Seismic Site Response

Seismic Site Response (Site Amplification)
An Introduction to Shear Beam Analysis

(Part II)
Ahmed Elgamal
(Initial version prepared in 2006 in collaboration with Drs. Liangcai He and Zhaohui Yang)
_____________________________________________________________
Course notes: Ahmed Elgamal, Universidad Nacional de San Juan, Argentina, April, 2014
Equivalent Linear Site Response
_____________________________________________________________
Course notes: Ahmed Elgamal, Universidad Nacional de San Juan, Argentina, April, 2014 2
SHAKE / SHAKE 91
A. Elgamal and T. Lai (notes; original version)
References
P. B. Schnabel, J. Lysmer, and H. B. Seed, Shake: A Computer Program For Earthquake Response Analysis
of Horizontally Layered Sites, Report No. EERC 72-12, University of California at Berkeley, December 1972.
I. M. Idriss, and J. I. Sun, Shake 91: A Computer Program for Conducting Equivalent Linear Seismic
Response Analyses of Horizontally Layered Soil Deposits, Modified based on Original Program Shake,
University of California, Davis, August 1992.
T. Iwasaki, F. Tatsuoka, and Y. Takagi, “Shear Moduli of Sands Under Cyclic Torsional Shear Loading,” Soils
And Foundations, JSSMFE, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 39-56.
P. W. Mayne and G. J. Rix (1993), “Gmax-qc Relationships for Clays, “Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM,
Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 54-60.
H. B. Seed, R. T. Wong, I. M. Idriss, and K. Tokimatsu, “Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic Analyses
of Cohesionless Soils, Report No. UCB/EERC-84/14, Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
University of California, Berkeley, Ca, 1984.
M. Jamiolkowski, S. Leroueil, and D. C. F. Lo Presti (1991), “Theme Lecture: Design Parameters from
Theory to Practice, Proc. Geo-Coast ’91, Yokohama, Japan, pp. 1-41.
_____________________________________________________________
T. Imai and K. Tonouchi, Correlation of N-Value with S-Wave Velocity and Shear Modulus,” Proc. 2nd
European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 67-72.
E. Kavazanjian, Jr., N. Matasovic, T. Hadj-Hamou, and P. J. Sabatini, Geotechnical Engineering Circular No.
3 – Design Guidance: Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering for Highways, Design Principles,
Volume 1, SA-97-076 (NTIS # PB98-11560)
E. Kavazanjian, Jr., N. Matasovic, T. Hadj-Hamou, and P. J. Sabatini, Geotechnical Engineering Circular No.
3 – Design Guidance: Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering for Highways, Design Examples,
Volume 2, SA-97-077 (NTIS # PB98-11578)
NRC 2000, Seeing into the Earth, Committee for Noninvasive Characterization of the Shallow Subsurface
for Environmental and Engineering Applications, P. R. Roming, Chair, 129 pp.
M. Vucetic and Ricardo Dobry, “Effect of Soil Plasticity on Cyclic Response,” Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 117, No. 1, January 1991.
H. B. Seed and I. M. Idriss, “Soil Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic Response Analyses,” Report No.
EERC 70-10, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1970.
H. B. Seed, Robert T. Wong, I. M. Idriss and K. Tokimatsu, “Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic
Analyses of Cohesionless Soils, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 112, No. 11, November,
1986.
_____________________________________________________________
Free Surface Motion Rock Outcrop Motion
Incident Wave
Reflected Wave Rock
Base Rock Motion
_____________________________________________________________
Wave Equation
2
∂ u ∂ u ∂ u 2 3
ρ 2 =G 2 +η 2
∂t ∂z ∂z ∂t
Solution for Homogeneous and Isotropic Soil
( )e
∞
−iki z iωi t
u( z, t ) = ∑ Ei e iki z
+ Fi e
i =1
Ki – Wave Number
ωi – Frequency
Ei – Amplitude of Incident Wave at Frequency ωi
Fi – Amplitude of Reflected Wave at Frequency ωi
_____________________________________________________________
Layer Coordinates Propagation Properties
No System Direction
u1
1 z 1 G1 β1 ρ1 h1
F1=E1 E1
…
ui
i
zi Gi βi ρi hi
Fi Ei
ui+1
i+1
zi+1 Gi +1 βi +1 ρi +1 hi +1
Fi+1 Ei+1
…
uN
N zN G N β N ρ N hN = ∞
Particle Motion
FN Reflected Wave EN Incident Wave
_____________________________________________________________
Properties G, β, ρ, h are known (shear modulus, damping
ratio, mass density, and layer height)
• Unknown in system: 2N (Ei, Fi)
• Boundary Conditions:
Displacement continuity at all interfaces: N-1
Stress continuity at all interfaces: N-1
Zero stress at free surface: 1
+
Given motion at any one layer: 1
⇓
• Motions at any layer are determined
_____________________________________________________________
Equivalent Linear Soil Properties
From (FHWA-SA-97-076)
_____________________________________________________________
Equivalent Linear Properties
_____________________________________________________________
Sand Curves: Seed and Idriss 1970
_____________________________________________________________
Effect of Confinement
Sand
(Iwasaki et al. 1978)
_____________________________________________________________
Clays
Vucetic and Dobry (1991)
_____________________________________________________________
See also:
Darendeli, M. B. (2001). “Development of a new family of normalized

modulus reduction and material damping curves.” PhD dissertation,
Univ. of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas.
Darendeli, M.B., and K. H. Stokoe, II (2001). Development of a new

family of normalized modulus reduction and material damping curves,
Geotech. Engrg. Rpt. GD01-1, University of Texas, Austin,Texas.
Menq, F.-Y. (2003). Dynamic Properties of Sandy and Gravelly Soils.

PhD Dissertation (supervisor: Prof. Kenneth H. Stokoe), Department
of Civil Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, May.
_____________________________________________________________
= mean effective stress, OCR = Overconsolidation ratio
= CPT tip resistance, N1)60 = SPT corrected resistance (blow count)
_____________________________________________________________
Properties G, β, ρ, h are known
What SHAKE can do?
• Free Surface Motion Prediction
When motions at depth are known (either
rock outcrop (incident) or total motion
• Deconvolution
When motions at surface are known
(does not work well for nonlinear cases)
_____________________________________________________________
Caution when using SHAKE
• Input motion as outcrop motion (changed

to incident motion)
• Input motion as inlayer motion (Total
motion)
• Layer height definition
• Units
_____________________________________________________________
SHAKE Output
• Acceleration Time History

• Strain and Stress History
• Response Spectrum
• Fourier Spectrum
• Amplification Spectrum
• Strain Compatible Soil Properties
(Equivalent Linear Option)
_____________________________________________________________
Equivalent Linear Concept
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
1
0.8
G/Gmax
0.6
0.4 (Effective
Strains are
0.2 Employed)
0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Shear Strain (%)
_____________________________________________________________
Caution when using SHAKE
(equivalent linear option)
• Layer Height Definition (more layers

result in additional accuracy, even for
constant velocity profile).
• Ratio of Effective Strain to Maximum
affects the result
• Deconvolution (may not work)!
_____________________________________________________________
Ratio of Effective Strain to Maximum
Effective Strain Ratio=(Magnitude of EQ -1)/10
Idriss, [0.4, 0.85]
Ray Seed, as low as 0.35
_____________________________________________________________
What can SHAKE do?
See also (General Refs.):
Use of Exact Solutions of Wave Propagation Problems to Guide Implementation of

Nonlinear Seismic Ground Response Analysis Procedures, Annie O. L. Kwok,
Jonathan P. Stewart,Youssef M. A. Hashash, Neven Matasovic, Robert Pyke, Zhiliang
Wang, and Zhaohui Yang, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
Vol. 133, No. 11, November 1, 2007.
ProShake: Ground Response Analysis Program, Version

1.1User’s Manual, EduPro Civil Systems, Inc. Redmond,
Washington .
_____________________________________________________________
More recent research into G/Gmax and D (Darendeli 2001, Menq 2003)
see page 1 of Excel spreadsheet for actual G/Gmax and D values

_____________________________________________________________
Notation on previous page:
OCR = Overconsolidation ratio (highest ever past effective vertical
stress divided by the current vertical effective stress
PI = Plasticity Index (PI = LL-PL), where LL = Liquid Limit and PL is

Plastic limit
0 - Nonplastic
(1-5)- Slightly plastic
(5-10) - Low plasticity
(10-20)- Medium plasticity
(20-40)- High plasticity
>40 Very high plasticity
Frq = dominant stress-strain cyclic loading frequency of interest (e.g.,
1 Hz or 2 Hz or so)
Note:_____________________________________________________________
Damping is reported as a % (this is why, a 100 appears in the equation)
Menq’s Equations (Sands and Gravels, developed in 2003)
σ o '
P 3⋅CuP 4
P1 × C 
 
P2
 Pa 
u
Gmax = 1.3+ ( D50 / P 5 ) P 6
e
Note: This equation will over-estimate Gmax for particles with D50 greater than 10mm
(or more generally, particles greater than 1 in in diameter (range of what Dr. Menq
tested so far, personal communication)
Coefficients Suggested by Menq, 2003
Note: P1 (ksf) 1400

e = void ratio P2 -0.2
Coefficient of Uniformity: P3 0.48
Cu = D60/D10
where, D60 is the grain diameter at P4 0.09
60% passing, and P5 20
D10 is the grain diameter at 10%
passing (by weight) P6 0.75
_____________________________________________________________
A different way of writing this equation yields:
Older versions (below) are

shown in the spreadsheet
σ '
nG
Gmax = CG1 ×  o 
 Pa 
x = 1.3 + ( D50 / P5) P 6
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
see page 2 of Excel spreadsheet (Menq, Personal communications. for actual G/Gmax and D values
_____________________________________________________________
Related to the Excel Spreadsheet (from: Menq, Farn-Yuh, Ph. D.):
Note: Please consider using Darendeli’s model if PI is greater than 0, and Menq’s
model if PI = 0.
The first page of the spreadsheet is for Darendeli’s model (2001). You can input the
following values to obtain G/Gmax and Damping curves:
frq(Hz)
PI
OCR
σo' (atm)
The second page of spreadsheet is the equation of the Menq model (2003). G/Gmax and
Damping curves for different soils with different Cu is presented in the following 4
spreadsheets.
Note: Cu is the Uniformity Coefficient (measure of the particle size range)
Cu is also known as the Hazen Coefficient
Cu = D60/D10
Cu < 5 ----- Very Uniform
Cu = 5 ----- Medium Uniformity
Cu > 5 ----- Non-uniform
Note: On the Menq (2003) page, if you change the the Cu =2 to Cu = 30 for instance, you will find the
corresponding values of G/Gmax and D% in the page of Cu=2. For instance if you change the Cu =2 to Cu =
30, in the G/Gmax or D summary pages, you will see the Cu=2 now falls on the Cu = 30 curve.
Also note that some values in the Menq (2003) page only affect Gmax itself such as the void ratio e
_____________________________________________________________
See also: http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/779 (link to Dr. Menq’s PhD Thesis)
In order to calculate equivalent linear properties from nonlinear shear
stress strain behavior, consider the widely employed Hyperbolic stress-
strain relationship:
_____________________________________________________________
The hyperbolic shear stress-strain relationship Equivalent Linear properties:
Ref: Soil Behavior in Earthquake Geotechnics,
K. Ishihara, Ch 3, pages 35-37
Secant modulus
Change in secant shear modulus with shear strain amplitude
Change in Damping D with shear strain amplitude
or in terms of G/Gmax
At large shear strain, D eventually reaches a max of 2/π = 0.637 (63.7% damping)
_____________________________________________________________
For numerical implementation of a nonlinear hyperbolic relationship, γr may be
selected based on the Menq or Darendeli Equations, and the Shear strength Su would
then correspond to a shear strain γmax :
Or,
Using this γr , G/Gmax and D can be

calculated from the equations above
marked with a (as implemented in
the Hyperbolic Excel Spreadsheet)
Notes:
1. In terms of γmax , γr can be written as:
2. su = c + p’ sin φ
c is cohesion (Su for c-soils), p’ is effective confinement, and φ is friction angle
where_____________________________________________________________
Examples of User-friendly
Computer Programs
_____________________________________________________________
DEEPSOIL (For XP and Windows 7)
www.illinois.edu/~deepsoil
This slide contributed by Professor Youssef Hashash

_____________________________________________________________
DEEPSOIL SUMMARY
Non-linear analysiswww.illinois.edu/~deepsoil
 Hyperbolic hysteretic pressure dependent soil model

 Flexible sub-incrementation scheme to allow for accurate & efficient analysis
 Advanced damping formulations to reduce numerically introduced artificial
damping
Equivalent Linear Analysis (a.k.a. SHAKE method)
 Unlimited number of soil layers of varying material properties

 Unlimited number of input motion data points
 Two types of complex shear modulus
 Improved numerical accuracy
_____________________________________________________________
DEEPSOIL
DEEPSOIL
Frequency Time
Domain Domain
Linear Linear
Equivalent Non
Linear Linear
Total Stress Effective Stress
Std. Hyperbolic Model PWP Model

(MR, MRD, MD) Sand
New Hyperbolic Model PWP Model

(MRDF) Clay
_____________________________________________________________
Prof. Ellen M. Rathje, Ph.D., P.E.
Strata
Developed by Albert Kottke and Ellen Rathje
Strata performs one-dimensional linear-elastic and equivalent-linear (SHAKE-type) site response
analyses using time series or random vibration theory ground motions. Strata allows for
stochastic variation of the site properties, including the shear-wave velocity, layer thicknesses,
depth to bedrock, and shear modulus reduction and material damping curves.The program can
be installed as a desktop application or run within the NEES cyberinfrastructure platform,
NEEShub. Strata can be downloaded from the NEEShub at Strata.
SigmaSpectra
Developed by Albert Kottke and Ellen Rathje
SigmaSpectra is a computer program that selects suites of of earthquake ground motions from a
library of ground motions such that the median of the suite matches a target response spectrum
at all defined periods. The program also scales the suite such that the standard deviation fits the
target standard deviation.The program can be installed as a desktop application or run within
the NEES cyberinfrastructure platform, NEEShub. SigmaSpectra can be downloaded from the
NEEShub atSigmaSpectra.
https://sites.google.com/site/ellenrathje/software-and-data
_____________________________________________________________
SLAMMER
Developed by Randall Jibson, Ellen Rathje, Matthew Jibson, and Yong-Woo Lee
SLAMMER performs a variety of sliding-block analyses to evaluate seismic slope
performance. Functionalities include both rigorous and simplified analyses of rigid
sliding blocks (i.e. Newmark analysis) and flexible sliding blocks (i.e. decoupled and fully
coupled approaches). Rigorous analyses calculate displacement based on user-specified
ground motions, while simplified analyses use empirical regression relationships to
predict displacement based on ground motion parameters (e.g., peak ground
acceleration). The nonlinear response of the soil within the flexible sliding blocks can
be taken account through the equivalent-linear approximation. A large database of
recorded ground motions from the PEER Ground Motion Database are included with
the program or users can import their own ground motion for analysis. The program
can be installed as a desktop application or run within the NEES cyberinfrastructure
platform, NEEShub. Slammer can be downloaded from the USGS at SLAMMER
(download) or accessed on the NEEShub at SLAMMER (NEEShub).
https://sites.google.com/site/ellenrathje/software-and-data
_____________________________________________________________
GeoMotions Suite
(www.GeoMotions.com)
SHAKE2000 D-MOD2000 RspMatchEDT
Equivalent-Linear Fully Nonlinear Effective- Development of Design
Total–Stress Stress Motions by Spectral
Analysis w/ PWP Dissipation Matching
“The GeoMotions Suite2000 is an essential toolkit for anyone practicing in the

field of Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering” (Jonathan D. Bray)
Copyright © 2009 GeoMotions, LLC
This slide contributed by Dr. Neven Matasovic
_____________________________________________________________
Pre-Processing
(Target Spectra, Design Motions, Soil Profile, …)

_____________________________________________________________
Analysis
(Total-Stress, Effective Stress, Liquefaction, …)

_____________________________________________________________
Post-Processing
(Newmark-type analysis, Animations, …)

_____________________________________________________________
PM4Sand Stress-Strain Model
• PM4Sand (Boulanger 2010, Boulanger & Ziotopoulou 2012) builds on the Dafalias &
Manzari (2004) model.
• Modified & calibrated at equation level to improve consistency with body of experimental
data & design correlations
– Added fabric history, including cumulative fabric term

– Plastic modulus (Kp), elastic modulus (G), and dilatancy
(D) depend on fabric and fabric history
– D constrained by Bolton's (1986) dilatancy relationship
– Recast in terms of relative state parameter index (ξR)
– Modified logic for updating initial back-stress ratio
– Neglects Lode Angle dependence
• Implemented as a user-defined material model in FLAC (Itasca 2011) and posted on-line.
This slide contributed by Professor Ross Boulanger
_____________________________________________________________
PM4SAND: Example – Cyclic undrained loading
 Fabric damage terms in PM4Sand enable accumulation of shear
strains:
0.4 0.4
Shear stress ratio, τ/σ'vc

0.2 0.2
0 0
-0.2 -0.2
DR = 35%
σ'vo = 100 kPa α = τ / σ'vo = 0.0
-0.4 -0.4
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Shear strain γ (%) Vertical Effective Stress, σ'v / σ'vc
0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2
0 0
-0.2 -0.2
DR = 55%
σ'vo = 100 kPa α = τ / σ'vo = 0.0
-0.4 -0.4
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Shear strain γ (%) Vertical Effective Stress, σ'v / σ'vc

_____________________________________________________________
PM4SAND
Manual and documentation
 Element responses
illustrated for:
 DR = 35, 55, 75%
 σ′v of ¼, 1, 4, 16, & 64 atm
 Drained & undrained
 Simple shear & plane-
strain loading
 Monotonic, cyclic, and
post-cyclic.
 Purpose: know what you
model can, and cannot, do
well.

_____________________________________________________________
OpenSees at UC Berkeley
_____________________________________________________________
OpenSees http://opensees.berkeley.edu/
PEER Center, UC Berkeley, Prof. Gregory Fenves
Open-source platform
Solid Node Fluid Node
Solid-Fluid Fully Beam

Coupled Element for Element for
Saturated Soil Pile
_____________________________________________________________
Nonlinear hysteretic Model
Note: Also available with Tension Cut-off

for interface between structure and soil
_____________________________________________________________
Soil Constitutive Model
 Multi-yield surface plasticity model (based on Prevost 1985)
 Incorporating dilatancy and cyclic mobility effects
Conical yield surfaces for granularShear stress-strain and effective

soils (Prevost 1985; Elgamal et al.stress path under undrained shear
2003; Yang and Elgamal 2008) loading condition (Parra 1996, Yang
2000, Yang and Elgamal 2002)
_____________________________________________________________
Yang, Z., Elgamal, A. and Parra, E., "Computational Model for Liquefaction and Associated Shear
Deformation," J. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 129, No. 12, 2003.
3
2
σ 1′
σ 1′ p′
Soil Stress-Strain Model:
Multi-surface Plasticity p0′ 3
2
σ 2′ 3
2
σ 3′
σ 3′ Deviatoric plane
σ 2′ Principal effective stress space
_____________________________________________________________
OpenSeesPL Graphical User Interface
http://soilquake.net/openseespl
_____________________________________________________________
OpenSeesPL: http://soilquake.net/openseespl
_____________________________________________________________
OpenSeesPL: http://soilquake.net/openseespl
_____________________________________________________________
Shallow Foundation Caisson
Ground Modification Soil-structure Interface
_____________________________________________________________
Ongoing Research
_____________________________________________________________
OpenSeesPL
OpenSeesPL
_____________________________________________________________
Ground Modification
- Gravel Drain/Stone column
- Pile Pinning
Schematic view
of stone column
or pile-pinning layout
10 m depth
Sand Layer
(or Silt Layer)
Mild Infinite Slope (4 degrees)
_____________________________________________________________
http://cyclic.ucsd.edu/openseespl
_____________________________________________________________
BridgePBEE: PBEE Analysis Framework For
Bridge-Abutment-Ground Systems (2-Span Bridge)
Ahmed Elgamal and Jinchi Lu

University of California, San Diego
Kevin Mackie
University of Central Florida
_____________________________________________________________
BridgePBEE: PBEE Analysis Framework For
Bridge-Abutment-Ground Systems (2-Span Bridge)
What is BridgePBEE
BridgePBEE* (http://peer.berkeley.edu/bridgepbee/)
BridgePBEE is a PC-based graphical pre- and post-processor (user-interface) for conducting

Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering (PBEE) studies for bridge-ground systems (2-span
single column).
The three-dimensional (3D) finite element computations are conducted using OpenSees
developed by the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER).
The analysis options available in BridgePBEE include (SI units in current version): 1) Pushover
Analysis, 2) Base Input Acceleration Analysis, and 3) Full Performance-Based Earthquake
Engineering (PBEE) Analysis.
*Lu, J., Mackie, K.R., and Elgamal, A. (2011). BridgePBEE: OpenSees 3D Pushover
and Earthquake Analysis of Single-Column 2-span Bridges, User Manual, Beta 1.0.
_____________________________________________________________
Select PBEE Terminology
IM - Intensity Measure for a given earthquake motion
For any input earthquake motion, the Intensity Measures calculated by
BridgePBEE include:
PGA (Peak Ground Acceleration)

PGV (Peak Ground Velocity)
PGD (Peak Ground Displacement)
D5-95 (Strong Motion Duration)
CAV (Cumulative Absolute Velocity)
Arias Intensity
SA (Spectral Acceleration; assuming 1 second period)
SV (Spectral Velocity), SD (Spectral Displacement)
PSA (Pseudo-spectral Acceleration)
PSV (Pseudo-spectral Velocity)
_____________________________________________________________
The BridgePBEE Framework
• Define Bridge-abutment-ground geometry and material properties
• Select/Define ensembles of input earthquake ground acceleration (e.g., 100 different ground
motions spanning a wide range of Intensities as defined by IM quantities such as Peak ground
acceleration (PGA) or Peak Ground Velocity (PGV)
• Conduct individual earthquake shaking simulations for all input motions and View output in terms
of Decision Variables (DVs) such as peak column drift and other similar parameters of interest
displayed against any desired IM for each employed earthquake input motion.
• View detailed time histories of all responses of interest for any of the individual earthquake
simulations (including animations of the deformed mesh, …).
• Use the DVs (clustered into Performance groups or PGs) variation against the IM to compute
repair cost and repair time (based on pre-defined relationships that related the level of each DV to
a Damage State (DS) and these Damage states associated with different levels of repair (pre-
defined by repair quantities and associated repair times). See contribution to cost for each repair
quantity, or for each Performance group as a function of the level od shaking (represented by the
IM parameter).
• Compute total cost and repair time shown as a function of level of IM (such as PGV)
• For the bridge geographic location, define the expected seismic hazard.
• Use expected seismic hazard and define expected repair cost and time for this bridge
• For any possible level of shaking, see % contribution of the various performance groups (the DVs)
or the Repair quantities to the overall cost or time.
_____________________________________________________________
BridgePBEE Main Window
_____________________________________________________________
Appendix: Illustrative Examples
of Large Scale Numerical Analyses
_____________________________________________________________
Numerical Analysis of Embankment Dynamic Response
Adalier, K., A. -W. Elgamal, and G. R. Martin, "Foundation Liquefaction Countermeasures for Earth Embankments," Journal of
Geotechnical and Geo-environmental Engineering, ASCE,Vol. 124, No. 6, 500-517, June, 1998.
Elgamal, Ahmed, Ender Parra, Zhaohui Yang, and Korhan Adalier, “Numerical Analysis of Embankment Foundation Liquefaction
Countermeasures,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering,Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 447-471, 2002.
Yang, Zhaohui, Ahmed Elgamal, Korhan Adalier, and Michael Sharp, "Earth Dam on Liquefiable Foundation: Numerical
Prediction of Centrifuge Experiments," Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE,Volume 130, Issue 10, October 2004.
_____________________________________________________________
OpenSees 3D FE Model • 30,237 nodes
• 1,140/280 linear/nonlinear beam-column elements
Three-Dimensional Seismic Response of Humboldt Bay
• 81 linear shell elements
Bridge-Foundation-Ground System, A. Elgamal;
• 23,556 solid brick elements
L.Yan; Z.Yang; and J. P. Conte, Journal of
• 1,806 zero-length elements
Structural Engineering,Vol. 134, No. 7, July 1, 2008.
Transverse and Longitudinal Response

3D Spatial Configuration
Abutments
Pile Foundations
Ground
_____________________________________________________________
Three-Dimensional Seismic Response of Humboldt Bay Bridge-Foundation-Ground System, A. Elgamal;
L. Yan; Z. Yang; and J. P. Conte, Journal of Structural Engineering,Vol. 134, No. 7, July 1, 2008.
_____________________________________________________________
Elevation and plan view
of residual deformation
(Scale factor = 50)
Three-Dimensional Seismic Response of Humboldt Bay
Bridge-Foundation-Ground System, A. Elgamal;
L.Yan; Z.Yang; and J. P. Conte, Journal of
Structural Engineering,Vol. 134, No. 7, July 1, 2008.
1 2 3
_____________________________________________________________
Permanent Deformation of Bridge, Foundations, and Abutments
Original position Final position with residual deformation
#1 Pier #2 Pier #3 Pier #4 Pier #5 Pier #6 Pier #7 Pier #8 Pier

Left & pile & pile & pile & pile & pile & pile & pile & pile Right
abutment group group group group group group group group abutment
(a) Elevation view (exaggerated scale by a factor of 50)
Final position with residual deformation
Original position
_____________________________________________________________
(b) Plan view (exaggerated scale by a factor of 150)
3D Slice of Wharf supported on pile foundation
Contour lines show the longitudinal (factor of 30)
displacement in meters
Work by Elgamal and Lu
Close-up of Final Deformed Mesh
Case W3N-F
_____________________________________________________________

Seismic Site Response

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

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

Seismic Site Response

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Seismic Site Response (Site Amplification)

An Introduction to Shear Beam Analysis

Reflected Wave Rock

Base Rock Motion

Darendeli, M. B. (2001). “Development of a new family of normalized

Darendeli, M.B., and K. H. Stokoe, II (2001). Development of a new

Menq, F.-Y. (2003). Dynamic Properties of Sandy and Gravelly Soils.

• Input motion as outcrop motion (changed

• Acceleration Time History

• Layer Height Definition (more layers

Effective Strain Ratio=(Magnitude of EQ -1)/10

Idriss, [0.4, 0.85]

Ray Seed, as low as 0.35

Use of Exact Solutions of Wave Propagation Problems to Guide Implementation of

ProShake: Ground Response Analysis Program, Version

see page 1 of Excel spreadsheet for actual G/Gmax and D values

PI = Plasticity Index (PI = LL-PL), where LL = Liquid Limit and PL is

Note: P1 (ksf) 1400

Older versions (below) are

x = 1.3 + ( D50 / P5) P 6

Change in Damping D with shear strain amplitude

Using this γr , G/Gmax and D can be

1. In terms of γmax , γr can be written as:

This slide contributed by Professor Youssef Hashash

 Hyperbolic hysteretic pressure dependent soil model

 Advanced damping formulations to reduce numerically introduced artificial

Equivalent Linear Analysis (a.k.a. SHAKE method)

 Unlimited number of soil layers of varying material properties

Total Stress Effective Stress

Std. Hyperbolic Model PWP Model

New Hyperbolic Model PWP Model

“The GeoMotions Suite2000 is an essential toolkit for anyone practicing in the

Copyright © 2009 GeoMotions, LLC

Copyright © 2009 GeoMotions, LLC

This slide contributed by Dr. Neven Matasovic

– Added fabric history, including cumulative fabric term

Shear stress ratio, τ/σ'vc

Shear stress ratio, τ/σ'vc

This slide contributed by Professor Ross Boulanger

This slide contributed by Professor Ross Boulanger

Solid Node Fluid Node

Solid-Fluid Fully Beam

Note: Also available with Tension Cut-off

Conical yield surfaces for granularShear stress-strain and effective

σ 2′ Principal effective stress space

Ground Modification Soil-structure Interface

Ahmed Elgamal and Jinchi Lu

BridgePBEE is a PC-based graphical pre- and post-processor (user-interface) for conducting

PGA (Peak Ground Acceleration)

Transverse and Longitudinal Response

Original position Final position with residual deformation

#1 Pier #2 Pier #3 Pier #4 Pier #5 Pier #6 Pier #7 Pier #8 Pier

(a) Elevation view (exaggerated scale by a factor of 50)

Final position with residual deformation

Work by Elgamal and Lu

Close-up of Final Deformed Mesh

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen