Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Associate Professor
User interface
References:
Park, D. and Y. M. A. Hashash (2004). "Soil damping formulation in nonlinear time
domain site response analysis." Journal of Earthquake Engineering 8(2): 249-274.
Hashash, Y. M. A., and Park, D. (2002). "Viscous damping formulation and high
frequency motion propagation in nonlinear site response analysis." Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, 22(7), pp. 611-624.
Hashash, Y. M. A., and Park, D. (2001). "Non-linear one-dimensional seismic ground
motion propagation in the Mississippi embayment." Engineering Geology, 62(1-3), 185-
206.
Park, D. (2003). ESTIMATION OF NON-LINEAR SEISMIC SITE EFFECTS FOR DEEP
DEPOSITS OF THE MISSISSIPPI EMBAYMENT. Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering. Urbana, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: 337 p.
User Interface
Equivalent Linear
Numerical Model
User Interface
Soil Model
Viscous Damping Formulation
Dynamic Integration Scheme
Increased Numerical Accuracy
User Interface
G G
Modified Hyperbolic Model sec1 sec2
Gmo Gmo
s
s
G Initial
1 mo 1 Loading
mo r Curve
Backbone Subsequent
b Curve
' Loading & Unloading Curves
r a
ref
0.8
0.7
0.5
10.9
1
0.4
0.8 8
0.90.30.0001 Laird & Stoke (Measured)
G / Gmax 0.7
0.001
Confining Pressure
0.01 0.1
Non-Linear Pressur e Dependent Model 7
& Confinement 0.80.6 27.6 kPa
55.2 kPa 6
110 kPa 5
0.70.5
max
221 kPa
3 4
b
G/G
0.4 442 kPa
' 0.6
0.3
883 kPa
10.1 2
r a
1776 kPa
0.0001 0.001 0.01
0.5 Non-Linear Pressure Dependent Model
ref
27.6 kPa
1=27.6 kPa 2=55.2 kPa 3=110 kPa 4=221 kPa
0.4 55.2 kPa
5=442 kPa 6=883 kPa 7=1776 kPa 8=10 MPa
110 kPa
221 kPa
0.3 442 kPa
0.0001 883 kPa
0.001 Shear Strain, 0.01 0.1
1776 kPa
0
Damping 0.12 Confining Pressure (kPa)
4000
0.08
6000
8000 Proposed 2 4 5
Equation
'
0.04 6
d 10000
0.1 Damping Ratio (%) 1
7
at zero shear strain
0.02
8
0
0.0001 0.001 Shear Strain, 0.01 0.1
M u K u C u M I ug
C R M R K
8 Hashash and Park
Feature 2 Viscous Damping
Formulation
2
Simplified Rayleigh damping
Effective damping ratio, (%)
Target
1 Damping
Ratio
0
f
C R M R K
m Frequency (Hz)
Target
1 Damping
Ratio
Simplified RF
0
f f
m n
Frequency (Hz)
Selection of frequencies/modes for Full Rayleigh damping formulation
CRF (Conventional RF) : fm = 1st mode of soil column, fn=dominant period of input motion
RF (Proposed RF) : fm and fn chosen from transfer function of soil column and frequency content of
input motion An iterative process
10 Hashash and Park
NL Feature Viscous Damping
Formulation
2
Extended Rayleigh
damping (ERF)
Effective damping ratio, (%)
Simplified RF Full RF
Target
1 Damping
Ratio
0
f f f f
m n o p
Frequency (Hz)
u i 1 u i 1 t ui t ui 1
u i 1 u i t u i 0.5 t ui t ui 1
2 2
Unconditionally stable
No numerical damping
4 RF Conventional Approach
2
Use first mode of soil column and
0 a higher mode or predominant
5
period of ground motion
Effective damping ratio, (%)
(b)
4
1
Target damping ratio, = 1.8%
0
10 1 0.1
Frequency (Hz)
0.4
(c) Frequency domain
Spectral acceleration (g)
solution
CRF (1.1, 4 Hz
= Mode: 1, 2)
0.2
0
0.1 1 10
Period (sec)
Formulation
(a)
Fourier spectrum ratio (-)
Fourier Amplitude (g sec)
4 RF/ERF
Proposed Guideline
2 Use iterative procedure to obtain best match with frequency domain solution
Dependent on soil column
Dependent on input motion
0
5
(b) ERF: Computationally expensive
Effective damping ratio, (%)
1
Target damping ratio, = 1.8%
0
10 1 0.1
Frequency (Hz)
0.4
(c) Frequency domain
Spectral acceleration (g)
solution
CRF (1.1, 4 Hz
= Mode: 1, 2)
RF (2, 10 Hz
0.2
= Mode: 2, 5)
ERF (2, 10, 35, 45 Hz
= Mode: 2, 5, 16, 21)
0
0.1 1 10
Period (sec)
0.01
0.001
Updated [C] matrix
0.0001
Constant [C] matrix
-5
10
1 10
Frequency (Hz)
30,000
N = 1 Fixed
max
20,000
10,000
300 m
ME Profile
M=8,R=32km Motion
G* G 1 2i
Frequency dependent (Udaka, 1975)
Simplified (Kramer, 1996)
G* G 1 2 2 2i 1 2
No limitation on
number of layers
G* G 1 2i
number of materials 2
number of motion data points
E-W
Spectral acceleration (g)
0.4
0
0 1 2 33
Period (sec)
Yerba Buena Recording (Input)
Treasure Island (Recorded motion) 0.4
Conventional Nonlinear analysis
(Simplified Rayleigh Damping) N-S
Spectral acceleration (g)
DEEPSOIL
(Full Rayleigh Damping)
0.2
0
0 1 2 3
Period (sec)
No Fixed Parameter
Selected to match various reference
dynamic curves (G/Gmax and
damping curves)
3 4
G/G
0.6 ME EPRI
1 2
0.5
1.4 0.85
0.4 s 0.8 0.9
0.3 (a)
0.0001 0.001 Shear Strain, 0.01 0.1 Referenc
e strain @
0.12 ref 0.163 0.07
0.1 ref 0.18 0.18
Damping Ratio (-)
0.06 1 3
2 4 5
0.04 6 c Varies with depth
7 d 0 0
0.02
8
0
0.0001 0.001 Shear Strain, 0.01 0.1
ME EPRI
1.4 0.85
s 0.8 0.9
(a)
Reference
strain
@
ref 0.163 0.07
ref 0.18 0.18
b 0.63 0.4
Old
Young
Bay
Bay Mud
Mud
0.8 0.9
s 0.8 0.7
(a)
Referenc
e strain
@ ref 0.17 0.065
ref N/A N/A
b 0.0 0.0
c 1.5 1.5
d 0 0.0
Bootlegger
clay
0.7
s 0.7
Reference
strain 0.05
ref N/A
b 0.0
c 1.0
d 0.0
Implementation of a NN based
constitutive model
Stiffness proportional
damping
Damping ratio, (%)
Mass proportional
damping
Simplified Rayleigh Damping
Full Rayleigh Damping
Extended Rayleigh
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Frequency (Hz)