1D Ground Response Analysis

Similar documents
1D Analysis - Simplified Methods

1D Nonlinear Numerical Methods

Recent Research on EPS Geofoam Seismic Buffers. Richard J. Bathurst and Saman Zarnani GeoEngineering Centre at Queen s-rmc Canada

Dynamic Analysis Contents - 1

A Visco-Elastic Model with Loading History Dependent Modulus and Damping for Seismic Response Analyses of Soils. Zhiliang Wang 1 and Fenggang Ma 2.

Advanced Lateral Spread Modeling

2D Embankment and Slope Analysis (Numerical)

Site Response Using Effective Stress Analysis

USER S MANUAL 1D Seismic Site Response Analysis Example University of California: San Diego August 30, 2017

Role of hysteretic damping in the earthquake response of ground

Soil Properties - II

Liquefaction Remediation

Module 3. DYNAMIC SOIL PROPERTIES (Lectures 10 to 16)

A study on nonlinear dynamic properties of soils

USER S MANUAL 1D Seismic Site Response Analysis Example University of California: San Diego August 30, 2017

Dynamic Soil Pressures on Embedded Retaining Walls: Predictive Capacity Under Varying Loading Frequencies

CVEEN 7330 Modeling Exercise 2c

USER S MANUAL. 1D Seismic Site Response Analysis Example. University of California: San Diego.

Soil Behaviour in Earthquake Geotechnics

Seismic Design of a Hydraulic Fill Dam by Nonlinear Time History Method

QUAKE/W ProShake Comparison

Design Spectra. Reading Assignment Course Information Lecture Notes Pp Kramer Appendix B7 Kramer

Soil Dynamics Prof. Deepankar Choudhury Department of Civil Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay

Liquefaction - principles

EVALUATION OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS IN LIQUEFIABLE SOILS

Amplification of Seismic Motion at Deep Soil Sites

Numerical analysis of effect of mitigation measures on seismic performance of a liquefiable tailings dam foundation

PACIFIC EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTER

EERA. A Computer Program for Equivalent-linear Earthquake site Response Analyses of Layered Soil Deposits. J. P. BARDET, K. ICHII, and C. H.

An Overview of Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering

Centrifuge Evaluation of the Impact of Partial Saturation on the Amplification of Peak Ground Acceleration in Soil Layers

Session 2: Triggering of Liquefaction

SEISMIC RESPONSE OF SINGLE DEGREE OF FREEDOM STRUCTURAL FUSE SYSTEMS

NONLINEAR SEISMIC SOIL-STRUCTURE (SSI) ANALYSIS USING AN EFFICIENT COMPLEX FREQUENCY APPROACH

DYNAMIC DEFORMATION CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GROUND IDENTIFIED FROM SEISMIC OBSERVATIONS IN VERTICAL BOREHOLES

Dynamic effective stress analysis using the finite element approach

Analysis of borehole data

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF PILES IN SAND BASED ON SOIL-PILE INTERACTION

FREQUENCY DOMAIN ANALYSIS OF SITE AMPLIFICATION IN LOW SEISMICITY REGIONS

Visco-elasto-plastic Earthquake Shear Hysteretic Response of Geomaterials

Micro Seismic Hazard Analysis

APPENDIX J. Dynamic Response Analysis

2D Liquefaction Analysis for Bridge Abutment

Evaluation of 1-D Non-linear Site Response Analysis using a General Quadratic/Hyperbolic Strength-Controlled Constitutive Model

LIQUEFACTION CHARACTERISTICS EVALUATION THROUGH DIFFERENT STRESS-BASED MODELS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY

COMBINED DETERMINISTIC-STOCHASTIC ANALYSIS OF LOCAL SITE RESPONSE

Influence of a sedimentary basin infilling description on the 2D P-SV wave propagation using linear and nonlinear constitutive models

Some Recent Advances in (understanding) the Cyclic Behavior of Soils

NONLINEAR FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF DRILLED PIERS UNDER DYNAMIC AND STATIC AXIAL LOADING ABSTRACT

Numerical model comparison on deformation behavior of a TSF embankment subjected to earthquake loading

Numerical modeling of liquefaction effects: Development & initial applications of a sand plasticity model

NUMERICAL ANALYSIS OF A PILE SUBJECTED TO LATERAL LOADS

ICONE20POWER

Model Uncertainty and Analyst Qualification in Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis

SITE ANALYSIS USING RANDOM VIBRATION THEORY

Dynamics: Domain Reduction Method. Case study

SEISMIC HAZARD AND DESIGN BY USING ENERGY FLUX

EFFECT OF SEISMIC WAVE INCLINATION ON STRUCTURAL RESPONSE

Estimation of Non-linear Seismic Site Effects for Deep Deposits of the Mississippi Embayment

Small strain behavior of Northern Izmir (Turkey) soils

CHARACTERISING THE NON LINEARITIES OF LACUSTRINE CLAYS IN THE GRENOBLE BASIN

Shear Modulus Degradation of Liquefying Sand: Quantification and Modeling

EXAMPLE OF PILED FOUNDATIONS

Seismic site response analysis in Perth Metropolitan area

Dynamic Response of EPS Blocks /soil Sandwiched Wall/embankment

ARTICLE IN PRESS. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

Dynamic Analysis of Pile Foundations: Effects of Material Nonlinearity of Soil

Liquefaction Assessment using Site-Specific CSR

RESPONSE SPECTRUM METHOD FOR EVALUATING NONLINEAR AMPLIFICATION OF SURFACE STRATA

Analytical Predictive Models for Lead-Core and Elastomeric Bearing

SEISMIC DEFORMATION ANALYSIS OF AN EARTH DAM - A COMPARISON STUDY BETWEEN EQUIVALENT-LINEAR AND NONLINEAR EFFECTIVE-STRESS APPROACHES

ON THE PREDICTION OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS FROM TWO PILE TESTS UNDER FORCED VIBRATIONS

Design Procedures For Dynamically Loaded Foundations

DYNAMIC RESPONSE APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF AN EMBEDDED RETAINING STRUCTURE IN COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

EFFECT OF VARIOUS PARAMETERS ON DYNAMIC PROPERTIES OF BABOLSAR SAND BY CYCLIC SIMPLE SHEAR DEVICE

Module 12:Insitu Ground Reinforcement and liquefaction of soils Lecture 38:Definition and mechanism of Liquefaction. The Lecture Contains:

FREQUENCY DEPENDENT EQUIVALENT-LINEARIZED TECHNIQUE FOR FEM RESPONSE ANALYSIS OF GROUND

In seismic Ground Response Analysis (GRA), the effect of local geology is significantly

SURFACE WAVE MODELLING USING SEISMIC GROUND RESPONSE ANALYSIS

SHAKE TABLE STUDY OF SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION EFFECTS ON SEISMIC RESPONSE OF SINGLE AND ADJACENT BUILDINGS

SITE EFFECTS AND ARMENIAN SEISMIC CODE

Unloading-Reloading Rule for Nonlinear Site Response Analysis

A Study on Dynamic Properties of Cement-Stabilized Soils

The Effect of Using Hysteresis Models (Bilinear and Modified Clough) on Seismic Demands of Single Degree of Freedom Systems

Numerical Modelling of Dynamic Earth Force Transmission to Underground Structures

Small-Strain Stiffness and Damping of Soils in a Direct Simple Shear Device

INFLUENCE OF LONG-TERM TIME EFFECTS ON SOIL STIFFNESS IN LOCAL SEISMIC RESPONSE EVALUATION

Seismic Analysis of an Instrumented Earth Dam in Terms of the Variability of the Response Design Spectra

A SIMPLIFIED METHOD FOR ESTIMATING SHEAR STRAINS FOR OVALING AND RACKING ANALYSIS OF TUNNELS

EA (kn/m) EI (knm 2 /m) W (knm 3 /m) v Elastic Plate Sheet Pile

Geology 229 Engineering Geology. Lecture 5. Engineering Properties of Rocks (West, Ch. 6)

Effects of Spatial Variability of Soil Properties on Natural Frequency of Natural Soil Deposits

Resonant Column and Torsional Cyclic Shear System

THE NATURE OF SITE RESPONSE DURING EARTHQUAKES. Mihailo D. Trifunac

Dynamics Manual. Version 7

SIMPLIFIED EQUIVALENT LINEAR AND NONLINEAR SITE RESPONSE ANALYSIS OF PARTIALLY SATURATED SOIL LAYERS

Analysis of a single pile settlement

Small-strain constrained elastic modulus of clean quartz sand with various grain size distribution

Transcription:

Lecture 8 - Ground Response Analyses Page 1 1D Ground Response Analysis 1. 2. 3. Dynamic behavior of soils is quite complex and requires models which characterize the important aspects of cyclic behavior, but need to be simple, rational models. Three classes of dynamic soil models: a) equivalent linear (SHAKE and DEEPSOIL) b) cyclic nonlinear (DEEPSOIL) c) advanced constitutive (DEEPSOIL and FLAC) The equivalent linear (EQL) method has been developed in the computer program SHAKE at the UC Berkeley. The EQL method is also available in DEEPSOIL. a. Vertically 1-D propagation of shear waves in a multi-layered system is assumed in EQL method. b. EQL method produces an approximation to the nonlinear response of soils under earthquake loading, but is very efficient computationally. c. In the EQL method, the nonlinear stress strain loop is approximated by a single equivalent linear secant shear modulus that is a function of the amount of shear strain. d. Iteration is required to determine the appropriate equivalent secant shear modulus Geq that is compatible with the amount of strain that develops during the modeling process. e. The equivalent damping is determined from strain-controlled laboratory tests and is defined as a function of the shear strain level and such damping is used in the modeling process. f. Because the EQL method is fundamentally a damped linear elastic method using strain compatible secant shear modulus and the associated damping, it cannot be used directly to solve problems involving permanent shear deformation because it does not calculate permanent strain. Because the EQL model does not follow the actual hysteresis loops, the final shear strain is zero after cycling has stopped with no residual permanent shear strain. g. Also, because it is a linear elastic model, there is no limiting value for the shear strength of the soil (no failure criterion required), so failure, or yielding, is not allowed in the model.

Lecture 8 - Ground Response Analyses Page 2 Comparison of 1D Equivalent Liner vs. 1D Nonlinear Methods Sunday, August 14, 2011 3:32 PM EQL Method Nonlinear Methods

Lecture 8 - Ground Response Analyses Page 3 Equivalent Linear Method (EQL) and Shear Modulus and Damping Equivalent liner approximation to the viscoelastic model Gmax = Vs 2 Definition of Damping Note that the equivalent linear method does not follow the actual hysteresis loops. Note: Gmax is calculated from geophysical tests Geq is the equivalent strain-compatible secant modulus that decreases as the level of strain increases. Damping is calculated from W (area of triangle) and W (area of hysteresis loop) (see above)

Lecture 8 - Ground Response Analyses Page 4 EQL - Shear Modulus and Damping (cont) Reduction of Secant Shear Modulus as a Function of Shear Strain Shear Modulus Degradation Curve

Lecture 8 - Ground Response Analyses Page 5 EQL - Shear Modulus Degradation Curves (Sands) Typical Shear Modulus Degradation Curve for Sand - Note that the shear modulus has been normalized on the y-axis by dividing by Gmax Effects of Confining Stress on Shear Modulus Degradation

Lecture 8 - Ground Response Analyses Page 6 EQL - Shear Modulus Degradation Curves (Clays)

Lecture 8 - Ground Response Analyses Page 7 EQL - Damping Curves for Sands Effects of Confining Stress on Damping

Lecture 8 - Ground Response Analyses Page 8 EQL - Damping Curves for Clays Soils dissipate (damp) elastic energy by slippage of grains with respect to each other. The width (i.e., area) of the hysteresis loops shown by a cyclic loaded soil increases with the level of cyclic shear strain, hence, damping increase with increasing cyclic shear strain. Like the modulus reduction behavior, damping is influenced by the plasticity of the soil. Damping ratios of highly plastic soils are lower than those of low plastic soils. Damping is also influenced by the effective confining stress, especially for low plastic soils. Damping decreases with increasing effective confining stress

Lecture 8 - Ground Response Analyses Page 9 EQL - Iterating to Obtain Strain-Compatible Properties The magnitude of the shear stress time history shown above is dependent on the strain-compatible modulus and damping values selected. However, the shear stresses and strains are unknown for each layer at the beginning of the analysis. Hence an initial guess of the strain-compatible moduli and damping properties is made for each layer and these values are kept constant during each individual run (i.e., moduli and damping do not change during each iteration). Subsequently, the EQL method solves for the shear stresses and strains in each layer using the assumed strain-compatible modulus and damping values. At the end of each run, the difference between the assumed modulus and damping values are compared with the values realized from the analyses. This process is repeated until the differences become small between the assumed and realized values. The EQL method iterates toward strain-compatible soil properties until the tolerance criterion is satisfied for all layers, or until the maximum number of iterations is reached, as specified by the user. Experience has shown that the results of many ground response analyses do not change much at tolerance levels below about 5% and this value is typically used for the convergence error. It is important to note the effective, or average shear stress and strain values achieved in each layer is used to calculate the strain-compatible properties for the next iteration. The effective values are taken to be some percentage of the maximum value. Often a factor of 0.65 is applied to the maximum value to represent the effective, or average shear strain value. This 0.65 factor was determined from statistical analyses of many shear stress time histories.

Lecture 8 - Ground Response Analyses Page 10 EQL - Iterating to Obtain Strain-Compatible Properties (cont.) Note that for each successive iteration the error for the shear modulus and damping decreases.

Lecture 8 - Ground Response Analyses Page 11 EQL Method and Transfer Functions 1. Express the input (rock outcrop) motion in the frequency domain as a Fourier series (as the sum of a series of sine waves of different amplitudes, frequencies, and phase angles). For an earthquake motion, this Fourier series will have both real and imaginary parts. 2. Define the transfer function (Eq. 10). The transfer function will have both real and imaginary parts. 3. Compute the Fourier series of the output (ground surface) motion as the product of the Fourier series of the input (bedrock) motion and the transfer function. This Fourier series will also have both real and imaginary parts. 4. Express the output motion in the time domain by means of an inverse Fourier transform. The EQL methods uses a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) to convert the input motion (time domain) into a Fourier series (frequency domain). After computing the response in the frequency domain, it uses an inverse FFT to transform the solution back to the time domain. The FFT is a very efficient numerical procedure, but it requires the total number of acceleration values to be an integer power of 2 (e.g. 1024, 2048, 4096, etc.). Most computer programs will add the required number of trailing zero acceleration values to bring the total length to the number of terms you specify for the Fourier series. Because the Fourier series implies periodicity (it assumes that the total time history, including the trailing zeros, repeats itself indefinitely), you need to make sure you have enough trailing zeros to form a quiet zone sufficiently long to allow the response to die out before the next motion begins. The best results are usually obtained when the last third or more of the total time history is quiet.

Lecture 8 - Ground Response Analyses Page 12 EQL - Transfer Functions for Single Layer Transfer Function for Single Soil Layer on Rock

Lecture 8 - Ground Response Analyses Page 13 EQL - Transfer Functions for Multiple Layers (from ProSHAKE user's manual)

Lecture 8 - Ground Response Analyses Page 14 EQL - MATLAB EXAMPLE (From ProSHAKE user's manual)

Lecture 8 - Ground Response Analyses Page 15 Ground Response Analysis - Flow Chart for Design Input Ground Motions Soil Inputs Results EQL Analysis

Lecture 8 - Ground Response Analyses Page 16 Selection of Input Ground Motion This example uses attenuation relations pga = 0.65 g from attenuation relation Example of a design target spectrum for site class B soil (Vs = 2500 ft/s) developed from and attenuation relation (green and red) or from design code (i.e., MCEER/ATC-49)

Lecture 8 - Ground Response Analyses Page 17 Scaling of Input Record to Target Spectrum Note that pga value has been changed to 0.65 g using Deepsoil. Rename and save this record. Important question: Note in the above example we have scaled the Kobe record (input time history) to match the target spectrum at pga. Is this appropriate, or is there some other spectral value that could be used to scale the input time history?

Lecture 8 - Ground Response Analyses Page 18 Soil Inputs Soil total unit weight Soil type Plastic index (for cohesive soils) Vs measurement in layer Appropriate shear modulus reduction curve Appropriate damping curve fo = Vs/4H

Lecture 8 - Ground Response Analyses Page 19 Soil Inputs - Calculation of the Fundamental Period of Soil Column Calculate the total travel time through the layered system t = H1/Vs1 + H2/Vs2 + H3/Vs3 t = 10/1000 + 30/1500 + 40/2000 t = 0.05 s Vs = H/t Vs = (10+30+40)/0.05s Vs = 1600 ft/s fo = Vs/4H fo = 1600/[4[(10+30+40)] fo = 5 Hz To = 1 / fo To = 0.2 s (compare with previous page)

Lecture 8 - Ground Response Analyses Page 20 Soil Inputs (cont.) Use total unit weight for EQL method Damping ratio only required for elastic analyses Water table information not required for EQL method

Lecture 8 - Ground Response Analyses Page 21 Soil Inputs (cont.)

Lecture 8 - Ground Response Analyses Page 22 Analysis Results Acceleration time history at surface (pga value is about 0.87 g)

Lecture 8 - Ground Response Analyses Page 23 Analysis Results (cont.) Surface soil Comparison of input response spectrum (black) with surface soil spectrum (blue) Shear strain time history

Lecture 8 - Ground Response Analyses Page 24 DEEP SOIL HELP - Step 2a Thursday, February 28, 2013 6:17 AM To see the shear modulus and damping properties for each layer, select the Materials Properties button Hmax = Vs/(4 * Cut off frequency) Hmax = maximum sublayer thickness Cut off frequency = max. frequency of propagated wave (use about 20 Hz). To exit from this screen, select next Fill out soil properties in spreadsheet box in upper right Include layer name Unit weight should be total unit weight for total stress analysis Set the water table location Use the Material Properties Button to further define dynamic properties for each soil layer

Lecture 8 - Ground Response Analyses Page 25 DEEP SOIL HELP - Step 2a - Material Properties Thursday, February 28, 2013 6:17 AM To exit, select the last damping value, then strike the tab key followed by the enter key Select the Material Type for Each Layer Select the Target Curve for Each Layer Select Use Discrete Points Select Calculate Curves

Lecture 8 - Ground Response Analyses Page 26 DEEP SOIL HELP - Step 2a - Shear Strength Thursday, February 28, 2013 6:17 AM The information on this screen is not needed for the EQL method and is ignored during the analysis. Nothing to do on this screen, the EQL method does not require shear strength

Lecture 8 - Ground Response Analyses Page 27 DEEP SOIL HELP - Step 2b - Bedrock Properties Thursday, February 28, 2013 6:17 AM NEHRP Site Class B Define the rock properties in this screen, usually elastic half-space selection is most appropriate. The shear wave velocity used in on this screen (2500 ft/s) should be consistent with the value used in developing the target design spectrum.

Lecture 8 - Ground Response Analyses Page 28 DEEP SOIL HELP - Step 3 - Analysis Type Thursday, February 28, 2013 6:17 AM This means that the average shear strain is about 65 percent of the peak shear strain. This value was determined from statistical analyses of several time histories, but is an approximation. Some research have showed that this ratio is also a function of earthquake magnitude. However, for the purposes of this class, we will use 0.65. No changes required on this screen

Lecture 8 - Ground Response Analyses Page 29 DEEP SOIL HELP - Step 4 - Selection of Time History Thursday, February 28, 2013 6:17 AM Select the layers for where output is desired. Layer 1 is the surface and should always be selected. Select the time history used for the analysis. This will be placed in the base as an outcropping rock motion. Press the analysis button to start the computer run.

Lecture 8 - Ground Response Analyses Page 30 DEEP SOIL HELP - Step 5 - Analysis Thursday, February 28, 2013 6:17 AM

Lecture 8 - Ground Response Analyses Page 31 DEEP SOIL HELP -Step 6 - Results Thursday, February 28, 2013 6:17 AM

Lecture 8 - Ground Response Analyses Page 32 DEEP SOIL HELP -Step 6 - Results Thursday, February 28, 2013 6:17 AM

Lecture 8 - Ground Response Analyses Page 33 Blank