Sie sind auf Seite 1von 31

Soil Dynamics and Nonlinear

Site Response Analysis

Analysis of site response and stability

Submitted to: Submitted by:


Prof. Francesco Silvestri Santosh Yadav
Soil Dynamics and Non-linear Site Response Table of Contents

Table of Contents
1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................1

2 Input Parameters..................................................................................................................3

3 Results ................................................................................................................................4

3.1. Down Hole Test ............................................................................................................4

3.2. Linear and Equivalent-linear Approach .........................................................................5

3.3. Linear Case Results .......................................................................................................8

3.3.1. Strain .....................................................................................................................8

3.3.2. Amplification ....................................................................................................... 10

3.3.3. Fourier Amplitude................................................................................................ 10

3.3.4. Response Spectra ................................................................................................. 11

3.3.5. Liquefaction ......................................................................................................... 12

3.4. Equivalent-linear Case Results .................................................................................... 17

3.4.1. Strain ................................................................................................................... 17

3.4.2. Amplification ....................................................................................................... 19

3.4.3. Fourier Amplitude................................................................................................ 19

3.4.4. Response Spectra ................................................................................................. 20

3.4.5. Liquefaction ......................................................................................................... 22

4 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 26

5 Bibliography ..................................................................................................................... 27

Universit Grenoble Alpes ii | P a g e


Soil Dynamics and Non-linear Site Response List of Figures and Tables

List of Figures
Figure 1 Geographical location of the site ...................................................................................1
Figure 2 Variation of G max with Depth.........................................................................................3
Figure 3 S-wave Velocity Profile ................................................................................................3
Figure 4 Dromochrone for S-wave velocity .................................................................................4
Figure 5 Dromochrone for P-wave velocity .................................................................................4
Figure 6 P-wave and S-wave Velocity Profile .............................................................................5
Figure 7 Maximum shear strain with depth in linear approach .....................................................6
Figure 8 Maximum shear strain with depth in equivalent linear approach ....................................6
Figure 9 Damping ratio with depth for linear case .......................................................................7
Figure 10 Damping ratio with depth for equivalent-linear case ....................................................7
Figure 11 Maximum shear stress with depth for linear case .........................................................7
Figure 12 Maximum Shear stress with depth for equivalent linear case .......................................7
Figure 13 Strain percentage Vs Time at 5 m depth (Linear) .........................................................8
Figure 14 Strain Percentage Vs Time at 12 m depth (Linear) .......................................................9
Figure 15 Stress Vs Time at 5 m depth (Linear)...........................................................................9
Figure 16 Stress Vs Time at 12 m depth (Linear) .........................................................................9
Figure 17 Amplification curve for linear case overlaid with H/V curve for that site ................... 10
Figure 18 Fourier Spectrum for surface and bedrock in frequency domain (linear case) ............. 10
Figure 19 Response Spectra for Acceleration (linear case)......................................................... 11
Figure 20 Response Spectra for Relative Velocity (Linear case) ................................................ 11
Figure 21 Response Spectra for Relative Displacement (Linear case) ........................................ 12
Figure 22 Liquefaction Potentiality at a depth of 5 m with SPT test Result (linear) .................... 13
Figure 23 Liquefaction Potentiality at a depth of 5 m with Shear Wave Velocity (linear) .......... 14
Figure 24 Liquefaction Potentiality at a depth of 5 m with CPT test Result (linear) ................... 15
Figure 25 Liquefaction Potentiality at a depth of 12 m with SPT test Result (linear) .................. 16
Figure 26 Liquefaction Potentiality at a depth of 12 m with Shear Wave Velocity (linear) ......... 16
Figure 27 Liquefaction Potentiality at a depth of 12 m with CPT test Result (linear) ................. 17
Figure 28 Strain percentage Vs Time at 5 m depth (Equivalent-linear) ...................................... 18
Figure 29 Strain percentage Vs Time at 12 m depth (Equivalent-linear) .................................... 18
Figure 30 Stress Vs Time at 5 m depth (Equivalent-linear) ........................................................ 18

Universit Grenoble Alpes iii | P a g e


Soil Dynamics and Non-linear Site Response List of Figures and Tables

Figure 31 Stress Vs Time at 12 m depth (Equivalent-linear) ...................................................... 19


Figure 32 Amplification Curve for Equivalent-linear case overlaid with H/V curve ................... 19
Figure 33 Fourier Spectrum for surface and bedrock in frequency domain (Equivalent-linear) .. 20
Figure 34 Response Spectra for Acceleration (Equivalent-linear case)....................................... 20
Figure 35 Response Spectra for Relative Velocity (Equivalent-linear case) ............................... 21
Figure 36 Response Spectra for Relative Displacement (Equivalent-linear case) ....................... 21
Figure 37 Liquefaction Potentiality at a depth of 5 m with SPT test (Equivalent-linear) ............ 22
Figure 38 Liquefaction Potentiality at a depth of 5 m with S-wave Velocity (Equivalent-linear) 23
Figure 39 Liquefaction Potentiality at a depth of 5 m with CPT test (Equivalent-linear) ............ 23
Figure 40 Liquefaction Potentiality at a depth of 12 m with SPT test (Equivalent-linear)........... 24
Figure 41 Liquefaction Potentiality at a depth of 12 m with S-wave Velocity (Equivalent-linear)
................................................................................................................................................. 25
Figure 42 Liquefaction Potentiality at a depth of 12 m with CPT test (Equivalent-linear) .......... 25

List of Table
Table 1 Soil Profile and Geotechnical Investigation Results ........................................................2
Table 2 Variation of strain and stress with depth in linear approach .............................................8
Table 3 Maximum Acceleration and Shear Stress at Various Depth (Linear Case) ..................... 12
Table 4 Variation of strain and stress with depth in equivalent linear approach .......................... 17
Table 5 Maximum Acceleration and Shear Stress at Various Depth (Equivalent-linear) ............ 22

Universit Grenoble Alpes iv | P a g e


Soil Dynamics and Non-linear Site Response Analysis of Site Response and Stability

1 Introduction
Soil dynamic deals with the behavior of soil and foundation structures under dynamics loads that
can be caused due to natural phenomena (earthquake) or construction operations (mining or
blasting). The loading can vary in their magnitude, direction or position with time. The impact of
such loads need to be carefully analyzed to estimate the potentiality of the damage that can be
caused due to such loading impact.
There are various techniques and tools to make analysis of the behavior of soil due to dynamics
loading. One of the easiest and widely used tools is EERA which is based on macros compatible
with Microsoft excel which is used in the analysis carried out for this study. EERA stands for
Equivalent-linear Earthquake Response Analysis.
Analysis of site response and stability of the region was carried out for a site located at Sassa, close
to LAquilla lying in the geographical latitude 42.366 and longitude 13.316 degree. The following
analysis are made based on the detailed geological survey and instrumental HVSR recording
available. Figure 1 shows the geographical location of the site with different zonation.

Figure 1 Geographical location of the site

The detail geotechnical investigation provided the properties of the different layer which is
provided in the tabular format in the table 1 along with the laboratory and field test result. For this
particular analysis, the material for the layer G was taken as Mat 12 from the material bank
provided in the excel.

