Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Abstract: Local site conditions have a strong effect on ground response during earthquakes. Two
important soil parameters that control the amplification effects of seismic motions by a soil column
are the soil hysteretic damping ratio and shear wave velocity. This paper presents the results of in
situ damping ratio measurements performed using continuous surface wave attenuation data at a
site in Semnan University campus and analysis used to obtain the near surface soils damping ratio
profile. Once the frequency dependent attenuation coefficients are determined, the shear damping
ratio profile is calculated using an algorithm based on constrained inversion analysis. A computer
code is developed to calculate the shear damping ratio in each soil layer. Comparisons of the in situ
shear damping ratio profile determined from continuous surface wave with cross hole independent
test measurements are also presented. Values of shear damping ratio, obtained using continuous
surface wave measurements, were less than the measured using cross hole tests, possibly because
of the higher frequencies used in cross hole tests.
Keywords: Continuous surface waves, Damping ratio, Soil attenuation, Hysteresis loop
variations in selected parameters. Damping modulus). There have been relatively few
behavior is also influenced by effective efforts on measuring soil damping
confining pressure, particularly for soils of parameters in field. Studies by Stewart [8]
low plasticity. The influences of various and Mok [9] show the measurement of the
environmental and loading conditions on the soil damping ratio using seismic shear wave
damping ratio of soils is described in Table 1. amplitude data with the SCPT and cross hole
The actual response of a soil specimen in the seismic methods. These techniques have
field under different conditions than those several potential disadvantages with respect
imposed in the laboratory, may be to obtaining data for damping ratio
significantly different. evaluations. All of these methods required
the advancement of a boring or cone
Field tests, enclosing a much larger soil penetrometer in to the ground and the
volume which include non-uniform, non- installation of a receiver (geophone or
homogeneous conditions, should provide a accelerometer) at the various depths. Since
more representative characterization of the the coupling between the receiver and
overall soil profile than what is possible surrounding soil can not be physically
using laboratory tests which includes of observed the potential for poor coupling and
small volume and relatively homogeneous therefore poor amplitude signal reception,
soil specimens. cause some problems in seismic wave
amplitude data measurement and
interpretation. Additionally, down hole and
4. Field Measuremants of Soil Damping cross hole testing usually include the
installation of grouted casing in the complete
In-situ measurements of dynamic soil boring. This grout and casing (plastic or steel
parameters have typically focused on shear pipe) system made impede or impart
wave velocity and soil stiffness (i.e. shear disturbance to the incoming signals. The non-
4 (2)
8
Depth (m)
10
12 (3)
14
16
18
20
and firmly seated by removing the upper Where A is the receiver amplitude value at
loose soil and preparing a level area for the distance r, A0 is the source amplitude and
placement of the vibrator base. At each α is the attenuation coefficient. If both sides
geophone location, ten to fifteen average of of Eq. 4 are multiplied by r-0.5 and then by
the geophones signal were measured at each taking the natural logarithm, we can linearize
frequency with mean value recorded by the the above equation and provide a relationship
FFT analyzer. After a measurement has been between receiver amplitude and attenuation
done, the geophones were moved to new coefficient as a function of frequency :
offsets and coupled to the ground surface as
previously explained. Measurements of >
Ln A(f ).r 0.5 @ Ln(A 0 (f )) D(f ) r (5)
surface wave particle motion were made at 5
to 15 offsets between 0.5 to 10 meters from Now by plotting corrected receiver amplitude
the vibrator. The equipment configuration as a function of distance (r) for a distinct
used for surface wave attenuation frequency, the slope of the best-fit regression
measurements is shown in Figure 3. line that will be attenuation coefficient (α).
Repeating this analysis for all frequencies, an
attenuation coefficient versus frequency
7. Attenuation parameter determination curve can be drawn. Figures 4 and 5 show
typical corrected geophone amplitude versus
Surface wave observation shows that the offset relationship with the negative slope of
geometrical attenuation is a function of r-0.5 the line from regression analysis representing
where r is the distance from the vibration the attenuation coefficient due to soil
source to the point of measurements. The material damping for frequencies 20
expression that accounts for both geometrical and 60 Hz.
and material damping is:
The attenuation of surface waves in a
A 0 (f ) D ( f ) r
A(r, f ) e (4) multilayered dissipative medium is only a
r 0.5 function of the shear and the compression of
-0.4
-0.6
,
0.1032
Downloaded from ijce.iust.ac.ir at 21:47 IRDT on Tuesday May 8th 2018
-0.8
-1
-1.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Distance (m)
0
Log of Corrected Amplitude
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
,
0.0896
-0.8
-1
-1.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Distance (m)
RMS
3
Downloaded from ijce.iust.ac.ir at 21:47 IRDT on Tuesday May 8th 2018
0
1.E-06 1.E-03 1.E+00 1.E+03 1.E+06 1.E+09 1.E+12
Smoothing Parameter
The method of Lagrange multipliers is The stratigraphy used for the inversion
applied to solve this constrained analysis at the Semnan University campus
minimization problem resulting as: site was chosen based on geotechnical data
from soil boring, standard penetration tests
)
m >Ow w (WG)
T T
WG @1
( WG ) T Wd (15) and in situ shear wave velocity
measurements. The variation of the root-
where λ is Lagrange multiplier that may be mean-square (RMS) error between the
interpreted as a smoothing parameter, and c measured and estimated attenuation
is NGN matrix as follows: coefficients as a function of the smoothing
parameter λ is shown in Figure 6. The value
⎡ 0 ... ⎤ of λ selected is the smallest value that makes
⎢ 1 1 0⎥⎥
⎢ (16) a solution vector composed of non-negative
w
⎢ ... 1 1 ⎥ damping ratios as described above.
⎢ ⎥
⎣ 0 1 1⎦
For this site, a value of 1.83G104 was
In the solution algorithm the Lagrange selected resulting in an RMS error of 1.31.
multiplier, is chosen subjectively so that the Although smaller values of λ result in
acceptable error is matched with a vector m, smaller RMS error, the corresponding
composed of non-negative shear damping solutions are not physically reasonable i.e.,
elements only. This constraint is required as they contain at least one negative value of
the material damping ratio cannot be damping ratio.
negative value. According to the above
algorithm, a computer program was The values of damping ratio resulting from
developed to solve the Equation 11 in the analysis are shown in Table 2 along with
MATLAB workspace. This program used other dynamic soil properties. Comparisons
some MATLAB toolboxes facilities to obtain of the in situ shear damping ratio profile
the shear damping ratio in each of the determined from continuous surface wave
assumed layers by an inverse algorithm with cross hole test measurements is also
presented by Tarantola [12]. plotted in Figure 7. The values range from
approximately 1.5-2.8% for soils in the upper Shear Damping Ratio (%)
20 m. As it was anticipated, the inversion 0 1 2 3 4
algorithm yields damping ratios that vary 0
smoothly with depth consistent with the
2
choice of admissible λ. Rix et.al. [11] have
shown the same trend for shear damping ratio 4
profile determination using surface wave 6
measurements in the Treasure Island
National Geotechnical Experimentation Site 8
Depth (m)
16
Table 3 shows the NGES dynamic soil
properties with damping ratio resulting from 18 Cross hole
the surface wave tests. Figure 8 compares the Surface Wave
20
in situ shear damping ratio profile
Fig. 7. Comparison of continuous surface wave shear
determined from surface wave method with damping ratio profile with cross hole test values at the site
cross hole tests results measured in the
Treasure Island (NGES) The bore hole spacing in the cross hole
measurements was approximately 3 to 4 m
The differences between cross hole and continuous surface wave tests were
measurements and the continuous surface performed with geophone offsets as large as
wave method can be at-tributed to these 10 to 20m. Thus the cross hole measurements
possible causes: yield localized attenuation properties, and the
- Frequencies used in cross hole tests are continuous surface wave measurements
usually on the order of several hundred hertz. yields properties that are averaged over a
The shorter wave lengths associated with much larger volume of soil.
these higher frequencies are more susceptible
to apparent attenuation due to scattering. - At higher frequencies involved in cross hole
tests, soil damping may be strongly affected
- There are substantial differences in the by fluid flow losses in addition to frictional
volume of soil sampled by the two methods. losses. These fluid losses may cause the
Damping
Layer Thickness Soil Shear Wave Velocity Mass Density
Ratio
Number (m) Classification (m/s) (Mg/m3)
(%)
1 1.5 SM 145 1.70 0.68
Downloaded from ijce.iust.ac.ir at 21:47 IRDT on Tuesday May 8th 2018
6
The continuous surface wave method have
several advantages over more conventional
borehole methods like cross-hole including
9 (1) the adverse effects of the presence of the
borehole and poor receiver coupling are
avoided; (2) depending on the source of
12
ground vibration, frequencies used in surface
Cross hole wave testing can be much lower than
Surface Wave borehole geophysical methods and thus
closer to the frequencies encountered during
15 dynamic loading of a site and (3) the non-
Fig.8. Comparison of surface wave damping values with
independent cross hole measured values at Treasure Island invasive nature of surface wave
NGES [11] measurements makes the test more versatile
damping is increased and become frequency and economical.
dependent at higher frequencies.
The shear damping ratio values determined
from continuous surface wave tests are less
9. Conclusions than those from cross hole measurements.
The in situ near surface soil damping ratio Difference between the surface wave and
profile of a site in Semnan University cross hole values are attributable to several
campus has been determined using non- causes including (1) different amounts of
invasive continuous surface wave attenuation apparent attenuation in the borehole and
measurements. The test procedure entails surface wave in situ measurements; (2)