go and
-, following a proper selection of the model parameters. This is not
possible with any of the models presented earlier.
Final Comments on Numerical Methods

The nonlinear analysis with time integration is free from any basic approximations
and, , in theory at least, it may provide higher accuracy. However, in practice, it is also
subjected to some important limitations which need to be accounted for during
application.
First, we must make sure that the code that we are using is equipped with the
proper constitutive model for the simulation of cyclic soil response. In addition, extra
caution is required for assigning the correct critical damping ratio o (or Do) at very
small shear strain amplitudes, since this parameter is frequency dependent (Rayleigh
damping) and may obtain erroneously high values if we are not careful (e.g. see figure of
next page).
In any case, we have to admit that this methodology is the most reliable for
applications where intense soil non-linearity is anticipated (e.g. very strong seismic
excitations and/or very soft soils).
The basic advantage of the equivalent-linear analysis in the frequency domain is
simplicity. On the other hand, this method violates one basic law of Mechanics: it
applies supperposition of the harmonic components of ground response despite that soil
response during seismic loading is non-linear. As a result, the contribution of highfrequency components is underestimated while the contribution of the low frequency
components is over estimated. Nevertheless, these effects are not significant, and may
be readily overlooked, as long as the shear strain amplitude in the ground does not
exceed about 0.03-0.10%.
4.50
Example of Rayleighl damping ratio variation

with excitation frequency
C=+
4.51
Homework 4.2
Fit the elastic perfectly plastic model to the experimental

curves for G/Gmax of Vuccetic & Dobry for G/Gmax=0.50, for the
different values of plasticity index . In the sequel, compare
the theoretical and the experimental G/Gmax and -
relations.
What is the maximum value predicted with the various
theoretical models presented here? How does this value
compare to the maximum experimental values? How important
are the observed differences for the prediction of seismic
ground response?
Experimental curves for the G/Go- and - relations
(Vucetic & Dobry, 1991)
1.0
25
PI = 0
0.8
15
OCR = 1-15
0.2
0)
30
(I
p=
% 15
50
SA
ND
0.4
PI=200
100
50
30
15
OCR = 1-8
(%)
0.6
0)
(I p=
G
Gmax
ND
SA
G/Gmax
20
10
100
200
0.0
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
%
c(%)
100
10
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
10
%
(%)
c
Effect of soil type (through IP PI)

4.52
Homework 4.3
:
4.3:
Soil effects in Lefkada
, Greece (2003) earthquake
Lefkada,
The accompanying figures provide the basic data with regard to the recent
(2003) strong motion recording in the island of Lefkada:
damping) from the two horizontal seismic motion recordings on the ground
surface.
damping) for the two horizontal seismic motion recordings on the surface of the
outcropping bedrock, as computed with a non-linear numerical analysis
-Soil profile at the recording site.
(a) Using the equivalent linear method of analysis, COMPUTE the peak seismic
acceleration and the elastic response spectra at the free ground surface, using
as input the seismic recordings at the outcropping bedrock.
Compare with the actual recordings and comment on causes of any observed
differences.
(b) Repeat your computations assuming that soil response is elastoplastic (see
Hwk 4.2) and compare with the predictions of (a) above. Comment on the
observed differences.
(NOTE: Choose the LONG component of seismic motion for your computations)
LONG
Surface
0,42 Surface
Out.Bedrock
Out.Bedrock
0,34
0.4
TRANS
a(g)
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
0.4
a(g)
0.2
0
-0.2
0,20
-0.4
0,35
0
10
15
Time (s)
20
25 0
10
15
Time (s)
20
25
4.53
Sa(g)
TRANS
LONG
1.8
1.2
0.6
0
2.5
ASa
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
Tstr (s)
0.4
0.8
1.2
Tstr (s)
1.6

VS (m/sec)
NSPT
0 10 20 30 40 50
100
200
300
400
(%)
500
CL
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
10
2.0
CH
0.8
4.0
SC
G/Gmax
6.0
8.0
ML
MARL
(CL)
>50
15
30
>50
20
>50
H = 24m
25
Seismic
bedrock
30.0
0.4
0.2
(%)
12.0
Depth (m)
10
0.6
>50
>50
30
>50
Vb = 450m/s
20
1
10
2
3
4.54

Geot Earthquake Eng Ch4-SITE-ADERS-10 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Geot Earthquake Eng Ch4-SITE-ADERS-10 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

4.

Seismic Ground Response

Chapter 7 (7.1 & 7.2)

SHAKE 92 Users Manual

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

EXAMPLES FROM (REAL) CASE HISTORIES

San Francisco 1957 . . . .

Variation of peak ground acceleration and elastic response spectra

San Francisco 1989 . . . .

Recording at the surface

Soil amplification or de-amplification ?

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

Soil amplification or de-amplification ?

Is this a pure soil effect?

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

Kobe, Japan 1995

thens, Greece 1999 . . . .

Chalandri: soil, amax=0.19g

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

Mexico City 1985

Simplified mechanism of SOIL effects

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece,frequency

. Important soil and seismic motion parameters:

soil & excitation characteristics

C. Frequency dependence of soil amplification effects:

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

Seismic Codes: -2000

Seismic Codes: EC-8

M>5,5 M<5,5 M>5,5 M<5,5 M>5,5 M<5,5

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University

Seismic Codes: EC-8

M>5,5 M<5,5 M>5,5 M<5,5 M>5,5 M<5,5

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

Analytical (harmonic excitation,

II. Empirical (based on geological and

In principle, analysis-prediction of soil effects is

III. Numerical (SHAKE, DESRA, )

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

4.3 ANALYTICAL METHODS

Elastic soil no RIGID bedrock

stationary wave with amplitude

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

Visco-elastic soil on RIGID bedrock

Definitions for visco-elastic

According to the correspondence principle, you may use the

cos 2 x + sinh 2 y cos 2 x + y 2

Uniform visco-elastic soil on FLEXIBLE

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

cos (ks* H ) cos 2 (k H ) + ( k H )2

However, in practice it is more

cos (ks* H ) + ia*s sin(ks* H ) cos 2 (k H ) + ( k H )2

Important soil and excitation parameters affecting

cos (ks* H ) + ia*s sin(ks* H ) cos 2 (k H ) + ( k H )2

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

4.4 EMPIRICAL METHODS

Analysis of damage from previous earthquakes

Damage analysis from previous earthquakes:

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

Correlations to (surface) geology:

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

cos (ks* H ) + ias sin(ks H ) cos 2 (k H ) + ( k H )2

cos (ks* H ) + ias sin(ks H ) cos 2 (k H ) + ( k H )2

1 = 2 A1 (iG1k1 )sin k1* z1eit

Am=1fm-1(k1h1, k2h2,, km*hm)

Bm=A1gm-1(k1h1, k2h2,, km*hm)