Universit Grenoble Alpes 1|Page


Soil Dynamics and Non-linear Site Response Analysis of Site Response and Stability

Table 1 Soil Profile and Geotechnical Investigation Results

z(m) Material
Lithology Samples SPT
0
(kN/m3) code

4 6-6-10
5 5.00 m
6 S Sandy-silty alluvia 17.40 Mat 1
7.5 m
7

8 C1
9 (FC=25%)
10

11

12
4-5-6
12.00 m
13

14

15
15 m
Moderately stiff clayey
16 CS silt
19.45 C2 Mat 2
17

18
19-34-41
18.00 m
19

20

21
R(10 cm)
21.00 m
22 22.5 m
CS Stiff clayey silt 19.45 Mat 3
23
C3
24

25
Gravel in fine-sandy
26 G 19.45 Mat 12
matrix
27

28

29 bedrock Soft rock 22.00


30

Universit Grenoble Alpes 2|Page


Soil Dynamics and Non-linear Site Response Analysis of Site Response and Stability

2 Input Parameters
The parameters to be used for the analysis were obtained by different tests. Shear wave velocity
measurements was carried out by a Down-Hole test which is limited to the determination of the
interval velocities from the arrival time and relative arrival times of compression (P) and vertically
(SV) and horizontally (SH) polarized shear (S) seismic waves which are generated near surface
and travel down to an array of vertically installed seismic sensors. The non-linear dynamics
properties were measured by Resonant Column (RC) and Torsional Shear (TS) tests. Figure 3 and
4 show the variation of maximum shear modulus and shear wave velocity with depth respectively.

Gmax (MPa) Shear wave velocity (m/s)

0 500 1000 0 500 1000


0 0

5 5

10 10
Depth (m)
Depth (m)

15 15

20 20

25 25

30 30

Figure 2 Variation of Gmax with Depth Figure 3 S-wave Velocity Profile

We can observe from above graph 3 that shear wave velocity has direct relation with the maximum
shear modulus (Gmax) of that layer. The decrease of both Gmax and S-wave velocity can be observed
for the layer between 25 to 27 m depth.
Likewise, the input for the expected peak ground acceleration on the reference stiff site (a=0.26g)
according to the National Seismic Hazard map was taken from the seismic input data sheet which
was corrected and filtered (0.1 to 25 Hz) by the Seismosignal software. In the following analysis,
EQ SLV4 input data has been used.

Universit Grenoble Alpes 3|Page


Soil Dynamics and Non-linear Site Response Analysis of Site Response and Stability

3 Results
3.1. Down Hole Test
Borehole seismic method is useful as the layer can be physically visible and sample can be obtained
for performing other kind of tests in order the find their characteristics. Down hole test is one of
the borehole seismic method where SH wave generated by the source is recorded at different depth
by the receiver. This method gives accurate results for shallow depth as the wave energy is
attenuated with increase in depth and thus the accuracy needs to be compromise. As in this case,
the depth was not large enough so the data obtained from down hole test was used to make the
calculation of S and P-wave velocity. From the recording of time for first arrival of P and S-wave
at each 1 m depth interval, dromochrone plots were created for S and P-wave respectively as shown
in figure 4 and 5 below.

Figure 4 Dromochrone for S-wave velocity Figure 5 Dromochrone for P-wave velocity

From the field results, calculation for equivalent time for arrival at each 1 m depth was calculated
and plotted in the dromochrone. The linear regression for the depth and equivalent time gives a
straight line, slope of which provides the wave velocity at the specific layer. We can observe from
the plots; the slope increase while moving towards stiffer layer.
From the results of dromochrone, we plotted the P-wave and S-wave profile as presented in figure
6. Here, we see that the velocity of both P-wave and S-wave decrease while passing through the
gravel in fine sandy matrix layer i.e. between 25 to 27 m depth. However, the P-wave continues to
decrease even in the soft rock which could be explained due to velocity inversion effect. That
happens when energy refracts away from the normal and no information from the refracting
interface returns to the surface. Hence, no information is gained about that interface even if it exists
there.

Universit Grenoble Alpes 4|Page


Soil Dynamics and Non-linear Site Response Analysis of Site Response and Stability

Figure 6 P-wave and S-wave Velocity Profile

3.2. Linear and Equivalent-linear Approach


Linear approach is the technique where the properties of the soil are not considered to change after
the application of loading that means the damping ratio for each layer remain uniform within each
layer and the variation of the shear strain varies linearly within the layer depending up on the soil
density and damping ratio. As moving from soft layer to the stiffer one the shear strain in decrease
as seen in the figure 7, we have observed the sudden jump in the maximum shear strain values at
depth 12 m where there is interface between soft and stiff layer and similarly for other transition
layer as well. But, in real life the behavior of soil is non-linear and to approximate the actual
nonlinear, inelastic response of soil, an equivalent linear approach was introduced by Schnabel et
al in 1972. In this approach, linear analyses are performed with soil properties that are iteratively
adjusted to be consistent with an effective level of shear strain induced in the soil.
In the field of earthquake engineering, the most used approach is 1D equivalent linear modeling
which suppose that the layers extend horizontally and the incident signal at the base of the deposits
is a vertical shear. Depending upon the same approach, EERA has been developed.
We can compare the results for maximum shear strain (%), damping ratio and maximum shear
stress in figure 7 & 8, 9 & 10 and 11 &12 respectively for the linear and equivalent linear case.

Universit Grenoble Alpes 5|Page


Soil Dynamics and Non-linear Site Response Analysis of Site Response and Stability

Figure 7 Maximum shear strain with depth in linear Figure 8 Maximum shear strain with depth in
approach equivalent linear approach

Because of earthquake loading, there is increase in maximum shear strain in the relatively soft
layer of soil which also increase the damping ratio as observed in figure 8 and 10 respectively as
damping ratios are directly proportional to the square of shear strain. With the increase of the shear
strain, the value of secant shear modulus decreases resulting the value of G/Gmax to be less than
unity for equivalent linear approach which is unity in linear approach.
The shear stress increases with increase in the depth which can be observed for both linear and
equivalent linear approach as seen in figure 11 and 12 respectively. However, due to variation in
the properties of the soil layer the maximum shear stress at the bottom in case of linear approach
is 116.6089 kPa whereas that for equivalent linear approach is 106.6873 kPa.

Universit Grenoble Alpes 6|Page


Soil Dynamics and Non-linear Site Response Analysis of Site Response and Stability

Figure 9 Damping ratio with depth for linear case Figure 10 Damping ratio with depth for
equivalent-linear case

Figure 11 Maximum shear stress with depth for Figure 12 Maximum Shear stress with depth for
linear case equivalent linear case

Universit Grenoble Alpes 7|Page


Soil Dynamics and Non-linear Site Response Analysis of Site Response and Stability

3.3. Linear Case Results


3.3.1. Strain
The strain and stress variation at depth 5 m and 12 m were calculated for the same earthquake data
in order to analyses the potentiality of liquefaction at the layer. The summary of the maximum
values from the graph is tabulated in table 2 below.

Table 2 Variation of strain and stress with depth in linear approach

Linear Approach Depth (m)


Parameters 5 12
Maximum Strain (%) 0.0374 0.0816
Effective Strain (%) 0.0206 0.0449
Time of maximum strain and 11.82 11.82
stress (sec)
Maximum stress (kPa) 29 64

As observed from the table, the maximum strain and stress at deeper depth is higher than that at
shallow depth and the time of maximum strain and stress is 11.82 as observed in the plots below.

Figure 13 Strain percentage Vs Time at 5 m depth (Linear)

Universit Grenoble Alpes 8|Page


Soil Dynamics and Non-linear Site Response Analysis of Site Response and Stability

Figure 14 Strain Percentage Vs Time at 12 m depth (Linear)

Figure 15 Stress Vs Time at 5 m depth (Linear)

Figure 16 Stress Vs Time at 12 m depth (Linear)

Universit Grenoble Alpes 9|Page


Soil Dynamics and Non-linear Site Response Analysis of Site Response and Stability

3.3.2. Amplification
Figure 17 shows the amplification vs frequency curve obtained from linear approach which is
overlaid with the HVSR curve for that site. In the figure, there is some shifting of the frequency
for peak amplification which is due to consideration of linear approximation for the soil behavior.
The maximum amplification is at a frequency of 3.4 Hz.

Figure 17 Amplification curve for linear case overlaid with H/V curve for that site

3.3.3. Fourier Amplitude


Fourier spectrum were generated for the bedrock and surface which is presented in figure 18 below.
Fundamental frequency for the bed is 2.2 Hz whereas that for surface is about 3.2 Hz. From the
graph below, we have observed the amplification at the surface for the frequency range from 3 to
5 Hz which occurs when the fundamental frequency of soil resonates with the wave frequency i.e.
result of local site effect.

Figure 18 Fourier Spectrum for surface and bedrock in frequency domain (linear case)

Universit Grenoble Alpes 10 | P a g e


Soil Dynamics and Non-linear Site Response Analysis of Site Response and Stability

3.3.4. Response Spectra


Response spectra is used extensively in earthquake engineering practice. This plot describes the
maximum response of a single degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system to a particular input motion as
a function of the natural frequency and damping ratio of the SDOF system. In the analysis, we
assumed ratio of critical damping to be 5 %. From figure 19, we can observe the maximum
amplification of ground acceleration which is 1.76g at the surface corresponding to the
fundamental frequency of the site (period=0.31 sec).

Figure 19 Response Spectra for Acceleration (linear case)

Figure 20 Response Spectra for Relative Velocity (Linear case)

Universit Grenoble Alpes 11 | P a g e


Soil Dynamics and Non-linear Site Response Analysis of Site Response and Stability

Similarly, response spectra for relative velocity and displacement were also produced as shown in
the figure 20 and 21 respectively. Maximum spectral velocity for linear approach is about 76.67
cm/s at time period of 0.45 second which is amplified as compared to the bedrock. The
amplification is not only affected by source, propagation path and site effect but also due to site
city interaction. However, the effects of site city interaction seem globally beneficial specially for
homogeneous cities. The amplification is mainly depended up on the site effect where the
fundamental frequency of the soil layer matches with the wave frequency. Hence, the
amplification spectral acceleration and relative velocity and displacement can be observed for
period between 0.1 to 0.5 second in figure 19, 20 and 21.

Figure 21 Response Spectra for Relative Displacement (Linear case)

3.3.5. Liquefaction
For verification of the chance of liquefaction, we have assumed Earthquake moment magnitude
(Mw) to be 6.50 and spectral acceleration at short period (Ss) equal to 1.35 as per the class C of
Eurocode. Potential of liquefaction was check at a depth of 5 m and 12 m using the test results
from SPT, Shear wave velocity (Vs) and CPT test. Table 2 below shows the result obtained from
the linear earthquake response for maximum acceleration and shear stress at depth 5 and 12 m.
Table 3 Maximum Acceleration and Shear Stress at Various Depth (Linear Case)

Parameters from SRA Depth 5 m Depth 12 m


Maximum Acceleration (g) 0.396 0.396
Maximum Shear Stress (kPa) 29 64
The cyclic load is correlated to the maximum shear stress, max, induced by the earthquake motion
at the depth of interest.

Universit Grenoble Alpes 12 | P a g e


Soil Dynamics and Non-linear Site Response Analysis of Site Response and Stability

Potential for liquefaction at the depth 5 m was evaluated based on the results obtained from the
different field test namely Standard Penetration Test (SPT), Cone Penetration Test (CPT) and
Shear Wave Velocity obtained from down hole test.
For analysis, the values from the Italian code (NTC) depending up on the hazard map and the
results obtained from EERA were used which are shown in the graphs below. In our case, the fine
content (Fc) was 25%. Liquefaction threshold is increased with the increase in the fine fraction
content. The increase of strength with the fine content corresponds to a virtual increment of
(N1)60CS , the values for which can be obtained using following relation.


2

N1 60 exp 1.63
9.7 15.7
( N1 ) 60cs
Fc Fc

And the Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR is given by

(N ) 2 3
(N ) (N ) (N )
4

CRR exp 1 60cs 1 60cs 1 60cs 1 60cs 2.8
14.1 126 23.6 25.4

Where (N1)60 is the corrected number of blow counts taking into account only second and third
blows.

Figure 22 Liquefaction Potentiality at a depth of 5 m with SPT test Result (linear)

We can observe from the plot above that the results lie in the region of no liquefaction which
means there is no chances for liquefaction while analyzing using SPT result. The gray line which
is for 25 % fine content is the boundary separating the liquefaction and no liquefaction zone.

Universit Grenoble Alpes 13 | P a g e


Soil Dynamics and Non-linear Site Response Analysis of Site Response and Stability

In the similar manner, the verification was done for shear wave velocity and CPT test results which
are shown in the figure 23 and 24 respectively.

Figure 23 Liquefaction Potentiality at a depth of 5 m with Shear Wave Velocity (linear)

For shear wave velocity, we used the wave velocity obtained from down hole test and normalize
it to calculated the CRR value using relation below.

1 2 1 1
= 0.022 ( ) + 2.8 ( )
100 1 1 1
From figure 23, we observed that the results lie on the safe side with no possibility of liquefaction.

Universit Grenoble Alpes 14 | P a g e


Soil Dynamics and Non-linear Site Response Analysis of Site Response and Stability

Figure 24 Liquefaction Potentiality at a depth of 5 m with CPT test Result (linear)

Likewise, the potentiality of liquefaction was also check using the CPT test result. The tip
resistance was normalized to calculate the CRR value given by relation below and then we
obtained a plot as shown in the figure 24 where the result lies in the liquefaction region.

qc1N qc1N 2 qc1N 3 qc1N 4


CRR exp 3
540 67 80 114
Using the same approach, the potential for liquefaction at the depth 12 m was calculated by using
the maximum shear stress value as given in the table 3. Figure 24, 25 and 26 show the liquefaction
potential plot using the test result from SPT, shear wave velocity and CPT respectively. From the
plot, we can observe that there are chances of liquefaction at the depth of 12 m depending upon
the results from SPT and CPT.

Universit Grenoble Alpes 15 | P a g e


Soil Dynamics and Non-linear Site Response Analysis of Site Response and Stability

Figure 25 Liquefaction Potentiality at a depth of 12 m with SPT test Result (linear)

Figure 26 Liquefaction Potentiality at a depth of 12 m with Shear Wave Velocity (linear)

Universit Grenoble Alpes 16 | P a g e


Soil Dynamics and Non-linear Site Response Analysis of Site Response and Stability

Figure 27 Liquefaction Potentiality at a depth of 12 m with CPT test Result (linear)

3.4. Equivalent-linear Case Results


3.4.1. Strain
The strain and stress variation at depth 5 m and 12 m were calculated for the same earthquake data
to analyses the potentiality of liquefaction at the layer using the equivalent linear approach. The
summary of the maximum values from the graph is tabulated in table 4 below.
Table 4 Variation of strain and stress with depth in equivalent linear approach

Equivalent linear Approach Depth (m)


Parameters 5 12
Maximum Strain (%) 0.0493 0.1239
Effective Strain (%) 0.0271 0.0681
Time of maximum strain and 11.81 11.81
stress (sec)
Maximum stress (kPa) 32 63
As observed from the table, the maximum strain and stress at deeper depth is higher than that at
shallow depth and the time of maximum strain and stress is 11.81 as observed in the plots below.
The maximum and effective strain values are higher than in the case of linear approach.

Universit Grenoble Alpes 17 | P a g e


Soil Dynamics and Non-linear Site Response Analysis of Site Response and Stability

Figure 28 Strain percentage Vs Time at 5 m depth (Equivalent-linear)

Figure 29 Strain percentage Vs Time at 12 m depth (Equivalent-linear)

Figure 30 Stress Vs Time at 5 m depth (Equivalent-linear)

Universit Grenoble Alpes 18 | P a g e


Soil Dynamics and Non-linear Site Response Analysis of Site Response and Stability

Figure 31 Stress Vs Time at 12 m depth (Equivalent-linear)

3.4.2. Amplification
Figure 32 shows the amplification vs frequency curve obtained from equivalent linear approach
which is overlaid with the HVSR curve for that site. The maximum amplification is at a frequency
of 2.8 Hz which corresponds to the frequency for maximum amplification as in HVSR curve.

Figure 32 Amplification Curve for Equivalent-linear case overlaid with H/V curve

3.4.3. Fourier Amplitude


Fourier spectrum were generated for the bedrock and surface which is presented in figure 33 below.
Fundamental frequency for the bed is 2.2 Hz whereas that for surface is about 2.8 Hz. From the
graph below, we have observed the amplification at the surface for the frequency range from 2 to
3.5 Hz which occurs when the fundamental frequency of soil resonates with the wave frequency
i.e. result of local site effect.

Universit Grenoble Alpes 19 | P a g e


Soil Dynamics and Non-linear Site Response Analysis of Site Response and Stability

Figure 33 Fourier Spectrum for surface and bedrock in frequency domain (Equivalent-linear)

3.4.4. Response Spectra


Even for the equivalent linear approach analysis, we assumed ratio of critical damping to be 5 %.
From figure 34, we can observe the maximum amplification of ground acceleration which is 1.48g
at the surface corresponding to the fundamental frequency of the site (period=0.35 sec).

Figure 34 Response Spectra for Acceleration (Equivalent-linear case)

Universit Grenoble Alpes 20 | P a g e


Soil Dynamics and Non-linear Site Response Analysis of Site Response and Stability

Figure 35 Response Spectra for Relative Velocity (Equivalent-linear case)

Similarly, response spectra for relative velocity and displacement were also produced as shown in
the figure 35 and 36 respectively. Maximum spectral velocity for linear approach is about 86.92
cm/s at time period of 0.5 second which is amplified as compared to the bedrock. The amplification
is not only affected by source, propagation path and site effect but also due to site city interaction.
The amplification is mainly depended up on the site effect where the fundamental frequency of the
soil layer matches with the wave frequency. Hence, the amplification spectral acceleration and
relative velocity and displacement can be observed for period between 0.2 to 0.7 second in figure
34, 35 and 36.

Figure 36 Response Spectra for Relative Displacement (Equivalent-linear case)

Universit Grenoble Alpes 21 | P a g e


Soil Dynamics and Non-linear Site Response Analysis of Site Response and Stability

3.4.5. Liquefaction
Same as explained in the linear case, the potential of liquefaction was check at a depth of 5 m and
12 m using the test results from SPT, Shear wave velocity (Vs) and CPT test for the case of
equivalent linear too. Table 5 below shows the result obtained from the equivalent linear
earthquake response for maximum acceleration and shear stress at depth 5 and 12 m
Table 5 Maximum Acceleration and Shear Stress at Various Depth (Equivalent-linear)

Parameters from SRA Depth 5 m Depth 12 m


Maximum Acceleration (g) 0.447 0.447
Maximum Shear Stress (kPa) 32 63

The potential for liquefaction at the depth 5 m was calculated by using the maximum shear stress
and maximum acceleration obtained from SRA using EERA. Figure 37, 38 and 39 show the
liquefaction potential plot using the test result from SPT, shear wave velocity and CPT
respectively. From the plot, we can observe that there is chance of liquefaction at the depth of 5 m
depending upon the result from CPT. However, from SPT test result, the values are close to the
boarder for fine content of 25%.

Figure 37 Liquefaction Potentiality at a depth of 5 m with SPT test (Equivalent-linear)

Universit Grenoble Alpes 22 | P a g e


Soil Dynamics and Non-linear Site Response Analysis of Site Response and Stability

Figure 38 Liquefaction Potentiality at a depth of 5 m with S-wave Velocity (Equivalent-linear)

Figure 39 Liquefaction Potentiality at a depth of 5 m with CPT test (Equivalent-linear)

Universit Grenoble Alpes 23 | P a g e


Soil Dynamics and Non-linear Site Response Analysis of Site Response and Stability

Applying the same technique for calculating the potential for liquefaction at the depth 12 m using
the maximum acceleration and shear stress value as given in the table 5 we obtained the plots as
given in Figure 40, 41 and 42. From the plot, we can observe that there are chances of liquefaction
at the depth of 12 m depending upon the results from SPT and CPT. However, the potentiality of
liquefaction depending up on the results from normalized shear wave velocity remains in safe side
showing no liquefaction at that depth as well.
Hence, we should not rely on only one of the test result rather verify the potentiality of liquefaction
using different test result and if there are any chances of liquefaction proper treatment methods
should be implemented in order to prevent the damage caused by it.

Figure 40 Liquefaction Potentiality at a depth of 12 m with SPT test (Equivalent-linear)

Universit Grenoble Alpes 24 | P a g e


Soil Dynamics and Non-linear Site Response Analysis of Site Response and Stability

Figure 41 Liquefaction Potentiality at a depth of 12 m with S-wave Velocity (Equivalent-linear)

Figure 42 Liquefaction Potentiality at a depth of 12 m with CPT test (Equivalent-linear)

Universit Grenoble Alpes 25 | P a g e


Soil Dynamics and Non-linear Site Response Analysis of Site Response and Stability

4 Conclusion
After performing the site response and stability analysis for a site located at Sassa, we can conclude
following issues.
i. Maximum and effective strain in case of equivalent linear approach is more than that
obtained using linear approach which makes sense due to nonlinear behavior of soil. Hence,
it is better to use more number of iteration steps in order to have more accurate
approximation for the strain and stress results.
ii. The maximum amplification is at a frequency of 2.8 Hz which corresponds to the frequency
for maximum amplification as in HVSR curve in case of equivalent linear method.
iii. The maximum spectral acceleration at the surface is 1.48g which corresponds to the
fundamental period equal to 0.35 sec.
iv. Comparing the potential of liquefaction given by the different test as shown in table below,
we can observe that the results from shear wave velocity is more conservative and provided
less chance of liquefaction. In contrary, CPT results show that there is liquefaction potential
at both depth regardless of the approach.
Approach Depth (m) SPT Shear wave velocity CPT
Linear 5 No liquefaction No liquefaction Liquefaction
12 Liquefaction No liquefaction Liquefaction
Equivalent 5 No liquefaction No liquefaction Liquefaction
linear 12 Liquefaction No liquefaction Liquefaction
Hence, it is recommended to carry out further detail investigation to verify the potential of
liquefaction in that area and apply proper treatment to the soil if there is needed.

Universit Grenoble Alpes 26 | P a g e


Soil Dynamics and Non-linear Site Response Analysis of Site Response and Stability

5 Bibliography
[1] Anderson, D. G. (2003). Laboratory Testing of Nonlinear Soil Properties: I & II. Bellevue,
WA: University of California at Berkeley.
[2] Bardet, J., Ichii, K., & Lin, C. (2000). EERA- A computer program for Equivalent-linear
Earthquake site Response Analysis of Layered Soil Deposits. University of Southern
California.
[3] Kramer, S. (1996). Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. London: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
[4] Magistris, F. S. (2011). Beyond EC8: the new Italian seismic code. Geofizika, 28.
[5] Silvestri, F. (2017). Soil Dynamics and Non-linear Site Response Analysis-Lectures .
Grenoble.

Universit Grenoble Alpes 27 | P a g e

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen