Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering: Dr. Deepankar Choudhury

Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering
by
Dr. Deepankar Choudhury
Humboldt Fellow, J SPS Fellow, BOYSCAST Fellow
Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
IIT Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400 076, India.
Email: dc@civil.iitb.ac.in
URL: http://www.civil.iitb.ac.in/~dc/
Lecture 33
IIT Bombay, DC 2
Module 8

Site Response Analysis
Transfer Function
The transfer function determines how each frequency in the
bedrock (input) motion is amplified, or de-amplified by the soil
deposit
A transfer function may be viewed as a filter that acts upon
some input signal to produce an output signal

3 IIT Bombay, DC
Input
Transfer
function
(filter)
Output
4
Transfer Function Evaluation
Uniform Damped Soil on Rigid Rock
How do we handle damping?
Complex shear modulus
2 2
* * *
/
S
G V k
1/ 2
* 2 *
/ k G
Complex Wave
Number
* *
/ 1
S S
V G V i
IIT Bombay, DC
*
*
1
S
w
k k i
V
5
Repeat analysis as before
Transfer function becomes
*
*
0,
2 1
cos ,
2 cos
i t
i t
u t
Ae
F
k H u H t
A k H e
IIT Bombay, DC
6
*
*
1 1
,
cos
cos
S
F w
k H
wH
V
IIT Bombay, DC
2 2
2 2
1 1
,
cos cos / /
S S
F w
kH kH wH V wH V
7
Uniform Undamped Soil on Elastic Rock
s
u
* *
,
s s
i t k t i t k t
s s s s
u z t C e D e
* *
,
r r
i t k t i t k t
r r r r
u z t C e D e
, 0,
s s r r
u z H t u z t
, 0,
s s r r
z H t z t
IIT Bombay, DC
8
Uniform Undamped Soil on Elastic Rock
Maintaining equilibrium and compatibility of displacements
at the boundary, the amplitude of the transfer function can be
written as
2 2 2
1
, 0
cos sin
s z s
F w
k H k H
*
*
s ss
z
r sr
v
v
IIT Bombay, DC
9
Layered, Damped Soil on Elastic Rock
IIT Bombay, DC
10
Layered, Damped Soil on Elastic Rock
If we know response at layer j (A
j
and B
j
are known), then
we have two equations with two unknowns (A
j+1
and B
j+1
)
We can relate A
j+1
and B
j+1
to A
j
and B
j
by means of
recursive relationships
For layer j

From equilibrium

From compatibility

* *
,
j j j j
ik z ik z
i t
j j j j
u z t A e B e e
* *
1 1
j j j j
ik h ik h
j j j j
A B A e B e
* *
* *
1 1
* *
1 1
s j s j
ik h ik h
j j
j j j j
j j
G k
A B A e B e
G k
IIT Bombay, DC
11
Equivalent Linear Approach
The actual nonlinear hysteretic stress strain behavior of
cyclically loaded soils can be approximated by equivalent linear
properties
Assume some initial strain and use to
estimate G and
Determine peak strain and effective strain
max eff
R
IIT Bombay, DC
12
Repeat until computed effective strains are consistent with
assumed effective strains
IIT Bombay, DC
13
Non linear Approach
Solve Wave equation incrementally
then
, , 1, , i t t i t i t i t
t
u u
z
Velocity at time t+t can be calculated from velocity
and shear stress at time t
IIT Bombay, DC
14
Non-Linear Approach

Solve wave equation incrementally

Start with initial stiffness, G
max
Compute response for small time step, t
Compute shear strain amplitude at end of time step
Use stress-strain model to find G
tan
for next time step
Compute shear strain amplitude at end of next time step
Continue stepping through time for entire input motion

IIT Bombay, DC
15
Non linear Approach
Solve Wave equation incrementally
Nonlinear response is simulated in
incrementally linear fashion

Material damping is taken care by
hysteretic response

Approach requires good model for
description of soil stress strain
behaviour
IIT Bombay, DC
16
Non-Linear Stress-Strain Models

Two main types

Cyclic nonlinear models

Advanced constitutive models
IIT Bombay, DC
17
Non Linear Stress Strain Models
Requires :
Backbone curve
Unloading reloading rules
Pore pressure model
IIT Bombay, DC
18
Non Linear Stress Strain Models
Requires:
Yield surfaces
Hardening rule
Failure surface
Flow rule
IIT Bombay, DC
19
Non-Linear Stress-Strain Models

Advantages:
Relatively simple
Small number of parameters
Disadvantages:
Simplistic representation of soil behavior
Cannot capture dilatancy effects

Advantages:
Can better represent mechanics of yield, failure
Disadvantages:
Many parameters
Difficult to calibrate
IIT Bombay, DC
20
Comparison of Equivalent Linear and Non-
Linear Site Response Analyses

Inherent linearity can lead to spurious resonances in equivalent
linear method

Use of effective shear strain can lead to over damped or under
damped system, depending on nature of strain time history

Equivalent linear analyses can be much more efficient

Nonlinear analyses can be formulated in terms of effective stresses

Nonlinear analyses can predict permanent deformations
IIT Bombay, DC
21
Comparison of Equivalent Linear and Non
Linear Site Response analysis
Nonlinear analysis require reliable stress strain, or constitutive models
Differences in computed response depend on the degree of nonlinearity
in the actual soil response

Stiff site
Weak input motions
Results quite
similar
Soft sites Liquefiable sites
strong input motions
Nonlinear analysis
preferable

IIT Bombay, DC
22
Practical Aspects of Site Response Analysis

Equivalent Linear vs. Nonlinear

Equivalent linear much more commonly used
First widely available method
Greater range of experience
Performance well-documented
Generally runs faster
Allows deconvolution
Material property characterization easier

Probably over-used
Very soft sites
Liquefiable sites
IIT Bombay, DC
23
Practical Aspects of Site Response Analysis

Convolution

Bedrock motion applied at bedrock level
Outcropping motion
Motion within profile
Motion propagated upward through soil profile

Deconvolution

Motion applied at ground surface
Motion propagated downward through soil profile
Bedrock motion corresponding to surface motion computed
IIT Bombay, DC
24
Common Situation #1
Ground surface motion on top of some soil profile to be determined
1. Determine soil profile characteristics by subsurface investigation
and field/lab testing program
IIT Bombay, DC
25
2. Determine design motion characteristics
Seismic hazard analysis
Deterministic
Probabilistic
Site conditions - must be recognized
3. Obtain input motion
Actual - download from web
Synthetic - generate
Outcrop or within profile?

IIT Bombay, DC
26
Common Situation #1
In one dimensional analysis, input motion is applied at point
directly below ground surface point of interest
IIT Bombay, DC
27
Ground surface motion on top of some soil profile to be
determined
Free surface motion is to be determined
IIT Bombay, DC
28
Common Situation #1
Bedrock motion will be slightly different than rock outcropping
motion related by transfer function
Equivalent linear programs allow specification of rock outcropping
motion bedrock motion automatically computed
IIT Bombay, DC
29
Common Situation #2
Free surface motion is known usually obtained from attenuation
relationship (based on database of soil outcrop motion)
Free surface motion is to be determined for site with different soil
conditions
IIT Bombay, DC
30
Common Situation #2
Deconvolve known motion (A) to obtain corresponding bedrock motion
(B)
Save bedrock motion as rock outcrop motion (C)
IIT Bombay, DC
31
Common Situation #2
Assume rock outcrop motion at site of interest (D) is equal to that at
site of measured ground motion (C)
Apply motion (D) at base of soil profile of interest (E) as rock
outcrop motion
IIT Bombay, DC
32
Compute desired free surface motion (F)
IIT Bombay, DC
33
Deconvolution

Check results carefully before using

May be unrealistic
Soft soil profile
High frequency components are de-amplified
For consistency with surface accelerations, unrealistically
large high frequency bedrock accelerations may be required

Can filter surface motion (15 Hz low-pass) to reduce potential
for this effect

IIT Bombay, DC
Example # 1

Case Study
on
Seismic Ground Response Analysis
for Mumbai, India
D. Choudhury, IIT Bombay, India
Ref.: V. S. Phanikanth, Deepankar Choudhury and G. R. Reddy
(2011); "Equivalent-linear seismic ground response analysis of
some typical sites in Mumbai", Geotechnical and Geological
Engineering, Springer, Vol. 29(6), 1109-1126.
35
EQUIVALENT LINEAR GROUND
RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR MUMBAI
Mangalwadi site near Girgaon (MBH#1, MBH#2);

Walkeswar site (WBH#1, WBH#2) ; and

BJ Marg near Pandhari Chawl site (BBH#1, BBH#2
& BBH#3)
Equivalent-linear Ground response Analysis for some
typical Mumbai Soil sites:
Typical bore hole data at soil site MBH#1 at Mumbai
[Phanikanth et al. 2011, Geotech. and Geological Engg., Springer]
Ground displacement at time t in layered soil
Strong motion parameters as input data for analysis

Acceleration-time history of
4 different input motions
[Phanikanth et al. 2011, Geotech.
and Geological Engg., Springer]
Input parameters for MBH#1

Equation of back-bone curve for shear
stress vs. shear strain
Output Acceleration-time history at GL for soil site MBH#1 at
Mumbai when input was 2001 Bhuj motion

Software used, DEEPSOIL v3.5beta (2008)
Acceleration response spectra at ground level with 5% damping for
soil site MBH#1 at Mumbai under various earthquake motions
Typical soil amplification for earthquake acceleration at various
soil sites in Mumbai under different earthquake motions
Typical soil amplification for earthquake acceleration at various
soil sites in Mumbai under different earthquake motions
Acceleration Response Spectra for site MBH#1 at various layers
for input motions (a) Bhuj 2001 (b) Loma Prieta 1989 (c) Loma
Gillory 1989 (d) Kobe 1995
Fourier Amplification Ratio for site MBH#1 at various layers for
input motions (a) Bhuj 2001 (b) Loma Prieta 1989 (c) Loma
Gillory 1989 (d) Kobe 1995
Comparison of frequencies and validation of model for
ground response analysis in Mumbai subjected to 2001 Bhuj motion
[Phanikanth, 2011, Ph.D. Thesis., IIT Bombay]
Example # 2

Case Study
on
Seismic Ground Response Analysis
for Four Ports in Gujarat, India
Ref.: Jaykumar Shukla and Deepankar Choudhury (2012); "Seismic
hazard and site-specific ground motion for typical ports of Gujarat",
Natural Hazards, Springer, Vol. 60(2), 541-565.
Location of selected
Ports in Gujarat, India
7/11/2013
67, E 68, E 69, E 70, E 71, E 72, E 73, E 74, E 75, E
19, N
20, N
21, N
22, N
23, N
24, N
25, N
26, N
F18
F17
F14
F15
F13
F12
F25A
F5
F2
F1
F4
F3
F6
F7
F8
F10
F9
F33
F35
F34
F37
F38 F42
F41
F43
F45
F46
F31
F32
F24
F49
F23
F48
F24
F26
F21
F28
F29
F30
Kandla port site
Mundra port site
Hazira port site
Dahej port site
Fn Fault line
Legend

0
N
Shukla and Choudhury (2012) in Natural Hazards, 60(2), 541-565.
Steps followed
Fault Map and seismicity parameters
Logic tree framework for epistemic uncertainties
Development of Uniform Hazard Spectra (UHS) at bed rock level and
synthetic ground motions
Geotechnical Characterization
Ground Response Analysis
7/11/2013
Uniform Hazard Spectra for
Kandla and Mundra port sites
UHS obtained are for rock sites
Compared with of IS:1893 -Part 1 (2002)
specified spectra for rock sites MCE Spectra
As per IS:1893 Part I (2002), Design Basis
Earthquake can be taken as 50% of MCE.
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Retrun Period 2475 years
IS 1893 (2002)- Zone V
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)
Spectral Period (s)
Kandla Port Site
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)
Spectral Period (s)
Mundra Port Site
IS 1893 (2002)- Zone V
Stiff Clay
Typical Geotechnical Characterization
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
25
20
15
10
5
0
200 400 600 800
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Average (used in present study) Imai, 1977 (for all soils) Jinan, 1987 (for all soils)
Imai and Yoshimura, 1970 (for all soils)) Imai and Tonouchi, 1982 (for all soils) Iyisan (for all soils)
Jafari et al., 1997 (for all soils) Yokota et al., 1991 (for all soils) Seed and Idriss, 1981 (for all soils)
Athanasopoulos, 1995 (for all soils) Kiku, 2001 (for all soils)
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Shear Wave Velocity (m/sec)
Kandla Port site
B
Mundra Port site
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Shear Wave Velocity (m/sec)
Silty Clay
Stiff Clay
Silty Sand
Stiff Clay
Sandy
Gravel
Silty Sand
Dense
SiltySand
Shear wave velocities are estimated from 10
empirical correlations and then averaged.
0 20 40 60 80
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Mundra port site
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
SPT N-Value
Borehole 1
Borehole 2
Kandla port site A
Borehole 1
Borehole 2
Site characterization from available
geotechnical investigations
Shukla and Choudhury (2012) ASCE GSP No. 225, 1650-1659.
Synthetic Ground Motions
0.01 0.1 1 10
0.01
0.1
1
10
Target Spectra - Kandla 2475 year return period
Bhuj 2001 EQ time history
Matched Spectra
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)
Spectral Period (s)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
-1
0
1
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)
Time (sec)
Design Time History (2475 Year return period - Kandla port)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
-1
0
1
Design Time History (2475 Year return period - Kandla port)
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)
Time (sec)
The program RSPMATCH
(Abrahamson, 1998) is used to generate
the synthetic ground motion compatible
with generated uniform hazard spectra
for all levels of ground motions
The time history of Bhuj earthquake of
2001 recorded at passport office
Ahmedabad is used as seed time history.
Shukla and Choudhury (2012) ASCE GSP No. 225, 1650-1659.
Typical synthetic time
history for Kandla Port
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-0.8
-0.4
0.0
0.4
0.8
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s

(
g
)
Time (sec)
Bhuj Earthquake 2001 (recorded at Ahemedand passport office, N-W component)
Level 3 ground motion(2475 years return period)
Level 2 ground motion(475 years return period)
Level 1ground motion(72 years return period)
Kandla Port
Ground Response Analysis
0.01 0.1 1 10
0.1
1
10
P
s
e
u
d
o
-

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)
Period (sec)
Layer 1, Damping: 5.0%
Kandla Port - Level 3 ground motions
0.1 1 10
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Kandla Port - Level 3 ground motions
A
m
p
l
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

r
a
t
i
o
Frequency(Hz)
Layer 1 to Bedrock
Layer 2 to Bedrock
Layer 3 to Bedrock
Layer 4 to Bedrock
Layer
NO
Avera
ge
SPT-
value
Description Modulus reduction
curve and damping
curve selected
1 10 Soft clay Sun et al. (1988)
2 17 Stiff clay Vucetic and Dobry
(1991)
3 35-40 Medium silty
sand
Idriss (1990), upper
range
4 50 Stiff to very stiff
clay
Vucetic and Dobry
(1991)
Ground Response analysis is carried out using
equivalent liner model using SHAKE91 (Schnabel et al.,
1972).
Modulus reduction curves and damping curves are
selected based on the Soil properties
Typical results in form of Pseudo-acceleration response
spectra and transfer function (amplification factor)
Important observations
Contributing faults:
Kandla port :F13, F25A, F14 ; Mundra port:F25A and F13 ; Dahej port : F33 and
F30; Hazira port : F34
IS:1893 part 1:2002, underestimates the seismic ground motions for the two port sites
of Kachchh region however for Dahej and Hazira ports they are in agreement.

Ground
Motion
level
Peak ground accelerations (g) IS:1893
Part 1 (2002 )
Mundra
port site
Kandla
port site
Hazira
port site
Dahej
port site
Zone V Zone III
Level 1 0.07 0.12 0.05 0.04 ---
Level 2 0.19 0.25 0.10 0.10 0.18 0.08
Level 3 0.33 0.40 0.17 0.18 0.36 0.16
Peak ground accelerations obtained for port sites
Important observations
For Kandla port site, the ground amplification factor is observed to be around 1.37 for
frequency range around 1.37 to 2.1 Hz. Layer 1 has higher value compared to other
layers for all the ground motion levels.

For Mundra port site, amplification factors are found to be 1.94 to 1.74 for free field
ground motions, for the frequency range 1.0 to 2.5 Hz. For Level 1 ground motion,
layer 1 has greater amplification factor whereas for Level 2 and Level 3, ground
motions, layer 2 has higher amplification ratio compared to other layers.

For Hazira port site, the amplification factors are 1.86 to 1.91 for the frequency range
about 2.2 to 2.74 Hz. For Level 2 and Level 3 ground motions, amplification factors
for Layer 2 are greater than layer 1.

For Dahej port site, the amplification factors are 1.59 to 1.61 for the frequency range
about 2 to 1.6 Hz for three levels of ground motions. The amplification of the Layer 2
is observed to be more compared to other layers of soil profile.

IIT Bombay, DC 58
End of

Module 8

Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering: Dr. Deepankar Choudhury

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering: Dr. Deepankar Choudhury

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Geotechnical Earthquake

S-ar putea să vă placă și