Soildyn5corr 170831204149

Soil Dynamics
5. Ground Response Analysis
Cristian Soriano Camelo1

1 FederalUniversity of Rio de Janeiro
Geotechnical Engineering
August 31st, 2017
Cristian Soriano Camelo (UFRJ) Soil Dynamics August 31st, 2017 1 / 40

Outline
1 Introduction
Ground Response Analysis
2 One-Dimensional Ground Response Analysis

Linear approach, Non-linear approach

Outline
1 Introduction


Introduction
Ground response analyses:
- Prediction of surface motions, development of design response

spectra, evaluation of dynamic stress and strains, to determine
earthquake induced forces.
The influence of local soil conditions on the nature of earthquake

damage has been recognized for many years, e.g., 1985 Mexico City EQ
and 1989 Loma Prieta EQ.

Introduction
Effects of soil on ground motion( Gazetas, 2015 )
Different motions: amplitude and frequency (periods).

Introduction
Mexico, 1985( Gazetas, 2015 )
8.1 Earthquake Magnitude at the source, different damage.

Introduction
Lake Zone: very soft soils. SCT is the affected area.

Introduction
Peak accelerations, velocities (different soils, essentially the same

distance from the source, different responses).

Introduction
Mexico, 1985 - Records of acceleration ( Gazetas, 2015 )
Epicentral region and SCT, similar amplitude, but, different frequencies

of oscillation - RESPONSE SPECTRA.
Introduction
Different periods of response vs Natural periods of structures, which

one is more detrimental?.
Introduction
Different depths of soil, given similar soils, what happens with the 40 m
of soil ?.

Introduction
Agreement with simplest theory?.

Outline
1 Introduction


One-Dimensional Ground Response Analysis
Assumption:all the boundaries are horizontal and the response of a

soil deposit is predominantly caused by SH-waves propagating
vertically from the underlying bedrock.

One-Dimensional Ground Response Analysis
Ground response nomenclature
Motion at the surface of a soil deposit - free surface motion; Motion at the base of
the soil deposit - bedrock motion; Motion at a location where bedrock is exposed -
outcropping motion.

One-Dimensional Ground Response Analysis - Linear
Approach
Transfer Functions With Linear Systems
A transfer function is a derived equation that allows the evaluation

from the input motion (at the base) to the output motion (in the mass).
Main assumption: vs , G, ε (dynamic properties) DO NOT CHANGE

WITH γ
Approach
Transfer Functions - TF
TF=|F (ω)| - Function of frequency of the loading.
Bedrock Site Response Ground motion

Approach
Case I: Homogeneous Undamped Soil on Rigid Rock:
The displacement in this case

ikz can be expressed as:
e +e−ikz
u(z, t) = 2A 2 eiωt = 2Acos(kz)eiωt
Where k = ω/vs - The wave number.

Case I: Homogeneous Undamped Soil on Rigid Rock
Transfer Function
Umax (0,t) 2Acos(0)eiωt
F (ω) = Umax (H,t) = 2Acos(kH)eiωt
1 1
|F (ω)| = cos(kH) = cos(ωH/vs )

Case II: Homogeneous Damped Soil on Rigid Rock
Transfer Function
1 1
|F (ω)| = √ =√
cos2 (kH)+(ξkH)2 cos2 (ωH/vs )+(ξωH/vs )2

Case II: Homogeneous Damped Soil on Rigid Rock
The greatest amplification factor occur approximately at the lowest

natural frequency, known as the fundamental frequency ω0 = πv 2H .
s
The period of vibration corresponding to the natural frequency is

called characteristic site period, Ts = ω2π0 = 4H
vs

Case III: Homogeneous Damped Soil on Elastic Rock
In the rigid model, the waves are perfectly reflected by the rock. In this
case, there are reflected and transferred waves. In addition, the
presence of damping will imply complex stiffness.

Transfer Function
1 1
|F (ω)| = cos(ks∗ H)+(iα∗z sin(ks∗ H)
= cos(ωH/vs,s
∗ )+(iα∗ sin(ωH/v ∗ )
z s,s
Where,
ρ
p
k∗ = ω G∗
- Complex wave number
ρ v∗
αz∗ = ρrs vs,s
∗ - Complex impedance ratio
s,r
p
vs = G∗ /ρ - Complex shear wave velocity
G∗ = G(1 + 2iξ) - Complex shear modulus

If it is assumed a damping ratio ξ = 0, the Transfer Function can be
expressed as:
1
|F (ω)| = √
cos2 (ks H)+α2z sin2 ks H
Resonance cannot occur (denominator is always greater than

zero). The stiffer bedrock means that greater amplification
may occur.
Case IV: Layered, Damped Soil on Elastic Rock
Displacement compatibility: um (Zm = hm , t) = um+1 (Zm+1 = 0, t)
Stress continuity: τm (Zm = hm , t) = τm+1 (Zm+1 = 0, t)

Case IV: Layered, Damped Soil on Elastic Rock
- Solving recursion formulae are very complicated and nearly

impossible by hand, however various computer codes have been written
over the years to solve these systems.
- Different codes can be used: SHAKE (Schnabel et al., 1972),

DEEPSOIL (elastic site response, non-linear site response), EERA
(Equivalent-linear Earthquake site Response Analyses).

SUMMARIZING - Linear Approach
- Elastic linear solutions to site response are ”easy” (simplified

equations).
- Elastic solutions are not real, but can still be useful e.g initial design
projects (they are quick and stable).
- Account damping in the soil and/or rock.
- Multi-layer systems, using recursion formulae, it can be solved the

displacements and/or stresses for any layer in the system.

SUMMARIZING - Linear approach
Advantages:
- Fast
- Direct Solution
- Good for very stiff soil/rock and or very small ground motions.
Disadvantages
-Does not account for soil nonlinearity (soil dynamic properties do not
change with strain).

SUMMARIZING - Site response analysis

Site Response for Nonlinear Systems
Site response for linear systems computed directly by using Transfer

Functions. However, linear approach neglects the nonlinear
behavior of the soil. There are two methods to account for soil
non-linearity:
1) Equivalent Linear Approach: ”trick” the analysis by dealing

with linear systems.
2) Nonlinear approach.

Equivalent Linear Approach

In the equivalent linear approach, the analysis is performed dealing
with a linear system. The overall goal of this analysis is to:
Use a single modulus and damping value for each layer that
represents the average shear response during an earthquake.
To do this, it is used the modulus reduction and damping curves.

Equivalent Linear Approach: Reduction curves and damping
curves can be determined in a laboratory, where cyclic harmonic
loading is applied. However this loading is significantly different than
transient earthquake loading.
In this case it is used an effective shear strain to convert the

transient shear to a laboratory-equivalent shear.
Equivalent Linear Approach
M agnitude−1
γef f = Rγ (γmax ), where, Rγ = 10 Idriss and Seed (1992)
Rγ is usually a value between 50% and 70%.
Procedure:
1) Guess initial values of G and ξ (usually low-strain values)
2) Perform linear site response analysis for a layered system to obtain

shear strain time histories for every layer. Identify γmax for each layer.
3) Compute γef f for each layer using γef f = Rγ (γmax ).

4) Using γef f for each layer, obtain new estimates of G and ξ values
from the modulus reduction and damping curves for each layer.
5) Repeat steps 2-4 until some tolerance in the computed shear strain
is met, or until the maximum number of iterations has been achieved.
The procedure is repeated for every single layer in the model.

Procedure(Hashash, 2016)

DECONVOLUTION
Because the equivalent linear method adopts the linear approach to site
response, it is possible to ”go both ways” with the transfer function.
When there are recorded grounds on motion.

DECONVOLUTION
Deconvolution starts with the surface ground motion and divides it by

the Transfer Function to obtain the bedrock ground motion.

DECONVOLUTION
Deconvolution must be used with extreme caution.
Ground surface recorded motions include things like 3-D effects, basin
effects, wave reflections, etc. Therefore, not all of the observed ground
motions are simply due to soil amplification. So, in reality, the
difference between the soft soil site and the stiff soil site probably is
not 1:1.
For example, what would happen if there is a high surface acceleration

at the same period where there is a low value on the transfer function ?.
Super-big bedrock motions that are not real.

DECONVOLUTION
Rather than use deconvolution, most professionals prefer to use ground
motions recorded on rock outcrops with similar shear wave velocities as
the bedrock at their site.

For Further Reading I
Steven L. Kramer.
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering.
Prentice Hall, 1996.
CEEN 545 - Lecture 21 - Nonlinear Site Response. Link
DEEPSOIL, 1D equivalent linear and nonlinear site response analysis platform.

Link to DEEPSOIL

Soildyn5corr 170831204149

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Soildyn5corr 170831204149

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Soil Dynamics

5. Ground Response Analysis

Cristian Soriano Camelo1

August 31st, 2017

Cristian Soriano Camelo (UFRJ) Soil Dynamics August 31st, 2017 1 / 40

2 One-Dimensional Ground Response Analysis

Cristian Soriano Camelo (UFRJ) Soil Dynamics August 31st, 2017 2 / 40

2 One-Dimensional Ground Response Analysis

Cristian Soriano Camelo (UFRJ) Soil Dynamics August 31st, 2017 3 / 40

Ground response analyses:

- Prediction of surface motions, development of design response

The influence of local soil conditions on the nature of earthquake

Cristian Soriano Camelo (UFRJ) Soil Dynamics August 31st, 2017 4 / 40

Different motions: amplitude and frequency (periods).

Mexico, 1985( Gazetas, 2015 )

8.1 Earthquake Magnitude at the source, different damage.

Cristian Soriano Camelo (UFRJ) Soil Dynamics August 31st, 2017 6 / 40

Lake Zone: very soft soils. SCT is the affected area.

Mexico, 1985( Gazetas, 2015 )

Peak accelerations, velocities (different soils, essentially the same

Cristian Soriano Camelo (UFRJ) Soil Dynamics August 31st, 2017 8 / 40

Epicentral region and SCT, similar amplitude, but, different frequencies

Different periods of response vs Natural periods of structures, which

Mexico, 1985( Gazetas, 2015 )

Cristian Soriano Camelo (UFRJ) Soil Dynamics August 31st, 2017 11 / 40

Mexico, 1985( Gazetas, 2015 )

Agreement with simplest theory?.

Cristian Soriano Camelo (UFRJ) Soil Dynamics August 31st, 2017 12 / 40

2 One-Dimensional Ground Response Analysis

Cristian Soriano Camelo (UFRJ) Soil Dynamics August 31st, 2017 13 / 40

Assumption:all the boundaries are horizontal and the response of a

Cristian Soriano Camelo (UFRJ) Soil Dynamics August 31st, 2017 14 / 40

Ground response nomenclature

Cristian Soriano Camelo (UFRJ) Soil Dynamics August 31st, 2017 15 / 40

A transfer function is a derived equation that allows the evaluation

Main assumption: vs , G, ε (dynamic properties) DO NOT CHANGE

TF=|F (ω)| - Function of frequency of the loading.

Bedrock Site Response Ground motion

Cristian Soriano Camelo (UFRJ) Soil Dynamics August 31st, 2017 17 / 40

Case I: Homogeneous Undamped Soil on Rigid Rock:

The displacement in this case

Cristian Soriano Camelo (UFRJ) Soil Dynamics August 31st, 2017 18 / 40

Cristian Soriano Camelo (UFRJ) Soil Dynamics August 31st, 2017 19 / 40

Cristian Soriano Camelo (UFRJ) Soil Dynamics August 31st, 2017 20 / 40

The greatest amplification factor occur approximately at the lowest

The period of vibration corresponding to the natural frequency is

Cristian Soriano Camelo (UFRJ) Soil Dynamics August 31st, 2017 21 / 40

Cristian Soriano Camelo (UFRJ) Soil Dynamics August 31st, 2017 22 / 40

G∗ = G(1 + 2iξ) - Complex shear modulus

Cristian Soriano Camelo (UFRJ) Soil Dynamics August 31st, 2017 23 / 40

Resonance cannot occur (denominator is always greater than

Displacement compatibility: um (Zm = hm , t) = um+1 (Zm+1 = 0, t)

Stress continuity: τm (Zm = hm , t) = τm+1 (Zm+1 = 0, t)

- Solving recursion formulae are very complicated and nearly

- Different codes can be used: SHAKE (Schnabel et al., 1972),

(Equivalent-linear Earthquake site Response Analyses).

Cristian Soriano Camelo (UFRJ) Soil Dynamics August 31st, 2017 26 / 40

- Elastic linear solutions to site response are ”easy” (simplified

- Account damping in the soil and/or rock.

- Multi-layer systems, using recursion formulae, it can be solved the

Cristian Soriano Camelo (UFRJ) Soil Dynamics August 31st, 2017 27 / 40

Cristian Soriano Camelo (UFRJ) Soil Dynamics August 31st, 2017 28 / 40