Kabanda John S 201311 MASc Thesis

Evaluation of the Time and Frequency Domain SoilStructure Interaction Analysis Methods against the Hualien
Large-Scale Seismic Test (LSST) Data
by
JOHN SAMUEL KABANDA
A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements

for the degree of Master of Applied Science
Department of Civil Engineering
University of Toronto
Copyright by JOHN SAMUEL KABANDA 2013
Evaluation of the Time and Frequency Domain Soil-Structure

Interaction Analysis Methods against the Hualien Large-Scale
Seismic Test (LSST) Data
John Samuel Kabanda
Master of Applied Science
Department of Civil Engineering
University of Toronto
2013
Abstract
Nonlinear seismic soil-structure interaction (SSI) analyses are often completed using the
equivalent linear frequency domain analysis method as it is simple to use and computationally
efficient. However, the method is inherently linear and a better strategy is to employ the
nonlinear time domain analysis method, which is computer intensive but can more accurately
simulate nonlinear soil behavior. In this thesis, the two methods are evaluated using the Hualien
LSST field data. For the nonlinear time domain analyses, the utilized Hualien LSST finite
element model is initially verified by comparing its linear responses to those obtained via the
linear frequency domain analysis method; which is also verified against the multi-step analysis
approach. In the frequency domain, the equivalent linear analyses are completed by an industry
collaborator. The results show that two methods generate similar responses for the low intensity
earthquakes but differ for the more intense and amplified earthquakes.
ii
Acknowledgments
I would like to express profound gratitude to my advisor Professor Oh-Sung Kwon for giving me
the opportunity to be a part of this research project and all the guidance and support he has given
me along the way. In the course of my M.A.Sc study, Professor Kwon has provided me with
variety of opportunities and experiences that broadened my view in structural and geotechnical
engineering. His strong core values are a great source of inspiration.
I would like to thank Dr. Gunup Kwon at Sargent & Lundy, LLC for conducting the frequency
domain analyses in this study and for his constructive feedback. I would also like to thank Huang
W. at Institute of Earth Sciences, Sinica for providing us with the field data from the Hualien
large-scale seismic site.
Finally, I would like to thank my fellow graduate students: Viswanath Kammula, Alex Duarte
Laudon, and Reza Mirza Hessabi for their constant cooperation and encouragement.
iii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... iii
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... iv
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vii
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. viii
List of Appendices ....................................................................................................................... xvi
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Soil-structure Interaction .................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Modeling Methods for SSI.................................................................................................. 3
1.2.1
Frequency Domain Analysis ................................................................................... 5
1.2.2
Time Domain Analysis ........................................................................................... 8
1.2.3
Comparison of the Time and Frequency Domain Analysis Methods for

Nonlinear SSI Analyses .......................................................................................... 9
1.3 Hualien Large-Scale Seismic Test (LSST) ....................................................................... 11

1.3.1
Soil and Structure Properties ................................................................................ 11
1.3.2
Instrumentation ..................................................................................................... 13
1.3.3
Previous Studies of the Hualien LSST in the Frequency Domain ........................ 15
1.3.4
Previous Studies of the Hualien LSST in the Time Domain ................................ 20
1.4 Research Objective ........................................................................................................... 21

1.5 Thesis Overview ............................................................................................................... 22
2 FE Modeling of Soil Domains for Time History Analyses...................................................... 23
2.1 Mesh Size .......................................................................................................................... 24
2.2 Boundary Conditions ........................................................................................................ 24
iv
2.3 Domain Size ...................................................................................................................... 28

2.4 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 33
3 Verification of the Time Domain Direct Analysis Method ..................................................... 34
3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 34
3.2 Objective ........................................................................................................................... 34
3.3 Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 34
3.4 Soil and Structure Properties, and Dimensions................................................................. 37
3.5 Viscous Damping Formulation ......................................................................................... 38
3.6 Analyses ............................................................................................................................ 39
3.6.1
Problem 1 1D Site Response Analysis............................................................... 39
3.6.2
Problem 2 Dynamic Impedance Function Analysis........................................... 42
3.6.3
Problem 3 SSI Analysis ..................................................................................... 47
3.7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 60

4 Verification of the Hualien LSST Model Used in the Nonlinear Time Domain Analyses...... 61
4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 61
4.2 Objective ........................................................................................................................... 61
4.3 Soil and Structure Properties ............................................................................................ 61
4.4 Analyses ............................................................................................................................ 63
4.4.1
1D Site Response Analysis ................................................................................... 63
4.4.2
SSI Analysis .......................................................................................................... 66
4.5 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 72

5 Nonlinear Analysis of the Hualien LSST Model and Comparison to Field Data .................... 73
5.1 Objective ........................................................................................................................... 73
5.2 Soil and Structure Properties ............................................................................................ 73
5.3 Analyses ............................................................................................................................ 75
5.3.1
Recorded Ground Motion Analysis Results ......................................................... 77

v
5.3.2
Comparison of the Analysis Results to the Field Data ......................................... 93
5.3.3
Effects of Amplified Ground Motions .................................................................. 95
5.4 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 106

6 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 108
6.1 Summary of Findings ...................................................................................................... 108
6.2 Suggestions for Future Studies ....................................................................................... 110
References ................................................................................................................................... 112
Appendices .................................................................................................................................. 115
A. Site Response Analysis of a Linear Elastic Soil Using Transfer Functions ................... 115
B. Dynamic Impedance Function Solutions by Hryniewicz (1981) .................................... 121
C. Verification of the Time Domain Analysis Method ....................................................... 122
D. Verification of the Hualien LSST Model........................................................................ 125
E. Soil Properties: Shear Modulus and Damping Ratio Curves .......................................... 127
F.
Nonlinear Analysis of the Hualien LSST Model ............................................................ 133
G. Equivalent Linear Analysis of the Hualien LSST Model by Choi et al. (2003) ............. 159
vi
List of Tables
Table 1-1: Properties of the 1/4-scale Hualien concrete structure ................................................ 13
Table 1-2: Earthquake records used for the time history analyses ............................................... 15
Table 1-3: Literatures on the Hualien LSST ................................................................................. 18
Table 2-1: Soil properties used to complete the analyses ............................................................. 26
Table 2-2: Geometry of the different soil models used in the analyses ........................................ 28
Table 3-1: Programs used to complete the analyses for each example problem .......................... 36
Table 3-2: Soil properties of the homogeneous soil model (Gazetas, 1983) ................................ 37
Table 3-3: Dimensions of the soil models .................................................................................... 37
Table 3-4: Structure properties and dimensions ........................................................................... 37
Table 3-5: Dynamic stiffnesses and damping coefficients of a massless circular rigid foundation
on stratum over a rigid base (D/R = 2, = 0.33) (Gazetas, 1983) ................................................ 43
Table 4-1: Hualien soil properties in the near-field ( 5.41m from the centre of the concrete
structure) ....................................................................................................................................... 62
Table 4-2: Hualien soil properties in the free-field ( 14m from the centre of the concrete
structure) ....................................................................................................................................... 62
Table 4-3: Properties of the Hualien -scale concrete structure .................................................. 62
Table 5-1: Shear stress-strain relationships at various points in the FE SSI model ................... 105
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1-1: Representation of fixed-base system using a SDOF system (Kramer, 1996) .............. 1
Figure 1-2: Idealization of a SSI system in which the compliance of the foundation is modeled
using translational and rotational springs and dashpots (Kramer, 1996) ........................................ 2
Figure 1-3: Hysteresis loop (Kramer, 1996) ................................................................................... 5
Figure 1-4: Normalized modulus reduction and damping ratio curves (Kramer, 1996) ................ 6
Figure 1-5: Continuum model discretized into finite elements (Yang et al., 2003b) ..................... 8
Figure 1-6: General view of the Hualien site showing the 1/4-scale reinforced concrete NPP
structure (Graves, 1996)................................................................................................................ 11
Figure 1-7: Soil profile in the vicinity of the concrete structure at Hualien (Kokusho et al., 1994)
....................................................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 1-8: Cross-section of the Hualien 1/4-scale concrete structure (Kokusho et al., 1994) .... 13
Figure 1-9: Location of the accelerometer on/in the soil at the Hualien site (Ganev et al., 1997) 14
Figure 1-10: Location of the accelerometers on the Hualien concrete structure .......................... 14
Figure 2-1: A 2D soil domain with a rigid link foundation and quadrilateral elements in MIDAS
GTS ............................................................................................................................................... 24
Figure 2-2: Illustration of the 2D soil model with a transmitting boundary ................................. 25
Figure 2-3: Illustration of the 2D soil model with a fixed boundary ............................................ 25
Figure 2-4: Applied pulse load ..................................................................................................... 26
Figure 2-5: Vertical displacements at the top central node of both soil domains ......................... 27
Figure 2-6: Simple viscous dashpot model proposed by Lysmer and Kuhlemeyer (1969) .......... 28
Figure 2-7: Applied dynamic load - sin(t) .................................................................................. 29
viii
Figure 2-8: Hysteresis loop used to compute the stiffness and damping coefficients .................. 29
Figure 2-9: Dynamic stiffness and damping coefficients for the 20m x 10m soil model ............. 31
Figure 2-10: Dynamic stiffness and damping coefficients for the 50m x 25m soil model ........... 31
Figure 2-11: Dynamic stiffness and damping coefficients for the 100m x 50m soil model ......... 32
Figure 2-12: Dynamic stiffness and damping coefficients for the 250m x 250m soil model ....... 32
Figure 3-1: Illustration of the soil and SSI models used in the verification process .................... 35
Figure 3-2: Gilroy earthquake input motion: a) acceleration time-history; b) Fourier spectrum . 39
Figure 3-3: Acceleration time history output at the soil surface ................................................... 40
Figure 3-4: Fourier Amplitude of the acceleration response at the soil surface ........................... 41
Figure 3-5: Transfer function; ratio of the surface motion to the input motion ............................ 41
Figure 3-6: Soil model with the associated massless circular rigid foundation ............................ 42
Figure 3-7: Dynamic stiffness (a) and damping (b) coefficients of the massless rigid circular
foundation on stratum-over-bedrock in the vertical direction ...................................................... 44
foundation on stratum-over-bedrock in the horizontal direction .................................................. 44
foundation on stratum-over-bedrock in the rocking direction ...................................................... 45
foundation with different boundary conditions in the vertical direction ...................................... 46
foundation with different boundary conditions in the horizontal direction .................................. 46
foundation with different boundary conditions in the rocking direction ...................................... 47
ix
Figure 3-13: Soil-structure interaction model in the Problem 3 analysis ..................................... 48

Figure 3-14: Illustration of the multi-step approach showing the kinematic and inertial
interactions .................................................................................................................................... 48
Figure 3-15: Lysmer and Kuhlemeyer viscous dashpot with the applied imposed motion at the
external node ................................................................................................................................. 50
Figure 3-16: FFM uKI at the surface of the soil............................................................................. 51
Figure 3-17: FFM and the 1D linear analysis responses at the soil surface ................................. 51
Figure 3-18: Fourier Amplitude of the FFM and the 1D linear analysis responses at the soil
surface ........................................................................................................................................... 52
Figure 3-19: Displacement at the centre of the roof of the concrete structure, u1 ........................ 52
Figure 3-20: Displacement at the centre of the roof of the concrete structure u2, taking into
account the SSI effects .................................................................................................................. 53
Figure 3-21: Fourier amplitude of the applied force (a) and moment (b) at the soil-structure
interaction model interface ........................................................................................................... 54
Figure 3-22: Overall structure displacement uc, at the centre of the roof of the concrete structure
....................................................................................................................................................... 55
Figure 3-23: Fourier amplitude of the overall structure displacement, uc .................................... 55
Figure 3-24: Acceleration response at the centre of the roof of the structure............................... 56
Figure 3-25: Fourier amplitude of the acceleration response at the centre of the roof of the
structure......................................................................................................................................... 56
Figure 3-26: Transfer function; ratio of the roof response to the input motion ............................ 56
Figure 3-27: Front view of the SSI system ................................................................................... 58
Figure 3-28: Displacement time history at the soil surface: comparison of nodes in the near-field
and free-field to the FFM .............................................................................................................. 58
Figure 3-29: Fourier amplitude of the displacement at the soil surface: comparison of nodes in
the near-field and free-field to the FFM ....................................................................................... 59
Figure 3-30: Acceleration response at the centre of the roof of the structure............................... 59
Figure 3-31: Fourier amplitude of the acceleration response at the centre of the structure.......... 60
Figure 4-1: Event 2 seismic input motion: a) acceleration time-history; b) Fourier spectrum ..... 63
Figure 4-2: 1D analysis soil model with the Hualien free-field soil properties ............................ 64
Figure 4-3: Acceleration time history output at the soil surface ................................................... 65
Figure 4-4: Fourier amplitude of the acceleration response at the soil surface ............................ 65
Figure 4-5: Transfer function; ratio of the surface motion to the input motion ............................ 65
Figure 4-6: 3D FE model of the Hualien SSI system used to complete the time domain analyses
....................................................................................................................................................... 66
Figure 4-7: Acceleration time history output at location BAN..................................................... 68
Figure 4-8: Fourier amplitude of the acceleration response at location BAN .............................. 68
Figure 4-9: Transfer function; ratio of the response at location BAN to the input motion .......... 68
Figure 4-10: Acceleration time history output at location WLN .................................................. 69
Figure 4-11: Fourier amplitude of the acceleration response at location WLN ........................... 69
Figure 4-12: Transfer function; ratio of the response at location WLN to the input motion ........ 69
Figure 4-13: Acceleration time history output at location WHN ................................................. 70
Figure 4-14: Fourier amplitude of the acceleration response at location WHN ........................... 70
Figure 4-15: Transfer function; ratio of the response at location WHN to the input motion ....... 70
xi
Figure 4-16: Acceleration time history output at location RFN ................................................... 71

Figure 4-17: Fourier Amplitude of the acceleration response at location RFN ............................ 71
Figure 4-18: Transfer function; ratio of the response at location RFN to the input motion ......... 71
Figure 5-1: Strain-dependent Hualien soil properties: (a) Rigidity (shear modulus); (b) Damping
(Miller et al., 2001) ....................................................................................................................... 74
Figure 5-2: Strain-dependent soil properties: (a) Rigidity (shear modulus); (b) Damping (Seed et
al., 1986) ....................................................................................................................................... 74
Figure 5-6: Acceleration time history output at the soil surface for the Event 2 ground motion . 78
Figure 5-7: Fourier amplitude of the acceleration response at the soil surface for the Event 2
ground motion ............................................................................................................................... 78
Figure 5-8: Transfer function; ratio of the soil surface response to the Event 2 input motion ..... 78
Figure 5-9: Acceleration time history output at the soil surface for the Event 9 ground motion . 79
Figure 5-10: Fourier amplitude of the acceleration response at the soil surface for the Event 9
ground motion ............................................................................................................................... 79
Figure 5-11: Transfer function; ratio of the soil surface response to the Event 9 input motion ... 79
Figure 5-12: Comparison of the surface acceleration responses from the linear, nonlinear time
domain and equivalent linear analyses for the Event 2 earthquake .............................................. 80
Figure 5-13: Shear stress vs. strain relationships .......................................................................... 81
xii
Figure 5-15: Acceleration time history output at location BAN for the Event 2 ground motion . 85
Figure 5-16: Fourier amplitude of the acceleration response at location BAN for the Event 2
ground motion ............................................................................................................................... 85
Figure 5-17: Transfer function; ratio of the response at location BAN to the Event 2 input motion
....................................................................................................................................................... 85
Figure 5-18: Acceleration time history output at location BAN for the Event 9 ground motion . 86
Figure 5-19: Fourier amplitude of the acceleration response at location BAN for the Event 9
ground motion ............................................................................................................................... 86
....................................................................................................................................................... 86
Figure 5-21: Acceleration time history output at location WLN for the Event 2 ground motion 87
Figure 5-22: Fourier amplitude of the acceleration response at location WLN for the Event 2
ground motion ............................................................................................................................... 87
Figure 5-23: Transfer function; ratio of the response at location WLN to the Event 2 input
motion ........................................................................................................................................... 87
Figure 5-24: Acceleration time history output at location WLN for the Event 9 ground motion 88
Figure 5-25: Fourier amplitude of the acceleration response at location WLN for the Event 9
ground motion ............................................................................................................................... 88
Figure 5-26: Transfer function; ratio of the response at location WLN to the Event 9 input
motion ........................................................................................................................................... 88
Figure 5-27: Acceleration time history output at location WHN for the Event 2 ground motion 89
Figure 5-28: Fourier amplitude of the acceleration response at location WHN for the Event 2
ground motion ............................................................................................................................... 89
xiii
Figure 5-29: Transfer function; ratio of the response at location WHN to the Event 2 input
motion ........................................................................................................................................... 89
Figure 5-30: Acceleration time history output at location WHN for the Event 9 ground motion 90
Figure 5-31: Fourier amplitude of the acceleration response at location WHN for the Event 9
ground motion ............................................................................................................................... 90
Figure 5-32: Transfer function; ratio of the response at location WHN to the Event 9 input
motion ........................................................................................................................................... 90
Figure 5-33: Acceleration time history output at location RFN for the Event 2 ground motion .. 91
Figure 5-34: Fourier amplitude of the acceleration response at location RFN for the Event 2
ground motion ............................................................................................................................... 91
Figure 5-35: Transfer function; ratio of the response at location RFN to the Event 2 input motion
....................................................................................................................................................... 91
Figure 5-36: Acceleration time history output at location RFN for the Event 9 ground motion .. 92
Figure 5-37: Fourier amplitude of the acceleration response at location RFN for the Event 9
ground motion ............................................................................................................................... 92
....................................................................................................................................................... 92
Figure 5-39: Acceleration time history output at the soil surface ................................................. 97
Figure 5-40: Fourier amplitude of the acceleration response at the soil surface .......................... 97
Figure 5-41: Transfer function; ratio of the surface motion to the input motion .......................... 98
Figure 5-42: Transfer functions obtained with the windowing function ...................................... 98
Figure 5-44: Acceleration time history output at location BAN................................................... 99
xiv
Figure 5-45: Fourier amplitude of the acceleration response at location BAN .......................... 100
Figure 5-46: Transfer function; ratio of the response at location BAN to the input motion ...... 100
Figure 5-47: Transfer functions computed using the windowing function................................. 100
Figure 5-48: Acceleration time history output at location WLN ................................................ 101
Figure 5-49: Fourier amplitude of the acceleration response at location WLN ......................... 101
Figure 5-50: Transfer function; ratio of the response at location WLN to the input motion ...... 101
Figure 5-51: Acceleration time history output at location WHN ............................................... 102
Figure 5-52: Fourier amplitude of the acceleration response at location WHN ......................... 102
Figure 5-53: Transfer function; ratio of the response at location WHN to the input motion ..... 102
Figure 5-54: Acceleration time history output at location RFN ................................................. 103
Figure 5-55: Fourier amplitude of the acceleration response at location RFN ........................... 103
Figure 5-56: Transfer function; ratio of the response at location RFN to the input motion ....... 103
Figure 5-57: Front view of the FE SSI model showing locations of various nodes in the SSI
model........................................................................................................................................... 104
xv
List of Appendices
A. Site Response Analysis of a Linear Elastic Soil Using Transfer Functions ................... 115
B. Dynamic Impedance Function Solutions by Hryniewicz (1981) .................................... 121
C. Verification of the Time Domain Analysis Method ....................................................... 122
D. Verification of the Hualien LSST Model........................................................................ 125
E. Soil Properties: Shear Modulus and Damping Ratio Curves .......................................... 127
F. Nonlinear Analysis of the Hualien LSST Model ............................................................ 133
G. Equivalent linear analysis of the Hualien LSST Model by Choi et al. (2003) ............... 159
xvi
Introduction
1.1 Soil-structure Interaction

When an external dynamic load from an earthquake, or equipment excitation acts on a soilstructure system, the response of the structure influences the motion of the soil, and the response
of the soil influences the motion of the structure. This phenomenon is called soil-structure
interaction (SSI). Understanding the effects of SSI is a vital part of earthquake engineering; it is
one of the most important considerations in the design of critical civil infrastructure such as
bridge piers supported on heavy caissons, and nuclear power plants (NPP).
To illustrate the effects of SSI, consider a fixed-based system consisting of a rigid massless
foundation which supports a single-degree of freedom (SDOF) system of mass m, stiffness k,
and damping coefficient c, Figure 1-1.
Figure 1-1: Representation of fixed-base system using a SDOF system (Kramer, 1996)
The natural frequency of this system depends solely on the mass and stiffness of the structure.
However, this is realistic only if the structure is founded on a rigid surface or if the relative
stiffness of the soil foundation is high compared to the stiffness of the structure. In all other
cases, the soil foundation is flexible as illustrated in Figure 1-2, where it is represented by the
translational and rotational springs, and dashpots.
Figure 1-2: Idealization of a SSI system in which the compliance of the foundation is modeled using translational
and rotational springs and dashpots (Kramer, 1996)
A flexible foundation can induce two distinct effects that influence the response of a structure
and the surrounding soil:
1)
Kinematic interaction: Alteration of the free-field motion (FFM) at the base of the
foundation caused by the stiffness of the structure and its embedded geometry. Generally, FFM
depends mainly on the properties of the soil such as its shear wave velocity which change the
frequency content and amplitude of the input motion. However, when a foundation exists, the
FFM is further altered; this modification of soil wave properties is caused by the inability of the
foundation to conform to the deformations of the free-field ground kinematic interaction.
2)
Inertial interaction: This is the interaction between structural mass, and mass of the soil
continuum. The inertial forces induced by the structural response cause the compliant soil to
deform which in turn affects the structure inertial forces. Inertial interaction effects are generally
associated with period elongation due to the compliance of the supporting soil, and energy
dissipation due to material damping (Stewart et al., 1999).
A combination of the kinematic and inertial interactions generates the SSI effect. According to
Kramer (1996), and Clough and Penzien (2003), SSI may have a limited impact on the dynamic
response of many structures and foundation systems. However, for critical infrastructure such as
NPP, its effects can be significant. Depending on the relative stiffness of a structure and its
foundation, SSI effects can modify the ground response by as much as 25% (Borja, 1998).
2
1.2 Modeling Methods for SSI

The modeling and analysis of SSI in the nuclear and geotechnical industries has followed two
main approaches: the direct and substructure approaches. In the former approach, the structure,
foundation and soil are modeled together and the analysis is completed in a single step while the
latter approach involves separate and independent analyses of the kinematic and inertial
interactions (Wolf, 1985; Kramer, 1996). The intricacies associated with each approach are
discussed in detail below:
1)
The direct approach: In this method, the kinematic and inertial interactions are taken into
account simultaneously, and the method can be used to solve both linear and nonlinear SSI
analyses. However, the use of this method requires a computer program that can treat the
behavior of both the soil and the structure with equal rigor, Kramer (1996). Another of its
limitations is the use of finite soil domains to model infinite soil media which results in trapping
of energy within the finite models and introduction of errors in the computation. Consequently,
care must be taken to impose appropriate boundary conditions, such as energy absorbing or
transmitting boundaries, at the boundaries of the finite soil domains to prevent the reflection of
stress waves thus mimicking the infinite nature of soil. In addition, the boundaries should be
placed at a sufficient distance to ensure that any reflected waves reaching the structure have
negligible amplitude, Borja (1998). This is because for most transmitting boundaries, some
inclined components of the propagating waves are still reflected in the soil domain.
The advantage of the direct approach is its versatility and ability to incorporate complex
geometries, complicated soil models and material properties. However, it is still difficult to
implement this method in every-day engineering practice due to the complexity of modeling and
the high computing power required to solve large problems.
2)
The substructure approach: In this method, the SSI problem is typically broken up into
three steps:
a) The kinematic interaction analysis which is used to obtain the motion that would occur in the
soil if the structure and its foundation had no mass.
3
b) Determination of the soil and foundation impedance functions. The impedance functions
describe the stiffness and damping characteristics of foundation-soil interaction.
c) Dynamic analysis of the structure supported on a compliant base represented by the
impedance functions and subjected to a base excitation consisting of the FFM.
This substructure approach is based on the principle of superposition and as a result it is limited
to linear analyses unlike the direct approach which can be used for both linear and nonlinear
analyses. However, the method can still be applied to nonlinear systems if strain-compatible
equivalent linear properties are used. The main advantage of the substructure method is its
flexibility as each step can be analyzed independent of the others.
Various computer codes based on the direct and substructure approaches have been developed to
solve the SSI problem, these include: TRANL (Baylor et al., 1974), FLEX, (Vaughan, 1983),
CARES (Costantino et al., 1990), FLUSH (Lysmer et al., 1975), TLUSH (Kagawa et al., 1981),
CLASSI (Luco and Wong, 1982), and HASSI (Katayama, 1991), and SASSI (Lysmer et al.,
1999).
Regardless of the analysis approach or computer program, SSI problems are solved either in the
time domain or in the frequency domain. In the nuclear and geotechnical industries, most SSI
analyses are completed in the frequency domain which uses the equivalent linear analysis
method to consider the nonlinear behaviour of soil (Kramer and Paulsen, 2004). The equivalent
linear analysis method is computationally efficient, provides reasonably accurate results and has
been used to analyze SSI problems by various researchers such as Sugito et al. (1994), Yoshida
et al. (2000), Barros and Luco (1995), and Ganev et al. (1997). However, the method is not
completely reliable especially when the intensity of the ground motion is large. In other words, if
a SSI system behaves largely in the nonlinear range, the behavior of the supporting soil needs to
be more accurately represented with realistic nonlinear elements. A more appropriate strategy, as
discussed in this thesis, is to complete such analyses using direct numerical integration in the
time domain. The next three sub-sections provide a brief overview of the frequency domain and
time domain analysis methods, and their advantages and limitations.
1.2.1
Frequency Domain Analysis
In the frequency domain, linear and nonlinear SSI analyses are completed using transfer
functions Fij() that relate various response amplitudes (e.g. displacement, acceleration) in a soil
layer i to the input excitation at a soil layer j:
Fij() =
Ai()+ iBi()
(Aj()+ iBj())
(1.1)
where is the circular frequency of the excitation, and A and B are the amplitudes of the waves
travelling upwards and downwards at a given coordinate.
In this method, the input excitation or motion is represented by a Fourier series, and the wave
equations are solved for each frequency in the series (Appendix A). For nonlinear analyses, the
soil nonlinearity is approximated by iteratively adjusting the soil shear modulus and damping
ratio according to the level of strain induced in the soil layer using the equivalent linear analysis
method (Idriss and Seed, 1968). This is possible because the nonlinear hysteretic stress-strain
behavior of cyclically loaded soils can be approximated by equivalent linear soil properties.
The equivalent linear analysis method is based on the shear stress (c) shear strain (c)
representation of soil behavior, and generally the required soil properties are the shear modulus
G and damping ratio which are usually represented as the secant shear modulus and the energy
loss in a single cycle of a hysteresis loop, respectively for a given effective strain level as shown
in Figure 1-3; where Aloop is the area of a single cycle of the hysteresis loop.
Figure 1-3: Hysteresis loop (Kramer, 1996)

5
Additionally, at the effective shear strain level, the shear modulus G can also be defined as the
product of the small-strain shear modulus Gmax and G/Gmax, where Gmax
Vs2, is the soil
density; Vs is the soil shear wave velocity; and G/Gmax is the modulus reduction which is
dependent on the shear strain (Kramer, 1996). Therefore, the soil properties needed to complete
an equivalent linear soil response analysis are the soil shear wave velocity, density, and the
curves for the modulus reduction (G/Gmax) and damping () as a function of shear strain, Figure
1-4.
Figure 1-4: Normalized modulus reduction and damping ratio curves (Kramer, 1996)
The shear strain levels at which the shear modulus G and damping ratio are attained are
dependent on the values of the equivalent linear soil properties. As a result, an iterative
procedure (Figure 1-4) is needed to ensure that the soil properties selected are compatible with
the shear strain levels in the soil layers. This iterative procedure operates as follows, (Kramer,
1996):
1)
Initial estimates of the shear modulus G and damping ratio are made for each layer.
Low-strain values are often used as initial estimates and the same initial strain level is used for
both initial estimates of G and .
2)
The estimated G and are then used to compute the response, including the time histories
of the shear strain of each soil layer.
3)
The effective shear strain in each soil layer is determined from the maximum shear
strain in the compound shear strain time history. For example in layer j:
(i)eff j = R(i)max j
(1.2)
where (i) refers to the current iteration number and R is the ratio of the effective shear strain to
maximum shear strain. The value of R which is dependent on the earthquake magnitude M is
typically taken as 0.65 (Seed and Idriss, 1969). However, it can also be obtained using the
expression below, Idriss and Sun (1992):
R =
4)
M -1
(1.3)
10
From this effective shear strain, new equivalent linear values G
(i+1)
and
(i+1)
are
identified for the next iteration.

5)
Steps 2 to 4 are repeated until the maximum shear strain for all layers converge for two
consecutive calculations. Although convergence is not always guaranteed, differences of less

than 5% are acceptable, Schnabel et al. (1972).
It is generally recognized that dynamic response of soil is nonlinear. However, as mentioned
earlier, SSI analyses are often carried out via the equivalent linear analysis method in the
frequency domain. This is because the method requires minimal computing power, is robust and
does not require a refined mesh and small time steps that are often the limiting factors in time
domain analyses. In the industry, practitioners are also more familiar with the method as it has
been in use for over 30 years. The most commonly used equivalent linear codes in the
geotechnical and nuclear industries are SHAKE2000 (Ordonez, 2007) for 1D site response
analysis and SASSI2010 (Singh et al., 2013) for SSI analysis.
Although the iteration process in the equivalent linear analysis method allows nonlinear soil
properties to be approximated, the method is still inherently linear. It assumes constant strain
compatible soil properties during the entirety of an earthquake, regardless of whether the strains
at a particular time step are small or large, which is unrealistic. In addition, the method is
incapable of taking into consideration foundation sliding and/or uplift, component isolation and
7
the nonlinear deformation of the structure in a SSI system that may take place during strong
earthquakes.
1.2.2
Time Domain Analysis
In the time domain, linear and nonlinear SSI analyses are conducted using the finite element
method (FEM) ensuring equilibrium at each time step via direct numerical integration. The FEM
can provide information regarding the soil deformation, stress distribution and the forces acting
on the structural elements that interact with the soil. The FEM solves a system of coupled
equations that are assembled from the equation of motion:
[M]{a} + [C]{v} + [K]{u} = -[M]{I}ag
(1.4)
where [M] is the mass matrix, [C] is the viscous damping matrix, [K] is the stiffness matrix, {a}
is the vector of nodal relative accelerations, {v} is the vector of nodal relative velocities, {u} is
the vector of nodal relative displacements, {I} is the identity/influence matrix, and ag is the
acceleration at the base of a soil model. The system of coupled equations is typically
represented as a finite element (FE) model with distributed mass (Figure 1-5), though lumped
masses can also be used.
Figure 1-5: Continuum model discretized into finite elements (Yang et al., 2003b)
A numerical integration method such as the Newmark method is employed to solve the coupled
equations. The resulting responses are obtained at each time step. Integrating the equations of
8
motion in small time steps makes it possible to incorporate any linear and nonlinear stress-strain
models or realistic constitutive models into the time domain analysis method.
SSI analyses in the time domain are not conducted often because they are time consuming,
computer intensive, and require special treatment of the soil boundary to mimic the infinite
nature of soil and a refined mesh to accurately simulate propagation of seismic waves. In
addition, unless the soil parameters are carefully evaluated in the laboratory or calibrated based
on large-scale seismic tests, the accuracy of the time domain analysis method cannot be
guaranteed. As a result, there have been only a few studies which have used the time domain
analysis method (e.g., Kobayashi et al., 2002, Elgamal et al., 2008, and Jeremic et al., 2009).
Nonetheless, if realistic nonlinear soil models are accessible and the parameters required to
complete a nonlinear analysis are clearly understood, then nonlinear responses should be solved
in the time domain as the equivalent linear analysis method is only an approximation of the
actual nonlinear process of seismic ground response. The differences between the time domain
and frequency domain techniques are elaborately discussed in the following section.
1.2.3
Comparison of the Time and Frequency Domain Analysis Methods

for Nonlinear SSI Analyses
Nonlinear SSI analyses can be solved in either the time domain or the frequency domain.
However, the formulations and underlying assumptions of these two analysis methods, as
explained in Sections 1.2.1 and 1.2.2, are quite different. In the nuclear and geotechnical
industries, the equivalent linear analysis method in the frequency domain is used most often.
However, if a SSI system behaves largely in the nonlinear range e.g., due to strong ground
motions or in soft soils; the equivalent method results in only approximate responses. This is
because of its inherent limitations which include (Kramer, 1996):
1)
Because the frequency domain analysis method is based on equivalent linear properties,
this induces spurious peaks in the Fourier spectra of the responses obtained via this method.
These peaks are caused by the coincidence of a strong component of an input motion with one of
the natural frequencies of the SSI model, and result in artificial amplifications near the
fundamental frequencies of the soil or potential de-amplifications at other frequencies. For
9
nonlinear analyses and field responses, because the stiffness of soil actually changes during
earthquakes, these spurious peaks are rare.
2)
The use of effective shear strains and the iterative procedure in equivalent linear analyses
may not always guarantee converged solutions, and can also lead to over-softened and overdamped systems, or under-softened and under-damped systems. This happens if the peak shear
strain is much larger than the remainder of the shear strains, or when the shear strain amplitude is
nearly uniform.
3)
Unlike nonlinear time history analyses, equivalent linear analyses do not have the
capability to take into account the liquefaction, redistribution and eventual dissipation of excess
pore pressure during and after earthquake shaking.
4)
The results of equivalent linear analyses are also mainly dependent on the degree of
nonlinearity in the soil. In instances where the strain levels remain low, for example for stiff soil
profiles or relatively weak input motions, both analysis methods can produce reasonable
estimates of ground response. However, for problems involving high strain levels, particularly
those in which the induced shear stresses approach the available shear strength of the soil,
equivalent linear analyses are unlikely to provide accurate results.
As aforementioned, the time domain analysis method has had limited applicability as it requires
carefully evaluated soil parameters, and high computing power. However, recent development of
more realistic nonlinear soil material models, energy absorbing boundaries and the advances in
computing technology have allowed application of the time domain analysis method for seismic
SSI analyses and it should be the preferred method of analysis in the near future. Additionally,
the nonlinear method is currently under more active development than the equivalent linear
analysis method and as new soil models are developed, its accuracy will be improved.
10
1.3 Hualien Large-Scale Seismic Test (LSST)

In order to investigate the physical nature of SSI, as well as, to validate dynamic SSI analysis
methodologies employed for seismic response prediction of NPP, a LSST international project
(U.S., Taiwan, Korea, France and Japan) has been conducted since 1993 at a seismically active
stiff soil site in Hualien, Taiwan (Graves et al., 1996). In this project, which followed the Lotung
LSST project performed under extremely soft soil conditions (Tang, 1987), a -scale cylindrical
NPP containment model of reinforced concrete was constructed and instrumented with various
sensors to record the earthquake events and the corresponding ground responses at the stiff soil
site. The site is located close to the east coast of Taiwan, approximately 145 km south of the
Lotung site, and it was chosen not only because of its high seismic activity but also because of its
prototypical NPP soil properties. In this study, a FE model of the Hualien soil and concrete
structure is used to conduct linear, nonlinear time domain and equivalent linear SSI analyses, as
detailed in Chapters 4 and 5. Figure 1-6 shows a general view of the Hualien site.
Figure 1-6: General view of the Hualien site showing the 1/4-scale reinforced concrete NPP structure (Graves, 1996)
1.3.1
Soil and Structure Properties
The soil properties have been studied extensively by the Central Research Institute of Electric
Power Industry (CRIEPI), Japan and the Institute for Earth Sciences, Taiwan (IES) which
created a unified soil model of the site (Kokusho et al., 1994). This soil model was developed
based on comprehensive geotechnical investigations, averaging procedures and engineering
judgments of data acquired through geological explorations and in-situ tests such as cross-hole
11
and down-hole tests. The properties of the unified soil model used in the linear and nonlinear
analyses of the Hualien SSI system in this thesis were obtained from the Geotechnical
Characterization Review of the Hualien soil prepared by Miller et al. (2001). Figure 1-7 shows
the unified soil properties obtained via cross-hole surveys for depth < 10m and down-hole
surveys for depth > 10m.
Figure 1-7: Soil profile in the vicinity of the concrete structure at Hualien (Kokusho et al., 1994)
The concrete structure at the Hualien site, whose properties are listed in Table 1-1, is a -scale
of a commercial nuclear reactor in the U.S.A, France, Korea and Japan, Figure 1-8. The
cylindrical model structure has a total height of 16.28m, a wall diameter of 10.82m and is
founded at a depth of 5m below the ground surface. The roof slab is 13.28m in diameter, and
1.5m in thickness. The base slab is 10.82m in diameter, has a thickness of 3m and is embedded
5m into the soil. The concrete containment shell has an internal diameter of 10.52m, height of
11.63m, and a uniform thickness of 0.3m. The total weight of the containment model is about
1400 tons.
12
Table 1-1: Properties of the 1/4-scale Hualien concrete structure
Density, (kg/m3)
2400
Poissons ratio,
0.167
Modulus of Elasticity, E (kN/m2)
28200000
Damping ratio, (%)
Figure 1-8: Cross-section of the Hualien 1/4-scale concrete structure (Kokusho et al., 1994)
1.3.2
Instrumentation
The site and the model structure are instrumented with extensive sensors such as
accelerometers deployed to record seismic structural and ground responses during the various
seismic events at the site. The accelerometers are located on the soil along 3 radial lines, and in
the soil in three down-hole arrays, as shown in Figure 1-9. For the concrete structure, the
accelerometers are located on top of the roof, mid-height and on the basemat of the structure, as
shown in Figure 1-10.
13
Figure 1-9: Location of the accelerometer on/in the soil at the Hualien site (Ganev et al., 1997)
Figure 1-10: Location of the accelerometers on the Hualien concrete structure
The installed accelerometers have recorded ground motion data during the various earthquake
events that have occurred at the Hualien site from 1993-2000 (Yang et al., 1995), and the
instrumentation is still active for future earthquakes (Elgamal et al., 2001). Three recorded
ground motions (Table 1-2) selected in the order of increasing intensity from a bigger ensemble
provided by Huang W. at Institute of Earth Sciences, Sinica, are used to complete the nonlinear
14
analyses in this study. In addition, three artificially amplified earthquake motions are used to
complete the nonlinear analyses, as explained in Chapter 5.
Table 1-2: Earthquake records used for the time history analyses
Epicenter
Earthquake
no.
Origin time
(UT)
Event 2
Depth
Mag.
PGA (g) at the D13

Accelerometer
V
Lon.
(E)
Lat.
(N)
(km)
(ML)
1995 10
07 11:08:42.96
121
40.57
23
51.97
0.6
4.7
0.0039 0.0042 0.0059
Event 1
1995 05
02 06:17:21.60
121
38.04
24
00.74
8.9
4.6
0.010
0.018
0.021
Event 9
2000 07 14
00:07:32.64
121
43.70
24
02.90
7.2
5.7
0.011
0.072
0.051
EW
NS
Chen and Chiu (1998) employed the free-field motions of the earthquakes at the Hualien site to
identify the predominant frequencies of soil layers and to estimate the shear wave velocities.
They found that the soils at the Hualien LSST site were anisotropic such that the earthquake
responses exhibited different characteristics in two horizontal principal directions. In this thesis,
ground motion data from the earthquake events 2, 1 and 9 (Table 1-2) recorded in the NorthSouth direction at the D13 accelerometer (Figure 1-9) will be used to complete the analyses of
the Hualien SSI system. The acquired nonlinear responses will be compared to the recorded field
motions to study the differences or similarities between the analytical and the in-situ data, and
thus evaluate the accuracy of the analysis methods employed in this research project.
1.3.3
Previous Studies of the Hualien LSST in the Frequency Domain
The Hualien LSST project was started to obtain earthquake, forced-vibration, and micrometer
induced SSI data to study SSI effects. Several analysis techniques and SSI response models have
been developed to evaluate the data and the Hualien SSI system. However, due to the complexity
and the requirement of high computing power to complete nonlinear time domain analyses, most
of the techniques have employed either linear or equivalent linear analyses in the frequency
domain.
15
Ganev et al. (1997) used two numerical models to analyze the Hualien SSI system: the swayrocking model, and the SASSI model. In the former model, the NPP structure and the soil were
modeled as lumped mass parameters and lumped springs, respectively. In the latter model, both
the structure and the soil were modeled as 3D finite elements. The Hualien soil behaves in a
nonlinear manner (Miller et al., 2001); however, Ganev et al. (1997) did not take this into
account for the linear sway-rocking model, and for the SASSI model, the soil nonlinearity was
only approximated via equivalent linearization. In addition, the SASSI model used modified
(forced-vibration correlated) soil properties which are more reliable (Miller et al., 2001), while
the sway-rocking model used unified soil properties. Nonetheless, the results from both models
were in reasonably good agreement with each other and with the recorded responses. The fact
that the sway-rocking model was based on linear soil properties but generated responses that
were similar to the expected results shows that it underestimates soil properties such as the shear
modulus. It was also observed that fundamental frequency of the SSI models decreased as the
ground motion became stronger. This was determined to be caused by a reduction in the stiffness
and shear wave velocity of the soil as the excitation intensity increased.
Choi et al. (2001 and 2003) analyzed the Haulien LSST model using the equivalent linear finite
element analysis method. The NPP structure and the soil near-field were modeled with 9-node
axisymmetric solid elements while infinite elements were used to idealize the far-field. The use
of the axisymmetric solid elements in the soil model was inaccurate as analysis of the earthquake
data at the Hualien site has shown that the soil exhibits properties which change with direction
(Chen and Chiu, 1998). Regardless, the authors were able to show that the equivalent linear
analysis method is reasonable for considering the nonlinear soil behavior for small to moderate
earthquake excitations; the computed response spectra obtained with the correlated soil model as
the initial linear properties compared well with those of the observed responses. The authors also
showed that soil nonlinearity due to the effects of SSI is not so important for analyzing the
response of a structure for SSI problems with small to moderate earthquake excitations while it is
vital for strong ground motions.
Kobayashi et al. (1997) reported on the system identification of the Hualien LSST model using
forced vibration tests. The authors developed a program in which the soil properties were
assumed to be linear, and the NPP structure was described as a lumped mass-spring model. The
16
analysis model was used to determine the fundamental frequency and damping factor of the
Hualien model structure with fixed-base conditions. The obtained results were not accurate since
linear soil properties were used and the data used had a coupling effect. In this study, to
eliminate the coupling effect, the analyses are carried out along the principal axes.
Miller et al. (2001) used a cantilever column with a lumped mass at the top to idealize the
Hualien SSI system. Unified soil properties were used though they were adjusted for the forcedvibration tests. Linear SSI analyses were carried out using this model in the computer program
CARES (Constatino et al., 1990). The predicted responses were in good correlation with the
measured data from the shaker at the roof. However, the responses indicated non isotropic
characteristics of the soil site which is not in agreement with previous studies suggesting soil
anisotropy.
Barros and Luco (1995) used a linear lumped mass model to idealize the NPP structure and the
Hualien unified soil profile was modeled in CLASSI (Luco and Wong, 1982) as a layered halfspace consisting of several viscoelastic layers overlying a uniform viscoelastic half-space. In this
model, the structure and soil properties were revised based on forced-vibration tests. The
theoretical results based on the revised models were in good agreement with the observed
responses, and also confirmed that the Hualien soil is anisotropic.
Anasary et al., (1995) used the microtremor measurements recorded at various points at the site
to verify the Hualien unified soil properties. The micrometer measurements were defined in the
frequency domain and then compared to response spectra of the recorded earthquake ground
motions. The microtremor spectral characteristics were in reasonably good agreement with the
recorded ground motion, particularly for lower frequencies. The discrepancies at higher
frequencies arose because the Rayleigh and Love waves in the microtremors became inseparable.
Further studies on the Hualien LSST are summarized in Table 1-3 below, and as stated earlier;
most of the studies employed the equivalent linear frequency domain analysis method to conduct
the verification studies.
17
Table 1-3: Literatures on the Hualien LSST

Author
Objective
Experiment
al data
Structural
model
Soil
domain
model
Sugawara
et al.,
1997
Correlation
analysis of
the forced
vibration
tests at the
Hualien
large scale
seismic site
FVT2
Lumped
mass
model
Lattice
model axial and
shear
springs
connected
to lumped
masses.
Ueshima
et al.,
1997
Seismic
response
analysis of
embedded
structure at
the Hualien
site
FVT2
Earthquake
ground
motion:
1994.01.20
Axisymme
tric
elements
in CRAS.
Unclear
for other
programs
used in the
study
3D FEM
with
transmittin
g boundary
Gunturi et
al., 1997
Hualien
seismic
down-hole
data
analysis
Earthquake
ground
motion:
1993.09.16
1994.01.20
1994.05.30
1994.06.05
1994.10.05
1995.02.23
N/A
Chen and
Chiu,
1998
Spectral
analysis to
identify the
natural
frequency
of the soil
deposit and
subsequent
ly to
identify
shear wave
velocity
profile
Earthquake
ground
motion:
1994.01.20
1994.06.05
1994.10.05
1995.02.23
1995.05.01
1995.05.02
N/A
Time vs
Frequency
domain
Comparison
Frequency
domain
Comparison
of the
impedance
functions
from
numerical
model and
FVT test
results
Unified
soil model;
the soil
properties
are further
calibrated
based on
FVT
results
Unclear
for
CRAS.
Frequency
domain in
SHAKE
Response
spectrum
analysis at
the base and
backfill
surface.
Comparison
of analytical
results with
recorded
surface and
down-hole
array
motions
Shear beam
model
(lumped
spring
between
layers)
Identified
from the
earthquake
events
Frequency
domain
Comparison
of the time
history of
computed
and recorded
accelerations
in the downhole arrays
N/A
N/A
Frequency
domain
Identified
shear wave
velocity
profile.
Simulated
surface
motion and
compared it
to field data
18
Soil
property
Unified
model.
Mode
ratios from
analytical
model and
FVT data
are used to
calibrate
parameters
Chen and
Yang,
1999
Use of
simple
model to
predict the
forced
vibration
responses
of the
Hualien
model
structure
FVT1
FVT2
Lumped
spring
SDOF
mass and
stiffness
Impedance
functions
Unified
model
Frequency
domain
Frequency
response
comparisons
from the
FVTs
Huang et
al., 2000
Evaluation
of the
linear and
nonlinear
behavior of
soil using
far-field
down-hole
data
Earthquake
ground
motion
N/A
Equivalent
linear
model
based on
the Haskell
method
(Haskell,
1953)
Unified
model
Frequency
domain
Comparison
of the
simulated
responses to
the recorded
down-hole
data
Luco and
Barros,
2004
Assessmen
t of
predictions
of the
response of
the Hualien
containmen
t model
during
forced
vibration
tests
FVT1
FVT2
Lumped
massspring
model
(horizontal
response timoshenk
o beam,
vertical
and
torsional
response hollow
shaft)
Impedance
functions
obtained by
use of an
indirect
boundary
integral
equation
method
FVT1 and
FVT2
correlated
soil models
Frequency
domain
analysis
(response
in time
domain is
found
through
inverse
Fourier
transform
ation)
Comparison
of results
from
CLASSI
analysis and
experimental
data.
Identified
properties of
the fixedbase Hualien
structure;
modal
frequency,
modal
damping
Miller et
al., 2001
Evaluation
of the
Hualien
Quarter
Scale
Model
Seismic
Experiment
. (Volume
2:
Geotechnic
al Site
Characteriz
ation
Review)
FVT1,
FVT2
Earthquake
ground
motion:
1993.09.09
1994.01.20
1994.05.30
1994.06.05
1994.10.05
1995.02.23
1995.05.01
1995.05.02
Cantilever
column
with
lumped
mass at
the top
Impedance
functions
Unified
soil model.
The soil
model was
adjusted
after FVTs
Frequency
domain
From the
FVTs and
earthquake
response
analyses;
time history
response,
frequency
domain
response,
and transfer
functions are
comprehensi
vely
compared
19
Miller et
al, 2001
Evaluation
of the
Hualien
Quarter
Scale
Model
Seismic
Experiment
, (Vol. 3:
Forced
Vibration
Tests)
FVT1
FVT2
Cantilever
column
with
lumped
mass at
the top
Impedance
functions
Unified
soil model.
The soil
model was
adjusted
after FVTs.
Frequency
domain
Comparison
of the
frequency
responses of
the various
acceleromete
r channels
Note: FVT1 and FVT2 are forced vibration tests before and after backfill was placed around the
foundation of the Hualien concrete structure (Figure 1-7). For this study, only seismic motions
are used to complete the analyses, and therefore the forced vibrations tests are not considered.
1.3.4
Previous Studies of the Hualien LSST in the Time Domain
Huang et al. (2000) showed that the equivalent linear frequency domain analysis method was not
accurate for strong earthquake motions (PGA > 0.1g), and suggested that a nonlinear time
domain numerical scheme could significantly improve simulation results. However, there has
been only a limited number of studies, such as Kobayashi et al. (2002), that have used a
nonlinear time domain numerical model to analyze the Hualien LSST model, compared to the
large number of studies conducted in the frequency domain (Section 1.3.3). Even in Kobayashi
et al. (2002), the nonlinear soil model was only approximated with axial and shear springs
attached to lumped masses in a lattice pattern (rather than using a 3D nonlinear soil-structure
model), and the resulting analytical responses were also not compared to the recorded motions.
Based on the number of available research studies, it is therefore very clear that a lot work has to
been done in the use of the time domain analysis method, especially given the fact that past
findings have suggested that this method may be more accurate than the equivalent linear
frequency domain analysis method, particularly for analyses with strong ground motions.
20
1.4 Research Objective

The objective of this thesis is to evaluate the nonlinear time domain and equivalent linear
frequency domain SSI analysis methods using the Hualien LSST model and field data. The
Hualien LSST model was chosen as the case study due to the availability of its field data for the
recorded earthquake ground motions from 1995 - 2000. The nonlinear time domain analyses
herein are completed by the author using a verified Hualien LSST FE model that has an energy
absorbing boundary with specified FFM along the sides of its soil model to take into the account
the effects of SSI. On the other hand, the equivalent linear frequency domain analyses are
completed by an industry collaborator, Dr. Kwon G. at Sargent & Lundy, LLC. The results from
the two analysis methods are compared to the field data so as to evaluate the differences and
accuracy of either method.
In addition, to consider the effects of strong ground motions and to provide a severe test to either
analysis method, amplified earthquake motions are used and the responses are compared for the
larger strain levels. Based on the results, the thesis further explains the similarities, differences,
and advantages of the nonlinear time domain analysis method over the equivalent linear analysis
method. The uncertainties and limitations of the time domain analysis method are also discussed,
and the thesis concludes with the suggestions to industry practitioners and non-experts on how to
effectively perform nonlinear time domain SSI analyses. The work herein is important because
there is little available research data to validate nonlinear time domain SSI analytical models.
The effects of SSI on the performance of critical infrastructure such as NPP and bridges can be
better understood through the use of the nonlinear time domain analysis method, especially in
situations with strong earthquake motions. However, practical implementation of this method has
been limited due to unclear parameter selection criteria and the requirement of high computing
power. Nonetheless, through the development of more realistic nonlinear soil models and the
advances in computer technology, this should allow for easier and more accurate application of
the method, and it should be the preferred approach for nonlinear analyses in the near future.
21
1.5 Thesis Overview

This thesis consists of six main chapters: Chapter 1 introduces the background and motivation of
this study.
Chapter 2 discusses the issues related to the time history analysis of soil domains using the FEM.
The FEM has the capabilities to effectively complete dynamic soil analyses; nonetheless, the
method requires proper implementation of the modeling parameters for accurate results. In this
chapter, three main modeling parameters: the soil mesh size, the soil boundary conditions, and
the soil domain size are studied to determine how they affect the accuracy of a dynamic soil
response analysis.
Chapter 3 describes the verification of the time domain direct analysis method used to complete
the SSI analyses in this study. This is accomplished by comparing the linear time domain direct
analysis responses of a 3D FE SSI model to those acquired via the linear frequency domain
analysis method. For linear systems, the two methods are expected to give similar results. The
results are also verified by comparison to theoretically accurate multi-step approach (Kramer,
1996).
Chapter 4 deals with the verification the -scale Hualien LSST FE model that is used to
complete the nonlinear time domain analyses in Chapter 5. This is important because, prior to
completing a nonlinear time domain analysis in the FEM, it is crucial to verify the FE model in
the linear range. The verification process is accomplished by comparing the linear direct analysis
time domain solution to the linear frequency domain solution completed by the industry
collaborator.
Chapter 5 deals with the nonlinear time domain and equivalent linear frequency domain analyses
of the Hualien LSST FE model. The results from the two analysis methods are compared to each
other, and to field data for validation. Based on the comparisons, the chapter discusses the
similarities, differences, accuracy, advantages and limitations of either method.
Chapter 6 summarizes the work done and provides recommendations for future research.
22
FE Modeling of Soil Domains for Time History

Analyses
This chapter discusses the issues related to the time history analysis of soil domains using the
finite element method (FEM). It is possible, with the FEM, to model soil domains of arbitrary
geometry, layered profiles and soil nonlinearity. However, the method has a few limitations. The
main limitation is its inability to model soil domains using an infinite number of elements. As
finite soil domains must inevitably be used, it is essential to impose proper boundary conditions
to mimic the infinite nature of soil. If the boundary conditions are not modeled appropriately,
this results in reflection of seismic waves at the boundaries, which induces errors in the soil
responses. The accuracy of a time history analysis of a soil domain is also dependent on the mesh
size, the domain size, the analysis time step, and the amplitude and frequency of the applied
excitation.
The objective of this chapter is to study how three main modeling parameters (mesh size,
boundary conditions, and domain size) affect the accuracy of a time history analysis with a finite
soil domain. To achieve the intended objective, the dynamic response of an infinitely long strip
foundation resting at the surface of a homogeneous linear deformable soil medium is
investigated using impedance functions to evaluate its dependence on the above stated modeling
parameters.
Impedance functions are complex frequency dependent dynamic stiffness and damping
coefficients of a soil-structure system. They are a function of dynamic soil properties, the
foundation geometry and the frequency of the applied load, and are typically used to analyze the
dynamic behavior of foundations resting on a soil medium under a time-dependent external load
(Wolf, 1994). The accuracy of the analytical models in this analysis is verified by comparing
their computed impedance functions to the theoretical impedance functions of a strip foundation
on elastic soil by Hryniewicz (1981). The analyses were completed via MIDAS GTS (MUSS,
1989). The infinitely long strip foundation resting on a deformable soil medium was idealized
using a 2D soil domain with a 2m wide rigid link foundation at the soil surface, as shown in
Figure 2-1.
23
Figure 2-1: A 2D soil domain with a rigid link foundation and quadrilateral elements in MIDAS GTS
2.1 Mesh Size

For an accurate time history analysis using the FEM, one is required to use the optimum
element/mesh sizes. Generally, accurate representation of a travelling wave of a given frequency
requires about 8~10 nodes per wavelength. Fewer than 8~10 nodes can lead to numerical
damping and inaccurate recordings of the wave period as the discretization may miss certain
peaks of the wave. Lysmer and Kuhlemeyer (1973) suggested that for an accurate time history
analysis, the maximum element size lmax needs to satisfy the following equation;
1
Vs
lmax 8 ~ 10 * fmax (Lysmer and Kuhlemeyer, 1973),
(2.1)
where fmax is the highest frequency of interest and Vs is the soil shear wave velocity. Based on
the soil properties in Table 2-1 and a maximum applied frequency of 25Hz, the equation above
indicates that the mesh size in this verification study should not exceed 1.5m for accurate
responses.
2.2 Boundary Conditions

As it is inevitable to use to finite soil domains in the FEM, it is therefore crucial to impose
appropriate boundary conditions to take into account the radiation of seismic waves into the
unbounded soil. If the appropriate boundary conditions are not used, unintended reflections occur
at the soil boundaries. To handle these reflections, transmitting boundaries which absorb the
24
outgoing waves at the soil boundaries have been developed; the most notable is the energy
absorbing boundary by Lysmer and Kuhlemeyer, (1969).
To illustrate the effect and importance of using the Lysmer and Kuhlemeyer boundary, two 2D
soil domains of identical size (250m x 250m) were analyzed in MIDAS GTS and the results
compared. One had the transmitting boundary (Figure 2-2), and the other had a fixed boundary
(Figure 2-3). Both boundaries were used along the base and sides of the soil domains.
Figure 2-2: Illustration of the 2D soil model with a transmitting boundary
Figure 2-3: Illustration of the 2D soil model with a fixed boundary

25
The Lysmer and Kuhlemeyer boundary was implemented via the use of dashpot elements with
viscous components normal (Cp = AVp), and tangent (Cs = AVs) to a given boundary node to
simulate the transmitting condition where Vp and Vs are the primary and shear wave velocities of
the soil, respectively and A is the element area. The fixed boundary was implemented by
restraining all nodes at the soil boundary. By restraining the boundary nodes the waves are fully
reflected and any radiation of energy is made impossible.
The soil in both domains was identical and was modeled as a plane strain element, with a mesh
size of 1m x 1m (<1.5m). The soil properties (Zhang and Tang, 2007) are shown in Table 2-1. To
complete the analyses, a single vertical pulse load shown in Figure 2-4 was applied at the central
node in both soil domains as shown in Figure 2-2 and Figure 2-3.
Table 2-1: Soil properties used to complete the analyses
Constitutive model
Linear
150,000
Unit Weight, (kN/m3)
15.696
Shear Wave Velocity, (m/s)
201.5
Poissons Ratio,
0.25
Damping (%)
Figure 2-4: Applied pulse load
The resulting displacements from the analyses at the top of the soil domains are shown below;
26
Energy absorbing boundary
0.008
Fixed boundary
0.006
Displacement, m
0.004
0.002
0.000
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
-0.002
-0.004
Time, s
-0.006
-0.008
Figure 2-5: Vertical displacements at the top central node of both soil domains
Figure 2-5 shows that there are no spurious reflections in the soil domain with the Lysmer and
Kuhlemeyer boundary as those observed in the fixed boundary soil domain. This is because the
Lysmer and Kuhlemeyer boundary satisfactorily absorbs most of the incident waves while in the
fixed boundary soil domain, the spurious reflections occur as the outgoing waves are reflected at
the soil boundary. These results emphasize the importance of an energy absorbing boundary; it
can reproduce the radiation of waves at the boundaries of finite soil domains to simulate the
physical fact that the energy decreases as the stress waves travel to the outer domain. The
permanent deformation observed in the response of the soil domain with the transmitting
boundary is because the soil model is physically displaced by the applied force.
However, the use of an energy absorbing boundary does not always guarantee the elimination of
all numerical oscillations. In 2D and 3D soil models, the angle of incidence of travelling wave at
the soil boundary varies from 0 to 180. The Lysmer and Kuhlemeyer boundary is able to
absorb completely only the waves that are incident at 90, Figure 2-6. In case of propagating
stress waves incident at angles greater or less than 90, not all stress waves are absorbed by the
energy absorbing boundary which results in reflected waves in the soil domain. Therefore, it is
critical that the energy absorbing boundary be placed at a sufficient distance from the source of
excitation or foundation in the soil to guarantee that any reflected waves reaching it have
negligible amplitude, thus minimizing response distortion.
27
Figure 2-6: Simple viscous dashpot model proposed by Lysmer and Kuhlemeyer (1969)
2.3 Domain Size

The use of the FEM in the dynamic response analysis of soil is affected by the soil domain size
due to the reflection of stress waves that occur at the domain boundary even with an energy
absorbing boundary. As explained earlier, this is because the energy absorbing boundary does
not guarantee absorption of all incident waves. Therefore, to increase accuracy, a large enough
domain is required so that steady state response is achieved before the reflected waves reach the
source of the excitation. However, it should be noted that the use of very large domains is also
limited by computing power and time. Therefore, it is important to develop a model that is
neither too small nor too large but rather effective for a given analysis.
In order to study and understand the domain size effect, 2D soil models of different sizes, as
listed in Table 2-2, were analyzed and their impedance functions are compared to the theoretical
solutions by Hryniewicz 1981.
Table 2-2: Geometry of the different soil models used in the analyses
Soil Domain Name
Depth, D
(m)
Length, H
(m)
Domain 1
10
20
Domain 2
25
50
Domain 3
50
100
Domain 4
250
250
28
The linear time history analyses of the 2D soil models were completed in MIDAS GTS. The soil
was modeled as a plane strain elastic material, with a mesh size of 1m x 1m (<1.5m), and a rigid
link foundation of 2m at its surface, as shown in Figure 2-1. The soil properties are listed in
Table 2-1. For the boundary conditions, the Lysmer and Kuhlemeyer boundary was used for all
the soil models. The analyses were conducted by applying a vertical sinusoidal force of unit
magnitude and specified frequency (2Hz - 25Hz) (Figure 2-7) to the rigid link at the soil surface.
1
Force, kN
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
-0.5
Time, s
-1
Figure 2-7: Applied dynamic load - sin(t)
For each domain size, the resulting displacement of the rigid strip foundation and the applied
force were used to obtain the corresponding impedance function k + ci, where k and c are the
stiffness and damping coefficients respectively. This was accomplished by plotting the applied
force against the displacement, both parameters expressed in the time domain, resulting in a
hysteresis loop, Figure 2-8 below.
Figure 2-8: Hysteresis loop used to compute the stiffness and damping coefficients
29
In Figure 2-8, Eo is the energy dissipated via viscous damping, FS is the total applied force, u is
the maximum displacement, and the stiffness coefficient k and damping coefficient c are
obtained as follows:
k = Fs/u
c = Eo/(pi u2 )
(2.2)
(2.3)
The stiffness and damping coefficients both depend on the frequency of the applied force and
soil attributes, and were plotted against the dimensionless frequency ao= b/Vs, for a given
Poissons ratio with b as the half width of the rigid link. For verification, the obtained
coefficients for the different domain sizes were plotted against the numerical solution provided
by Hryniewicz, 1981 (Appendix B).
The results in Figure 2-9 through Figure 2-12 show that at the frequencies considered in this
dynamic impedance function analysis, the calculated stiffness and damping coefficients converge
closer to the theoretical solution as the size of the soil domain increases. In Figure 2-9, the
stiffness and damping coefficients of the smallest domain size (20m x 10m) differ greatly from
the analytical solution. This is due to the small size of the soil domain, and as a result its
computational domain is quickly contaminated by the reflected waves before steady state
response can be obtained. For the 250m x 250m soil domain in Figure 2-12, the calculated
stiffness and damping coefficients are in good agreement with the analytical solution by
Hryniewicz (1981). This is because for the large soil domain, by the time any reflected waves
reach the source of excitation; their amplitudes have been reduced greatly and thus do not distort
the outgoing waves.
30
0.6
0.5
0.8
0.4
c 0.6
k
0.3
0.4
0.2
Hryniewicz 1981
Hryniewicz 1981
0.2
0.1
20m x 10m FE model
20m x 10m FE model
0
0
0.2
0.4
ao
0.6
0.8
0.2
(a)
0.4
ao
0.6
0.8
(b)
Figure 2-9: Dynamic stiffness and damping coefficients for the 20m x 10m soil model
1.2
0.6
0.5
0.8
0.4
c
k 0.3
0.6
0.2
0.4
Hryniewicz 1981
Hryniewicz 1981
0.1
50m x 25m FE model
0.2
50m x 25m FE model
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.2
0.4
ao
ao
(a)
0.6
(b)
31
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.8
0.3
0.6
0.4
0.2
Hryniewicz 1981
Hryniewicz 1981
0.2
0.1
100m x 50m FE model
100m x 50m FE model
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.2
0.4
ao
(a)
ao
0.6
0.8
(b)
0.5
0.4
0.8
0.3
0.6
0.4
0.2
Hryniewicz 1981
Hryniewicz 1981
250m x 250m FE model
0.1
0.2
250m x 250m FE model
0
0
0.2
0.4
ao
0.6
0.8
(a)
0.2
0.4
ao
0.6
(b)
32
0.8
2.4 Conclusion
In summary, a large soil domain (250m x 250m) with an energy absorbing boundary and an
optimum mesh size dependent on the soil properties generates the most accurate results when
compared to theoretical numerical solution. However, the use of such a large soil domain for 3D
soil and SSI analyses requires very high computing power and is time consuming. As a result, for
the soil and SSI analyses completed in this study, the key factor is to select a soil domain size
that is not computer intensive but rather large enough to appropriately model the soil dynamic
behavior, and guarantee that any reflected waves reaching the structure have negligible
amplitude. In addition, due to the use of finite 3D soil models, the Lysmer and Kuhlemyer
boundary will be used to mimic the infinite nature of soil throughout this study. These results
and observations are used to build the 3D FE soil model that is employed to verify the direct time
domain analysis method in Chapter 3.
33
Verification of the Time Domain Direct Analysis

Method
3.1 Introduction
The FE time domain direct analysis method has the capabilities to conduct nonlinear SSI
analyses as it can incorporate realistic though complicated constitutive models. The analyses are
completed through numerical integration of the governing equations of motion at each time step.
However, as discussed in Chapter 2, the accuracy of the method is dependent on various analysis
and modeling parameters i.e., the time step of the numerical integration scheme, a well refined
mesh to accurately simulate propagation of seismic waves, a special boundary to simulate energy
dissipation through radiation damping at edges of the soil model, and an optimum soil domain
size to ensure that any reflected waves reaching the structure have negligible amplitude.
Therefore, unless the method and the utilized FE model are initially carefully evaluated and
verified in the linear range, the accuracy of nonlinear time domain direct analyses cannot be
guaranteed.
3.2 Objective
The objective of this chapter is to verify the time domain direct analysis method including the
modeling parameters such as the mesh size, the soil domain size and the transmitting boundary
used to complete the SSI analyses in this study. This is accomplished by comparing linear time
domain analysis responses to those acquired using the linear frequency domain analysis method;
the two methods are expected to give similar results in linear elastic systems. This verification
process is also necessary to obtain the optimum frequencies for the Rayleigh damping
formulation typically used to implement damping in time domain analyses (Hashash and Park,
2004). In this chapter, the linear time domain solution of a 3D FE SSI model was compared to its
frequency domain solution obtained by the industry collaborator.
3.3 Methodology
The verification procedure consists of three example problems that can be verified by theoretical
solutions. The three example problems are shown in Figure 3-1 below:
34
Figure 3-1: Illustration of the soil and SSI models used in the verification process
Problem 1 - 1D site response analysis (Figure 3-1 (a)): The purpose of Problem 1 is to acquire
the FFM, which is the motion in the far-field that is not influenced by the presence of a structure.
The FFM obtained via the time domain analysis method is verified by comparison to the
theoretically accurate frequency domain solution. The FFM obtained in this problem is specified
along the sides of the soil model in Problem 3 to take into account the effects of SSI introduced
due to presence of the structure at the soil surface. This is critical as without the specified FFM
along the boundaries of the soil model, the responses from the SSI analysis are not accurate, as
will be shown in Problem 3.
Problem 2 - Determination of the foundation impedance functions (Figure 3-1 (b)): The
impedance functions describe the stiffness and damping characteristics of soil-foundation
interaction and are used to predict the response of the foundation in consideration of the inertial
interaction effects. The soil model in this problem has all the essential characteristics of the SSI
model in Problem 3 except for the concrete structure, which is represented by a massless
foundation. Therefore, this problem verifies the effectiveness of the FE soil model in considering
the inertial interactions in the SSI analysis. The computed impedance functions in Problem 2 are
verified by comparison to the theoretical solutions by Gazetas (1983).
Problem 3 SSI analysis (Figure 3-1 (c)): This example problem involves the dynamic analysis
of the complete SSI system. The SSI system can be idealized as a structure supported on a
35
compliant soil base represented by the impedance functions in Problem 2, and then subjected to
the base excitation. The accuracy of the time domain and frequency domain SSI responses in
Problem 3 is verified by comparison to theoretically accurate multi-step approach.
For each example problem, the programs stated in Table 3-1 are used, either independently or
collectively, to run analyses.
Table 3-1: Programs used to complete the analyses for each example problem
Example Problems
Problem 2
Problem 1
Problem 3
Site Response Analysis
Dynamic Impedance
Function Analysis
SSI Analysis
Time domain
analysis
DeepSoil
MIDAS GTS
OpenSees
MIDAS GTS
OpenSees
MIDAS GTS
OpenSees
Frequency domain
analysis
DeepSoil
SHAKE2000
SASSI2010
SASSI2010
The analyses via SASSI2010 and SHAKE2000 are conducted by the industry collaborator while
the analyses in DeepSoil (Hashash, 2009), MIDAS GTS and OpenSees (Mckenna and Fenves,
2001) are conducted at the University of Toronto by the author. In OpenSees and MIDAS GTS,
the soil and structure are modeled with linear elastic 3D continuum elements (brick elements)
and for the 1D site response analyses in Problem 1; the soil nodes at a given level are constrained
together in order to allow only horizontal shear deformation. The Problem 1 analyses are also
completed in DeepSoil and SHAKE2000 in the frequency domain for verification. In Problem 2,
the soil model has a massless circular rigid foundation at its surface (implemented by the
rigidLink command in OpenSees and MIDAS GTS) while in Problem 3 the soil model supports
a concrete structure at its surface, which induces the SSI effect. All soil models are supported by
a rigid bedrock so as to directly apply the earthquake acceleration to the soil base. The mesh size
for all soil models is also determined based on the maximum allowable element length
requirement, Equation 2.1.
36
3.4 Soil and Structure Properties, and Dimensions

The homogeneous soil properties used in the Problem 1, Problem 2, and Problem 3 analyses are
shown in Table 3-2. The dimensions of the soil models are also shown in Table 3-3. For the
Problem 3 analysis, the concrete structure properties and dimensions are listed in Table 3-4.
Table 3-2: Soil properties of the homogeneous soil model (Gazetas, 1983)
Shear Wave Velocity, VS (m/s)
383
Poissons ratio,
0.33
Shear Modulus, G (kN/m2)
354,987
Density, (kg/m3)
2420
Material Damping, (%)
Table 3-3: Dimensions of the soil models
Example Problems
Problem 1
Problem 2
Problem 3
Depth of the soil domain D, m
12
12
12
Width of the soil domain, m
50
50
Length of soil, domain, m
50
50
Radius of rigid foundation R, m
N/A
Maximum mesh size, m
Table 3-4: Structure properties and dimensions
2.82 x 107
Poissons ratio,
0.16
Density, (kg/m3)
2400
Material Damping, (%)
5.0
Height, D (m)
5.0
Radius, R
6.0
37
3.5 Viscous Damping Formulation

For linear soil models, the area bounded by the stress-strain loops is zero since there is no
hysteretic damping. However, laboratory tests have shown the presence of damping even in
linear soil materials (e.g., Hardin and Drnevich, 1972). Numerically, the damping problem is
usually overcome by introducing viscous dashpots embedded within linear elastic elements. In
this study, damping in the time domain analysis method is simulated with the Rayleigh damping
formulation proposed by Rayleigh and Lindsay (1945). The Rayleigh damping formulation has
been validated by comparison to the theoretically accurate frequency domain solutions, Hashash
and Park (2004).
In the Rayleigh damping formulation, the damping matrix C is assumed to be proportional to the
mass matrix M and the stiffness matrix K by means of two coefficients alpha and beta :
[C] = [M] + [K].
(3.1)
The damping matrix C is a function of the frequency of vibration, and typically the damping
ratios at the fundamental frequencies/modes of vibration of a structure or soil model are used in
the Rayleigh damping formulation. For soil models, the natural modes are derived from the shear
wave velocity profile, and the and values are determined as follows:
2i j
(3.2)
(3.3)
(i + j)
(i + j)
The frequency dependent nature of the damping formulations (Equations 3.2 and 3.3) implies
that the accuracy of the time domain solution depends on the modes i and j selected to define
the damping function. According to Ostadan et al. (2004) and Hashash and Park (2004), the
optimum modes should be selected such that the linear time domain solution (with frequency
dependent damping) compares well with the linear frequency domain solution (with frequency
independent damping), which represents the correct solution. In this verification exercise the first
38
and third modes of vibration were used to define the Rayleigh damping formulation, verified in
Section 3.6 by comparison of the time domain and frequency domain results.
3.6 Analyses
The three example problems of this linear analysis verification were conducted in the time
domain (DeepSoil, MIDAS GTS, and OpenSees) and in the frequency domain (DeepSoil,
SHAKE2000 and SASSI2010). The analyses in Problem 1 and Problem 3 were completed by
applying the Gilroy 1989 earthquake motion (Figure 3-2) to the rigid bedrock of the soil profiles
while the analyses in Problem 2 were carried out by applying a sinusoidal force (Figure 2-7) to
the centre of the massless rigid foundation at the soil surface. The analysis responses from the
three example problems are shown in the proceeding sub-sections. For the time-history plots, the
first 15s of the responses are presented below and the complete data is available in Appendix C.
30
0.5
0.4
25
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1 0
10
20
30
40
Amplitude
Acceleration, g
0.3
Time, s
-0.2
20
15
10
5
-0.3
0
-0.4
-0.5
10
15
20
25
Frequency, Hz
(a)
(b)
Figure 3-2: Gilroy earthquake input motion: a) acceleration time-history; b) Fourier spectrum
3.6.1
Problem 1 1D Site Response Analysis
The purpose of the 1D shear model analysis was to obtain the FFM given the Gilroy earthquake
motion at the rigid base of the soil deposit. The FFM is required in order to accurately conduct
the seismic SSI analysis in Problem 3 as it is specified along the sides of the FE soil model to
consider the effects of SSI. Three different analysis programs (Table 3-1) were used to complete
the site response analyses, and the resulting surface displacements, Fourier spectra and transfer
functions were compared.
39
In Figure 3-3 through Figure 3-5, the FFM results acquired using the linear frequency domain
analysis method (DeepSoil and SHAKE2000) and the linear time domain analysis method
(DeepSoil, MIDAS GTS and OpenSees) are identical, with a PGA of 0.73g. Since for a linear
range the 1D frequency domain solution is based on theoretically accurate transfer functions, this
verifies the 1D time domain FFM results, and the selected modes of vibration in the implemented
Rayleigh damping formulation. As aforementioned, this verified FFM is specified along the
vertical boundaries of the soil model in the Problem 3 analysis to take into account the effects of
SSI.
In Figure 3-5, the transfer functions from both analysis methods have distinct peaks at the
fundamental frequencies of the soil model. These peaks which are characteristic of linear
analyses are due to resonance, and as observed reduce with increasing frequency. The highest
peak occurs at the first fundamental or natural frequency of the soil model (6.31Hz) and induces
the high amplification observed in the response Fourier spectra in Figure 3-4.
DeepSoil - Frequency Domain
0.8
SHAKE
0.6
DeepSoil - Time Domain

OpenSees
Acceleration, g
0.4
MIDAS GTS
0.2
0
0
10
12
14
Time, s
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
PGA = -0.73g
-0.8
Figure 3-3: Acceleration time history output at the soil surface
40
3.0

SHAKE
2.5

OpenSees
Amplitude
2.0
MIDAS GTS
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
Frequency, Hz
Figure 3-4: Fourier Amplitude of the acceleration response at the soil surface
DeepSoil - Frequency domain
25
SHAKE
DeepSoil - Time domain
20
OpenSees
MIDAS GTS
TF
15
10
0
0
10
15
20
Frequency, Hz
Figure 3-5: Transfer function; ratio of the surface motion to the input motion
41
25
3.6.2
Problem 2 Dynamic Impedance Function Analysis
The purpose of Problem 2 was to verify that the soil-foundation model used in the SSI analysis
can effectively predict the response of the foundation in consideration of the inertial interaction
effects. This was accomplished by comparing its impedance functions to the theoretical solutions
by Gazetas (1983). The time domain analyses were completed via MIDAS GTS and OpenSees
while the frequency domain analyses were completed by the industry collaborator using
SASSI2010. The soil model (50m x 50m x 12m) has a massless circular rigid foundation at its
surface (radius R = 6m) and for the time domain analysis, the Lysmer and Kuhlemeyer boundary
was used to simulate the infinite nature of soil (Figure 3-6). The analyses were completed by
applying the sinusoidal force (Figure 2-7) at frequencies of 2Hz 25Hz to the center of the rigid
foundation in the horizontal, vertical and rocking directions.
Figure 3-6: Soil model with the associated massless circular rigid foundation
For the time domain analysis method, using the input excitation force and the resulting
displacement response at the centre of the foundation, the dynamic impedance functions of the
massless circular rigid foundation in the horizontal, vertical and rocking directions were
42
computed as in Section 2.3. These impedance functions were compared to those acquired via the
frequency domain and to the theoretical solutions by Gazetas (1983) for a D/R = 2 and = 0.33,
Table 3-5.
Table 3-5: Dynamic stiffnesses and damping coefficients of a massless circular rigid foundation on stratum over a
rigid base (D/R = 2, = 0.33) (Gazetas, 1983)
Static stiffness, K
Dynamic stiffness
coefficient, k
(0 ao 2.0)
Damping
coefficient, c
(0 ao 2.0)
4GR
R
(1 + 1.28 )
1-
D
Figure 3-7 (a)
Figure 3 -7 (b)
Horizontal
8GR
R
(1 +
)
2-
2D
Figure 3-8 (a)
Figure 3-8 (b)
Rocking
8GR3
R
(1 +
)
3(1- )
6D
Figure 3-9 (a)
Figure 3-9 (b)
Direction of
applied load
Vertical
Figure 3-7 through Figure 3-9 show that the computed dynamic stiffness and damping
coefficients from MIDAS GTS, OpenSees, and SASSI2010 are in good agreement with the
theoretical solution up to a frequency of about 10Hz. For the higher frequencies, there are
discrepancies which are most likely due to the size of the soil domain that was used in the
analyses. This implies that the domain size of the FE soil model used in this verification exercise
can adequately predict the response of the rigid circular foundation in consideration of the
inertial interaction effects up to a frequency of 10Hz but for the higher frequencies accuracy is
not guaranteed. Nonetheless, for the inertial interaction analysis in Problem 3, the applied forces
and moments are within this frequency range. Therefore this FE soil model can be used to
complete the Problem 3 analyses. In addition, the impedance function comparisons verify the use
of the Lysmer and Kuhlemeyer boundary, which was used to simulate the infinite nature of soil
in the analyses.
43
450
2.0E+07
Theoretical Solution
400
SASSI
OpenSees - Viscous Boundary
350
1.5E+07
MIDAS GTS - Viscous Boundary
C, kN.sec/m
300
K, kN/m
1.0E+07
5.0E+06
250
200
150
100
0.0E+00
50
0
10
15
20
0
0
Frequency, Hz
-5.0E+06
10
Frequency, Hz
(a)
15
20
(b)
Figure 3-7: Dynamic stiffness (a) and damping (b) coefficients of the massless rigid circular foundation on stratumover-bedrock in the vertical direction
1.4E+07
1.2E+07
450
400
SASSI
350
1.0E+07

C, kN.sec/m
K, kN/m
300
8.0E+06
6.0E+06
250
200
150
4.0E+06
100
2.0E+06
50
0
0.0E+00
0
10
Frequency, Hz
15
20
(a)
10
Frequency, Hz
15
20
(b)
Figure 3-8: Dynamic stiffness (a) and damping (b) coefficients of the massless rigid circular foundation on stratumover-bedrock in the horizontal direction
44
3.5E+08
SASSI
9.0E+03
8.0E+03
3.0E+08
7.0E+03
2.5E+08
C, kN.sec.m
K, kN.m
6.0E+03
2.0E+08
5.0E+03
4.0E+03
1.5E+08
3.0E+03
1.0E+08
2.0E+03
5.0E+07
1.0E+03
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0
10
15
20
10
15
20
Frequency, Hz
Frequency, Hz
(a)
(b)
Figure 3-9: Dynamic stiffness (a) and damping (b) coefficients of the massless rigid circular foundation on stratumover-bedrock in the rocking direction
In Figure 3-10 through Figure 3-12 the impedance functions of a soil model with a fixed
boundary are compared to those obtained using the soil model with the Lysmer and Kuhlemeyer
absorbing boundary, and to the theoretical solutions by Gazetas (1983). The comparisons show
that the dynamic stiffness and damping coefficients of the fixed boundary soil model differ from
those with the Lysmer and Kuhlemeyer boundary and the theoretical solutions. This further
demonstrates the importance of the energy absorbing boundary which absorbs the stress waves at
the soil boundary, thus minimizing the reflected stress waves which distort the soil response.
45
2.0E+07
400
350

Fixed-Boundary Condition
1.5E+07
300
250
K, kN/m
C, kN.sec/m
1.0E+07
5.0E+06
200
150
100
0.0E+00
0
10
15
20
50
0
-5.0E+06
Frequency, Hz
10
Frequency, Hz
(a)
15
20
(b)
Figure 3-10: Dynamic stiffness (a) and damping (b) coefficients of the massless rigid circular foundation with
different boundary conditions in the vertical direction
1.6E+07
1.4E+07
1.2E+07
500
450
400
350
C, kN.sec/m
1.0E+07
K, kN/m
550
8.0E+06
6.0E+06
300
250
200
150
4.0E+06
100
2.0E+06
50
0.0E+00
0
0
10
15
20
Frequency, Hz
10
15
20
Frequency, Hz
(a)
(b)
different boundary conditions in the horizontal direction
46
3.50E+08
3.50E+04
3.00E+08
3.00E+04
2.50E+08
2.50E+04
C, kN.sec.m
K, kN.m
2.00E+08
1.50E+08
2.00E+04
1.50E+04
1.00E+08
1.00E+04
5.00E+07
5.00E+03
0.00E+00
0
10
15
20
0.00E+00
0
Frequency, Hz
10
Frequency, Hz
(a)
15
20
(b)
different boundary conditions in the rocking direction
3.6.3
Problem 3 SSI Analysis
Problem 3 involves analysis of the complete SSI system (Figure 3-13) in the time domain using
the direct analysis method. The SSI analysis is also completed in the frequency domain by the
industry collaborator via SASSI2010. The Gilroy earthquake motion (Figure 3-2) is used as the
input motion.
The SSI effects in the analysis are induced by the concrete structure at the soil surface as it
interferes with the propagation of the stress waves in the soil; this is depicted in the analysis
results. Additionally, the period of the concrete structure is 0.011s while the period of the
complete SSI model is 0.138s. This period elongation is due to the flexibility of the structures
foundation in the SSI model.
47
Figure 3-13: Soil-structure interaction model in the Problem 3 analysis
To verify the frequency domain and the time domain direct analysis results, the SSI analysis was
broken into 3 distinct parts which were later combined to formulate the final solution. This multistep approach (Figure 3-14), which involves independent analyses of the kinematic and inertial
interactions, is based on the principle of superposition; accurate for the linear analysis of SSI
systems.
Figure 3-14: Illustration of the multi-step approach showing the kinematic and inertial interactions
Part 1 of the multi-step approach (Figure 3-14(a)) is the kinematic interaction analysis, which is
used to determine the foundation input motion (FIM) uKI that would occur at the soil surface if
48
the concrete structure had no mass. The foundation input motion uKI depends solely on the
stiffness, and the geometry of the soil and the foundation, and is computed using the equation of
motion below:
[Ms] {KI} + [K]{uKI} = -[Ms]{b}
(3.4)
where [Ms] and [K] are the mass and stiffness matrices of the soil, respectively assuming that the
structure and foundation are massless, {KI} is the acceleration response from the kinematic
interaction, and b is the input earthquake at the base of the soil domain multiplied with an
identity matrix.
Part 2 involves determination of the displacement of the concrete structure only u1 (Figure
3-14(b)). The foundation input motion from the kinematic interaction analysis is applied to the
rigid base of the concrete structure and u1 is obtained using the equation below:
[Mst] {1} + [Kst]{u1} = -[Mst]{b + KI}
(3.5)
where [Mst] and [Kst] are the mass and stiffness matrices of the structure and foundation.
Part 3 comprises determination of the SSI displacement u2 (Figure 3-14(c)). The analysis in Part
3 takes into account the effects of SSI. The SSI displacement u2 is acquired by applying the
reaction forces and moments at the base of the structure in Part 2 to the soil-structure interface of
the complete SSI model. The effects of the soil compliance on the response of the structure are
due to the inertial interactions. For the SSI illustration in Figure 3-14(c) with 2 degrees of
freedom, u2 is computed as follows:
Kst
-Kst
u2
2
0
Mst 0
u
interface
0 Ms interface
K
st * u1
-Kst Kst + Ks
(3.6).
Finally, based on the principle of superposition, the overall displacement uc at the centre of the
roof of the structure is obtained as follows:
uc = uKI + u1 + u2
The displacement uc can also be acquired from the direct analysis of the SSI system:
49
(3.7).
[M]{c} + [K]{uc} = - [M]{b}.
(3.8)
where [M] and [K] are the mass and stiffness matrices of the overall SSI system. In this direct
analysis approach, the kinematic and inertial interaction analyses are completed in one step. The
direct SSI analysis is verified by comparison to the multi-step approach, as for linear systems the
two approaches should result in identical responses. Verification of the direct analysis approach
is crucial as it is the only technique that can be used to effectively complete nonlinear analyses
since the multi-step approach is based on the principle of superposition, and thus limited to linear
systems. Also, in order to effectively complete a SSI problem using the direct analysis method,
appropriate boundary conditions and soil domain size are required to take into account the effects
of SSI. Therefore, another reason for comparing the multi-step analysis approach results to the
direct analysis approach results is to verify the effectiveness of the energy absorbing boundary
and soil domain size used herein.
In the direct analysis approach, the overall structure displacement uc is acquired in a single step,
i.e. time stepping analysis of the complete SSI model with earthquake motion applied at the rigid
bedrock. To consider the effects of SSI, the soil model in the SSI system has the FFM from the
Problem 1 analysis specified along its sides. Implementation of this modified energy absorbing
boundary was accomplished by imposing the FFM from the Problem 1 analysis to the external
node of the dashpot elements (Figure 3-15) of the Lysmer and Kuhlemeyer boundary at the
exterior of the soil model. Use of this modified energy absorbing boundary ensures better
absorption of the propagating waves at the soil boundary and minimizes interference of the
outgoing waves in the soil model.
Figure 3-15: Lysmer and Kuhlemeyer viscous dashpot with the applied imposed motion at the external node
50
The purpose of Problem 3 was to verify the direct approach analysis of the SSI system by
comparing its responses to those acquired using the multi-step approach and in the frequency
domain, the results are shown below:
i)
Part 1, determination of the foundation input motion uKI:
To obtain uKI, the analysis was carried using the 3D soil model without the concrete structure at
its surface, as shown in Figure 3-6. The analysis was completed in both OpenSees and MIDAS
GTS to ensure that it was performed correctly.
2.0E-03
OpenSees
1.5E-03
MIDAS GTS
uKI, m
1.0E-03
5.0E-04
0.0E+00
0
10
12
-5.0E-04
14
Time, s
-1.0E-03
-1.5E-03
-2.0E-03
Figure 3-16: FFM uKI at the surface of the soil
Figure 3-16 shows the foundation input motion uKI with a maximum displacement of 0.0015m.
The results were verified by comparing them to the FFM acquired in the Problem 1 analysis,
Figure 3-17.
2.0E-03
1D Linear Analysis in Stage 1
1.5E-03
50x25x12 Soil Model in Part 1 of the Stage
3 analysis
uKI, m
1.0E-03
5.0E-04
0.0E+00
0
10
12
14
-5.0E-04
Time, s
-1.0E-03
-1.5E-03
-2.0E-03
Figure 3-17: FFM and the 1D linear analysis responses at the soil surface
51
0.08
1D Linear Analysis in Stage 1
50x25x12 Soil Model in Part 1 of the Stage 3
analysis
Amplitude
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
20
Figure 3-18: Fourier Amplitude of the FFM and the 1D linear analysis responses at the soil surface
Figure 3-17 and Figure 3-18 show that the results from Part 1 of the Problem 3 analysis are
identical to those acquired in the 1D site response analysis in Problem 1; this is because the Part
1 analysis in Problem 3 is essentially a site response analysis since the mass of the structure at
the soil surface is taken to be zero. The slight differences are due to the fact that in the 1D site
response analysis, the soil nodes at a given level are constrained to move together hence perfect
shear deformation while in the 3D analysis the soil nodes are independent of each other.
Part 2, determination of the displacement of the concrete structure only, u1:
ii)
Part 2 involved determination of the displacement of the concrete structure only (u1), Figure 3-19
below. To obtain u1, the foundation input motion (uKI) from Part 1 was applied at the rigid base
of the concrete structure.
1.5E-05
MIDAS GTS
1.0E-05
OpenSees
u1, m
5.0E-06
0.0E+00
0
10
12
-5.0E-06
-1.0E-05
-1.5E-05
Figure 3-19: Displacement at the centre of the roof of the concrete structure, u1
52
14
Time, s
Figure 3-19 shows the response of the concrete structure only u1 with a maximum displacement
of 1.04094e-05m; this is the structures response without any SSI effects. This is because in the
analysis, the structures basemat was rigid thus restraining any possible deformation of the
foundation.
Part 3, determination of the SSI displacement u2:
iii)
Unlike Part 2 which involves analysis of only the concrete structure, the concrete structure in
Part 3 responds differently because it is supported on a flexible soil deposit. Firstly, the inability
of the structures foundation to conform to the deformations of the FFM causes the motion of the
base of the structure to deviate from the FFM. Secondly, the dynamic response of the structure
itself induces deformation of the supporting soil. This process as previously stated is termed as
SSI.
In Part 3 analysis, the structure displacement u2 was acquired by applying the reaction forces and
moments at the base of the concrete structure in Part 2 to the soil-structure interface of the
complete SSI model. The results with a maximum displacement of 0.000758m are shown in
Figure 3-20. Based on the maximum displacement values, the response u2, which is caused by
the inertial interactions, accounts for 33% of the total displacement of the concrete structure,
similar to the findings by Borja (1998).
1.0E-03
MIDAS GTS
8.0E-04
OpenSees
6.0E-04
u2, m
4.0E-04
2.0E-04
0.0E+00
-2.0E-04
10
12
Time, s 14
-4.0E-04
-6.0E-04
-8.0E-04
-1.0E-03
Figure 3-20: Displacement at the centre of the roof of the concrete structure u2, taking into account the SSI effects
53
Figure 3-21 below shows the Fourier amplitude spectrum of the applied forces and moments in
Part 2. The high amplitude components of these forces and moments are mainly in the frequency
range 0 - 10Hz (as is most of the earthquake input motions used in this research study). This
frequency range is similar to that in the Problem 2 analysis in which the computed impedance
functions were identical to the theoretical solutions by Gazetas (1983). This implies that the FE
model in this verification study can be used to accurately predict the SSI response for at least this
frequency range. It is however important to note that this frequency range and numerical
accuracy can probably be improved if a larger soil model, and smaller time steps/mesh sizes are
used.
1.2
1
Amplitude
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
20
(a)
0.8
0.7
Amplitude
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
20
(b)
Figure 3-21: Fourier amplitude of the applied force (a) and moment (b) at the soil-structure interaction model
interface
54
Determination and verification of the overall structure displacement uc:
iv)
In direct approach analysis, the overall structure displacement uc was acquired from the single
step analysis of the complete SSI model with FFM applied at the side boundaries of the soil and
earthquake motion applied to the rigid bedrock, in OpenSees. These results were verified by
comparing them to those obtained via the multi-step approach, where uc = uKI + u1 + u2. As
shown in Figure 3-22 and Figure 3-23 below, the calculated displacement uc and direct analysis
uc are similar with a maximum displacement of 0.227m which verifies the direct analysis
procedure herein.
0.003
Uc - Direct approach
0.002
Uc - Multistep approach
uc, m
0.001
0.000
0
10
12
14
Time, s
-0.001
-0.002
-0.003
Figure 3-22: Overall structure displacement uc, at the centre of the roof of the concrete structure
0.3
Amplitude
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
Figure 3-23: Fourier amplitude of the overall structure displacement, uc
55
18
20
The time domain analysis of the complete SSI system with the energy absorbing boundary in
Problem 3 was further verified by comparing its results to those acquired in the frequency
domain using SASSI2010.
0.5
Time Domain Analysis in OpenSees
PGA = 0.44g
0.4
Frequency Domain Analysis in SASSI
Acceleration, g
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1 0
10
12
14
Time, s
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
Figure 3-24: Acceleration response at the centre of the roof of the structure
50
45
40
Amplitude
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
20
Figure 3-25: Fourier amplitude of the acceleration response at the centre of the roof of the structure
30
25
TF
20
15
10
5
0
0
10
15
20
Frequency, Hz
Figure 3-26: Transfer function; ratio of the roof response to the input motion
56
25
The acceleration response at the centre of the roof of the concrete structure from both the time
domain with an energy absorbing boundary and the frequency domain analysis are in good
agreement with each other, Figure 3-24 and Figure 3-25. This further verifies the FEM linear 3D
SSI system used in the time domain analysis.
In Figure 3-26, the transfer functions from the frequency domain and time domain solution have
the same general shape with peak amplification factors at the fundamental frequencies of the SSI
model. However, the transfer function from the frequency domain is smooth while that from the
time domain is jagged with low amplitude amplifications at the high frequencies. These sudden
amplifications are most likely caused by numerical errors due to the mesh size and the soil
domain size used in the time domain direct analysis. In addition, unlike the frequency domain
analysis method which is based on impedance functions and specified material damping, the time
domain analysis method is based on a numerical integration scheme, the frequency dependent
Rayleigh damping formulation that is inconsistent with experimental data that has shown that
damping in soil is frequency independent (Hashash and Park, 2004) is used to implement
damping, and an energy absorbing boundary with specified FFM is used to minimize the effects
of SSI. These modeling techniques though efficient are not entirely accurate and hence the slight
discrepancies.
Despite of the limitations and assumptions, the direct analysis approach in time domain is still a
viable and accepted method. In this verification exercise, the response of the concrete structure
from this method was in good agreement with the results from the theoretically accurate multistep approach, and this verifies the direct analysis procedure in this study.
Figure 3-28 and Figure 3-29 below show the effects of SSI in the time domain direct analysis
approach. The displacement of the node in the near-field is different from the FFM due to the
compliance of the soil surrounding the foundation of the SSI system which alters the propagating
stress waves. On the other hand, the displacement of node in the far-field is close to the FFM
from the 1D site response analysis. This is because the SSI effects are more pronounced in the
near-field than in the far-field i.e., in the near-field, due to the close proximity, the stress waves
are more affected by the inertial interactions of the structures foundation. However, as the stress
57
waves travel farther in the free-field, the alteration effects are minimal and the stress waves then
try to revert to their normal form (Borja et al., 1998).
Figure 3-27: Front view of the SSI system

2.0E-03
FFM
Node in the near-field
1.5E-03
Node in the far-field
Displacement, m
1.0E-03
5.0E-04
-1.0E-17
0
-5.0E-04
10
12
14
Time, s
-1.0E-03
-1.5E-03
-2.0E-03
Figure 3-28: Displacement time history at the soil surface: comparison of nodes in the near-field and free-field to the
FFM
58
0.12
FFM
Node in the near field
0.10
Node in the far field
Amplitude
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0
10
15
20
25
Frequency, Hz
Figure 3-29: Fourier amplitude of the displacement at the soil surface: comparison of nodes in the near-field and
free-field to the FFM
Figure 3-30 and Figure 3-31 compare the acceleration responses acquired using the SSI model
with the energy absorbing boundary to those acquired using a SSI model without the energy
absorbing boundary i.e., without the specified imposed motion at the boundary.
0.5
No energy absorbing boundary (OpenSees)
PGA = 0.44g
PGA = 0.38g
0.4
Acceleration, g
0.3
Energy Absorbing Boundary (OpenSees)
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
12
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
Figure 3-30: Acceleration response at the centre of the roof of the structure
59
14
Time, s
60

50
Amplitude
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
Frequency, Hz
Figure 3-31: Fourier amplitude of the acceleration response at the centre of the structure
Figure 3-30 and Figure 3-31 show that acceleration response acquired with the SSI model
without the energy absorbing boundary differs from that acquired with the verified SSI model
with the energy absorbing boundary. The PGAs from the responses differ by 16%. A plausible
explanation for this difference is that without the energy absorbing the soil response was
distorted due to the reflected stress waves. This further reinstates the importance of using the
energy absorbing boundary for the direct analysis approach.
3.7 Conclusion
In summary, the responses from the linear time domain direct analysis of the SSI FE model with
the energy absorbing boundary were identical to those obtained in the frequency domain. In
addition, the SSI analysis responses from both analysis methods were identical to the
theoretically accurate multi-step approach; this verified the time domain direct analysis approach
as well as the frequency domain analysis method. The verified time domain direct analysis and
frequency domain analysis techniques are used to verify the Hualien LSST model in the linear
range in Chapter 4.
60
Verification of the Hualien LSST Model Used in the

Nonlinear Time Domain Analyses
4.1 Introduction
As described in Section 1.3, the Hualien LSST project has been conducted since 1993 in order to
validate the various dynamic SSI analysis methodologies. A -scale cylindrical reinforced
concrete NPP structure was constructed at the Hualien site in 1992 to evaluate structural
behavior during earthquake events. The site was chosen because of its high seismic activity and
prototypical nuclear power plant soil properties. The extensive instrumentation installed at the
site has been used to record seismic structural and ground responses since 1993 (Yang et al.,
1995). A FE model, built by the author, of the soil and -scale concrete structure (Figure 1-7 and
Figure 1-8) at the Hualien site were used to complete the linear analyses in this chapter.
4.2 Objective
The purpose of this chapter is to verify the -scale Hualien LSST FE model that is used to
complete the nonlinear time domain analyses in Chapter 5. The analyses conducted herein
basically verify the implemented energy absorbing boundary, the soil domain size, mesh size,
and the frequencies/modes used for the Rayleigh damping formulation. Without verification of
these analysis parameters, the nonlinear response analyses in Chapter 5 are rather meaningless.
The verification process is accomplished using the same approach in Section 3.6.3 by comparing
the linear direct analysis time domain solution to the frequency domain solution. The time
domain solution is obtained using OpenSees while the frequency domain solution is obtained via
SASSI2010 by the industry collaborator.
4.3 Soil and Structure Properties

The soil and structure properties used in the time domain and frequency domain analyses of this
verification study are shown in Table 4-1, Table 4-2, and Table 4-3 below (Kokusho et al.,
1994).
61
Table 4-1: Hualien soil properties in the near-field ( 5.41m from the centre of the concrete structure)
Soil Layer
Layer
(m)
Vs,
(m/s)
,
(kg/m3)
Damping ratio,
(%)
Shear modulus,
G (kN/m2)
Backfill 1
0-2
400
2330
0.38
2.0
372800
Backfill 2
2-5
400
2390
0.48
2.0
382400
Sand 1
0-2
133
1690
0.38
2.0
29894
Sand 2
2-5
231
1930
0.48
2.0
102987
Gravel 1
5-12
383
2420
0.48
2.0
354987
Gravel 2
5-12
333
2420
0.47
2.0
268351
Gravel 3
12-20
476
2420
0.47
2.0
548314
Gravel 4
20-26
476
2420
0.47
2.0
548314
Table 4-2: Hualien soil properties in the free-field ( 14m from the centre of the concrete structure)
Soil Layer
Layer
(m)
Vs,
(m/s)
,
(kg/m3)
Damping ratio,
(%)
Shear modulus,
G (kN/m2)
Sand 1
0-2
133
1690
0.38
2.0
29894
Sand 2
2-5
231
1930
0.48
2.0
102987
Gravel 2
5-12
333
2420
0.47
2.0
268351
Gravel 3
12-20
476
2420
0.47
2.0
548314
Gravel 4
20-26
476
2420
0.47
2.0
548314
Table 4-3: Properties of the Hualien -scale concrete structure
Density, (kg/m3)
2400
Poissons ratio,
0.167
28200000
Damping ratio, (%)
2.0
Period (s)
0.13
62
4.4 Analyses
The verification process was completed in two stages. Firstly, a site response analysis was
carried out, and then the direct analysis of the Hualien LSST FE model was conducted. For the
time domain analyses, damping was implemented using the Rayleigh damping formulation, as
explained in Section 3.5. In addition, the size of the soil domain (50m x 50m x 26m) in the SSI
system was based on the soil modeling method in Section 3.6.2, and the mesh size is determined
as in Section 2.2.
The analyses in this verification study were completed using the Event 2 earthquake motion
recorded in the NS direction using the D13 accelerometer (Table 1-2), with a PGA of 0.0059g
(Figure 4-1). For the time-history plots, the results are shown for 10 - 25s and the complete data
is available in Appendix D.
1.2
0.007
PGA 0.00591g
Amplitude
Acceleration (g)
0.005
0.003
0.001
-0.001 0
10
20
30
40
Time (sec)
-0.003
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
15
Frequency, Hz
-0.005
(a)
20
25
(b)
Figure 4-1: Event 2 seismic input motion: a) acceleration time-history; b) Fourier spectrum
4.4.1
1D Site Response Analysis
The purpose of this 1D site response analysis was to acquire the FFM for a given earthquake
motion at the base of the soil deposit with the Hualien free-field soil properties, which is
specified along the vertical boundaries of the soil model in the SSI analysis. The 1D soil column
used in this analysis was 26m deep, with a mesh size of 1m, a rigid bedrock at its base, and a
63
fundamental frequency of 4.41Hz (Figure 4-2). The FFM obtained via the time domain analysis
was validated by comparison to the frequency domain solution.
Figure 4-2: 1D analysis soil model with the Hualien free-field soil properties
Figure 4-3 through Figure 4-5 show the surface acceleration responses from the time domain and
frequency domain analyses which are in good agreement, with a PGA of 0.0185g. Since the
frequency domain solution for a linear system is based on theoretically accurate transfer
functions, this in turn verifies the FFM responses obtained in the time domain.
Figure 4-5 shows the resonance peaks of the transfer functions from both analysis methods,
which are common in linear systems, as mentioned earlier. These peaks generate the high
amplifications observed in the Fourier spectrum at the fundamental frequencies of the soil
column (Figure 4-4). As aforementioned, the verified FFM obtained in this site response analysis
is specified along the vertical boundaries of the soil model in the SSI analysis to consider the
effects of SSI, as discussed in Section 3.6.3.
64
0.02
Deepsoil - Frequency domain
PGA = 0.0185g
OpenSees - Time domain
0.02
Acceleration, g
0.01
0.01
0.00
10.0
-0.01
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
22.0
24.0
Time, s
-0.01
-0.02
-0.02

7
Frequency, Hz
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
20
Figure 4-4: Fourier amplitude of the acceleration response at the soil surface
45
40
35
TF
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
65
18
20
4.4.2
SSI Analysis
The SSI analysis in this section verifies the time domain Hualien LSST FE model (Figure 4-6)
by comparing its responses to those acquired in the frequency domain analysis. The FE model
was built with 8-node brick elements in MIDAS GTS and has 23,320 nodes and 28,130
elements. Its soil and concrete structure properties are listed in Table 4-1, Table 4-2 and Table
4-3. The FE model has a fundamental frequency of 4.1Hz, and the input acceleration was applied
at the bedrock elevation. At its surface is the -scale Hualien circular NPP concrete structure
which is 16.28m long, with an outer radius of 5.41m, and embedded 5m into the soil. To
consider the effects of SSI the FFM from the 1D site response analysis was specified along the
sides of its soil model as discussed in Section 3.6.3.
Figure 4-6: 3D FE model of the Hualien SSI system used to complete the time domain analyses
66
Structural responses at four locations are compared between the time domain and frequency
domain analyses. The four locations (Figure 1-10) are at the Basemat level (BAN), on the wall at
ground level (WLN), on the wall at 4.82m above ground level (WHN) and at the roof level
(RFN).
Figure 4-7 through Figure 4-18 show the acceleration responses from the time domain analysis
(OpenSees) and the frequency domain analysis (SASSI2010), which are in good agreement. This
verifies the Hualien LSST FE model, the selected modes of vibration in the Rayleigh damping
formulation, and the implemented energy absorbing boundary in the time domain analysis. This
Hualien LSST FE model is used to complete the nonlinear time domain analyses in Chapter 5.
In Figure 4-10, the PGA (0.01644g) at the soil surface in the near-field differs from that of the
FFM (Figure 4-3, 0.0185g) by 12.5%. This difference is due to the SSI effects induced by the
concrete structure at the soil surface; the compliance of the soil and the inertial interactions of the
concrete foundation alter the propagating waves at the soil surface.
In Figure 4-9, Figure 4-12, Figure 4-15 and Figure 4-18 the transfer functions from the time
domain and frequency domain have the same general shape at the low frequencies. However, at
the higher frequencies, the transfer functions from the time domain are more fluctuated with
sudden low amplitude peaks. As suggested in Section 3.6.3, this is most probably due to
numerical errors. The fluctuating transfer function indicates the need to use a smaller mesh size
and time step, which would minimize the numerical errors. Nevertheless, in the transfer function,
the amplitude responses at the frequencies higher than 10Hz are relatively low compared to the
responses at lower frequencies. It is considered, therefore, that the effect of the fluctuations on
the analysis results is not significant.
The resonance peaks in the transfer functions from both analysis methods induce the high
amplifications observed in at the fundamental frequencies of the SSI system in the Fourier
spectra in Figure 4-8, Figure 4-11, Figure 4-14 and Figure 4-17. For the roof level transfer
functions and Fourier Spectra in Figure 4-17 and Figure 4-18, respectively; there is a sudden
increase in amplitude at the frequency of 7.4Hz. This is the fundamental frequency of the
structure, and therefore the increase in amplitude is due to amplification by the structure.
67
Basemat level, BAN

0.02
BAN - Frequency domain analysis

BAN - Time domain analysis with energy absorbing
boundary
0.015
Acceleration, g
0.01
0.005
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
-0.005
24
Time, s
-0.01
-0.015
PGA = -0.01615g
-0.02
Figure 4-7: Acceleration time history output at location BAN
Amplitude
7
6

boundary
4
3
2
1
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
20
Figure 4-8: Fourier amplitude of the acceleration response at location BAN

40
35
30

boundary
TF
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
Figure 4-9: Transfer function; ratio of the response at location BAN to the input motion
68
20
Surface level, WLN

0.02
WLN - Frequency domain analysis
0.015
WLN - Time domain analysis with an energy absorbing

boundary
Acceleration, g
0.01
0.005
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
-0.005
Time, s
-0.01
-0.015
PGA = -0.01644g
-0.02
Figure 4-10: Acceleration time history output at location WLN

7
WLN - Time domain analysis with energy absorbing

boundary
Amplitude
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
20
Figure 4-11: Fourier amplitude of the acceleration response at location WLN

40
WLN - Frequency domain
35
WLN - Time domain analysis with energy absorbing
boundary
30
TF
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
Figure 4-12: Transfer function; ratio of the response at location WLN to the input motion
69
20
Mid-structure level, WHN

WHN - Frequency domain analysis
0.02
WHN - Time domain analysis with an energy absorbing

boundary
0.015
Acceleration, g
0.01
0.005
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
-0.005
Time, s
-0.01
-0.015
PGA = -0.02g
-0.02
-0.025
Figure 4-13: Acceleration time history output at location WHN

9
8
boundary
Amplitude
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
20
Figure 4-14: Fourier amplitude of the acceleration response at location WHN

50
45
40

boundary
35
TF
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
Figure 4-15: Transfer function; ratio of the response at location WHN to the input motion
70
20
Roof level, RFN

0.03
RFN - Frequency domain

RFN - Time domain analysis with the energy absorbing
boundary
Acceleration, g
0.02
0.01
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
Time, s
-0.01
-0.02
PGA = -0.02371g
-0.03
Figure 4-16: Acceleration time history output at location RFN

10
RFN - Frequency domain analysis
Amplitude
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
20
Figure 4-17: Fourier Amplitude of the acceleration response at location RFN

60
RFN - Frequency domain analysis
50
RFN - Time domain analysis with an energy

absorbing boundary
TF
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
Figure 4-18: Transfer function; ratio of the response at location RFN to the input motion
71
20
4.5 Conclusion
The responses from the linear time domain direct analysis of the Hualien SSI FE model were
similar to those obtained from the frequency domain analysis. This verified the direct analysis
FE model and the implemented analysis parameters, which include: the mesh size, the domain
size, energy absorbing boundary and modal frequencies used in the Rayleigh damping
formulation. The verification confirms that the FE model can be used to effectively complete the
nonlinear analysis of the Hualien LSST and obtain meaningful responses.
72
Nonlinear Analysis of the Hualien LSST Model and

Comparison to Field Data
5.1 Objective
In this chapter a series of nonlinear time domain and equivalent linear frequency domain
analyses of the Hualien LSST model are performed. The results are compared to each other, and
to the field data for validation. Based on the comparisons, the chapter explains the similarities,
differences, advantages and limitations of either method.
The nonlinear time domain analyses were carried out in OpenSees using the Hualien LSST FE
model with the energy absorbing boundary, verified in Section 4.4. In the frequency domain, the
analyses were completed using the equivalent linear analysis method in SASSI2010 and
SHAKE2000 by the industry collaborator.
5.2 Soil and Structure Properties

In the nonlinear time domain and equivalent linear frequency domain analyses, the soil
nonlinearity was modeled using identical strain-dependent Hualien soil shear modulus reduction
and damping ratio curves for the recorded ground motion analyses (Figure 5-1). These curves
were obtained using strain-controlled cyclic tri-axial tests that were carried out by the Central
Research Institute of Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI) to determine the strain-dependency of the
secant shear modulus and damping ratios of the Hualien near-field and far-field soil, for strains
ranging from about 10-6 to 10-3.
On the other hand, for the amplified ground motion analyses in this chapter, the strain-dependent
soil shear modulus reduction and damping ratio curves by Seed et al. (1986) were used to model
the soil nonlinearity (Figure 5-2). The Hualien shear modulus and damping curves could not be
used for these analyses as they have a strain limit of 0.1%, and thus making them incapable of
modeling nonlinear soil properties beyond this strain.
73
Figure 5-1: Strain-dependent Hualien soil properties: (a) Rigidity (shear modulus); (b) Damping (Miller et al., 2001)
Figure 5-2: Strain-dependent soil properties: (a) Rigidity (shear modulus); (b) Damping (Seed et al., 1986)
For the nonlinear time domain analyses in OpenSees, the strain dependent curves were
implemented using the PressureIndependentMultiYield soil model. This soil model is one of the
material models in OpenSees capable of simulating nonlinear responses, in particular for
undrained soils as in this study.
To verify the proper implementation of the soil shear modulus reduction and damping ratio
curves in the PressureIndependentMultiYield material model, a 2D plain strain single element
was modeled with the curves in OpenSees, and then subjected to strain controlled cyclic loading
conditions. The resulting shear stress - strain plots from the strain controlled cyclic loading
74
analyses were compared to the modulus reduction and damping ratio curves in Figure 5-1 and
Figure 5-2 (Appendix E). The results were in good agreement except for the small discrepancies
in damping. The discrepancies in damping are because for nonlinear soil models, damping is
captured primarily through hysteretic loadingunloading cycles. However, with most of the
available FE soil models, such as at the PressureIndependentMultiYield material used herein, it
is still difficult to accurately represent the hysteresis damping especially for the high strain
levels. Another issue with the hysteresis damping in nonlinear analyses is that for small strains
the hyperbolic model is almost linear with practically no damping. This is inaccurate when
compared to in-situ soil properties, and can cause unrealistic resonances during wave
propagation analyses (Hashash and Park, 2002). For the nonlinear time domain analyses in this
chapter, the Rayleigh formulation (Section 3.5) with a damping ratio of 2% was used to include
damping for the small strain levels.
5.3 Analyses
The nonlinear time domain analyses were completed in two stages: firstly, site response analyses
were carried out, and then the direct SSI analyses of the Hualien LSST FE model were
conducted. The nonlinear time domain SSI analyses in this chapter required high computing
power and were conducted using a Windows Intel Core i7 2.93GHz computer with 8.00GB of
RAM (a single analysis with 8,000 time steps took more than 4 weeks of computing time).
Three earthquake ground motions, recorded using the D13 accelerometer at the Hualien site,
were used to complete the analyses (Table 1-2): Event 2 (PGA = 0.0059g), Event 1 (PGA =
0.021g), and Event 9 (PGA = 0.051g). These earthquake motions have most of their high
amplitude components in the frequency range of 1Hz 10Hz, as shown in Figure 5-3, Figure
5-4, and Figure 5-5. This is the applicable frequency range for the selected FE modeling
parameters in this study, as discussed in Section 3.6.2.
The analysis responses for the least intense (Event 2) and the most intense (Event 9) are shown
in the proceeding sub-sections, while the responses for the Event 1 earthquake are available in
Appendix F. For the recorded ground motion analyses, the results from both analysis methods
are also compared to the field data to validate the analytical responses, and the accuracy of either
method.
75
1.2
0.006
PGA = 0.0059g
1
Amplitude
Acceleration, g
0.004
0.8
0.002
0.6
0.000
0
10
20
30
40
0.4
-0.002
0.2
Time, s
-0.004
0
0
-0.006
(a)
10
15
Frequency, Hz
20
25
(b)
1.2
0.03
PGA = 0.021g
0.01
0.00
0
10
20
30
-0.01
40
Time, s
Amplitude
Acceleration, g
0.02
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
-0.02
0
0
-0.03
10
15
20
25
Frequency, Hz
(a)
(b)
0.06
10
PGA = 0.051g
0.02
0
0
10
20
30
-0.02
-0.04
40
Time, s
Amplitude
Acceleration, g
0.04
6
4
2
0
0
-0.06
10
15
20
Frequency, Hz
(a)
(b)
76
25
The response of a SSI system is sensitive to the intensity of the input motion. Therefore, to
consider the effects of strong ground motions (>0.1g), and to provide a severe test to the
nonlinear time domain and the equivalent linear analysis methods, the analyses were also
conducted using amplified earthquake motions with PGAs of 0.1g (Amplified motion 1), 0.2g
(Amplified motion 2) and 0.3g (Amplified motion 3). The amplified motions were attained by
amplifying the Event 2 ground motion.
5.3.1
a)
Recorded Ground Motion Analysis Results

1D Site Response Analysis Results:
The results in Figure 5-6, Figure 5-7, Figure 5-9, and Figure 5-10 show that the surface
acceleration responses from the nonlinear time domain and equivalent linear analyses are
generally similar for the low intensity Event 2 earthquake while the responses differ for the
stronger Event 9 earthquake. The responses from both analysis methods are however not
identical to the field data.
Nevertheless, for the Event 9 earthquake the transfer function from the nonlinear time domain
analysis is generally similar to that of the field data for a frequency range of 0Hz - 10Hz (Figure
5-11). In contrast, the transfer function from the equivalent linear analysis is different and has
distinct peaks at the fundamental frequencies of the soil model. This is most likely because in the
nonlinear time domain analysis the stiffness varies at each time step while the equivalent linear
method maintains a constant shear modulus determined at an effective shear strain.
For the Event 2 earthquake, the transfer functions from both analysis methods differ from that of
the field data, and have distinct peaks at the fundamental frequencies of the soil model; a
characteristic of linear analyses (Figure 5-8).
77
0.020
Field data
Nonlinear analysis via OpenSees
SHAKE - Equivalent linear
PGA (OpenSees) = 0.0182g

0.015
Acceleration, g
0.010
PGA (Field data) = 0.0075g

0.005
0.000
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
-0.005
Time, s
-0.010
-0.015
PGA (SHAKE) = -0.0188g

-0.020
Figure 5-6: Acceleration time history output at the soil surface for the Event 2 ground motion
7
Field data
Amplitude
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
20
Figure 5-7: Fourier amplitude of the acceleration response at the soil surface for the Event 2 ground motion
60
Field data
50
TF
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
Figure 5-8: Transfer function; ratio of the soil surface response to the Event 2 input motion
78
20
0.10
0.08
Field data
0.06
Acceleration, g
0.04
0.02
0.00
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-0.02
Time, s
-0.04
-0.06

PGA (Field data) = -0.075g
-0.08
-0.10
Figure 5-9: Acceleration time history output at the soil surface for the Event 9 ground motion
12
Field data
Amplitude
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
20
Figure 5-10: Fourier amplitude of the acceleration response at the soil surface for the Event 9 ground motion
60
Field data
50
TF
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
Frequency, Hz
Figure 5-11: Transfer function; ratio of the soil surface response to the Event 9 input motion
79
20
For the low intensity Event 2 earthquake, the similarity of the responses from the two analysis
methods is most probably because of the resulting low strain level (< 1.0E-5), as shown in Figure
5-13. For low strain levels the nonlinear time domain and equivalent linear analysis methods are
expected to give similar responses, as further demonstrated and explained in Figure 5-12 below.
0.025
Linear analysis via OpenSees

0.02
0.015
Acceleration, g
0.01
0.005
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
-0.005
Time, s
-0.01
-0.015
-0.02
-0.025
Figure 5-12: Comparison of the surface acceleration responses from the linear, nonlinear time domain and
equivalent linear analyses for the Event 2 earthquake
Figure 5-12 compares the surface acceleration responses from the 1D nonlinear time domain and
equivalent linear analyses to that from the 1D linear analysis in Section 4.4.1; all completed with
the Event 2 input motion. The responses from the nonlinear time domain and equivalent linear
analyses are in good agreement with the linear analysis response: a further indication that the soil
acts more or less linearly due to the low strength of the Event 2 earthquake.
Figure 5-13 shows the computed shear stress strains relationships of the 1D nonlinear time
domain analysis and the equivalent linear analysis; both compared to the actual backbone-curve
used in the analyses. It can be observed that the computed shear-stain curves of the nonlinear and
equivalent linear analyses are identical and within the linear range of the backbone-curve (<
1.0E-5 strain level). In addition, the areas of the nonlinear hysteresis loops are almost zero,
another indication of the small degree of soil nonlinearity due to the low earthquake intensity.
80
1)
Stressxy (kN/m2)
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
Strainxy
-2.00E-05
-1.00E-05
0.0
0.00E+00
1.00E-05
2.00E-05
3.00E-05
Shear stress vs strain

backbone-curve
Nonlinear time domain
analysis
Equivalent linear analysis
-2.0
-4.0
6.0
3)
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
-2.00E-05
-1.00E-05
0.0
0.00E+00
-1.0
-2.0
-3.0
Stressxy (kN/m2)
2)
Stressxy (kN/m2)
-6.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Strainxy
1.00E-05
2.00E-05
3.00E-05
Strainxy
-2.00E-05

backbone-curve
analysis
-1.00E-05
0.0
0.00E+00
-0.5
1.00E-05
2.00E-05
3.00E-05

backbone-curve
analysis
-1.0
-4.0
Figure 5-13: Shear stress vs. strain relationships
For the stronger Event 9, the disparity of the responses from the two analysis methods is mostly
likely due to the increased strain levels (> 1.0E-5 strain level), and thus a higher degree of soil
nonlinearity, as shown by the shear stress-strain plots in Figure 5-14. In these plots, the areas of
nonlinear hysteresis loops have increased, as more energy is dissipated in the soil model, and
their stiffness is lower when compared to the equivalent linear stress-strain curves. In other
words, the soil now behaves in a nonlinear manner, which results in an increase in energy
dissipation and a reduction in the shear wave velocity of the nonlinear time domain soil model.
The shear-strain curves of the equivalent linear analysis indicate a stiffer response as the method
uses an effective strain (calculated with a shear strain ratio of 0.65) rather than the maximum
81
strain to determine the shear modulus. This results in overestimation of the shear wave velocity,
Stressxy (kN/m2)
and hence stiffness; this observation is more evident in Section 5.3.3 with the amplified motions.
1)
40
30
20
10
Strainxy
-1.0E-04
0
0.0E+00
-5.0E-05
5.0E-05
1.0E-04
-10
-20
-30

backbone curve
analysis
2)
20
Stressxy (kN/m2)
Stressxy (kN/m2)
-40
3)
15
10
Strainxy
-1.5E-04
-1.0E-04
-5.0E-05
0
0.0E+00
5.0E-05
1.0E-04
Strainxy
-1.0E-04
1.5E-04
-5.0E-05
-15
5.0E-05
1.0E-04
-2
-5
-10
0
0.0E+00

backbone-curve
analysis
-4
-6

backbone-curve
analysis
-8
-20
The differences between the nonlinear time domain and equivalent linear methods are further
discussed using the responses from the SSI analysis in the proceeding sub-section, and the
reasons for the differences between the analytical results and field data are discussed in detail in
Section 5.3.2.
82
b)
SSI Analysis Results:
For the SSI analyses, Figure 5-15 through Figure 5-38 further show that for the low intensity
Event 2 ground motion the acceleration responses from the nonlinear time domain and
equivalent linear analyses are generally similar (e.g., at the roof channel RFN in Figure 5-33 the
PGAs only differ by 3%). The similarity of the responses confirms the findings from past
verification studies such as Stewart et al. (2008) and Hashash and Park (2004); who suggested
that for low intensity earthquakes the nonlinear time domain and equivalent linear analyses
should not be significantly different. Figure 5-15 through Figure 5-38 also show that the for the
more intense Event 9 ground motion, the nonlinear time domain and equivalent linear analysis
methods result in different responses (e.g., at the roof channel RFN in Figure 5-36 the PGAs
differ by 15%).
As aforementioned, the reason for the similarity of the responses from the two analysis methods
for the low intensity Event 2 earthquake is because the soil model acts more or less in a linear
manner. Nevertheless, in Figure 5-17, Figure 5-23, Figure 5-29, and Figure 5-35 it can be
observed that the transfer functions from the two analysis methods are only similar at the low
frequencies (<5Hz), with a distinct peak at the fundamental frequency of the SSI system. For the
higher frequencies, the transfer functions from the nonlinear time domain analysis have sudden
high sharp amplifications. Recalling the low amplitude amplification in the linear time domain
analysis with the same Event 2 earthquake, these high sharp amplifications are most likely due to
the changes in the stiffness and damping values which are updated at each time step in the
nonlinear time domain analysis. This also shows that even for this low intensity earthquake, the
soil model stills exhibits a certain degree of nonlinearity.
For the stronger Event 9; Figure 5-20, Figure 5-26, Figure 5-32, and Figure 5-38 show that the
transfer functions from the two methods are now different and no longer have the same general
shape even at the lower frequencies. For the equivalent linear method, despite the increased
earthquake intensity, its transfer functions have less frequency to frequency variations than the
nonlinear time domain analysis results and field data, and maintain a narrow smooth shape with
distinct peaks at the fundamental frequencies of the SSI system. This is because the equivalent
linear method is inherently linear; it assumes a constant linear shear modulus and damping
83
determined at a representative effective strain throughout the analysis which results in generally
flat transfer functions with overestimated peaks at the resonant/fundamental frequencies of the
SSI system. The distinct peaks were also noticed in the linear analyses in Section 4.4.
In contrast, the transfer functions from the nonlinear time domain analyses are broad with sudden
variations in the frequency components, compatible with the field data. These variations in the
frequency components express the changes in the stiffness and damping due to the nonlinear
behavior of soil, which unlike the equivalent linear analysis method, the time domain analysis
method can capture.
Additionally, regardless of the level of intensity, the Fourier spectrum comparisons in Figure
5-16, Figure 5-19, Figure 5-22, Figure 5-25, Figure 5-28, Figure 5-31, Figure 5-34, and Figure
5-37 show that equivalent linear method tends to underestimate the acceleration responses at
frequencies greater than 10Hz. This underestimation, which is also associated with the flatness of
the equivalent linear transfer function observed at frequencies greater than 10Hz, is likely
because the method filters out these high frequency components (Hashash and Park, 2002). This
filtration effect is due to the use of constant shear modulus and damping values, which filter out
the high frequency components in the input motion. Also, because the constant shear modulus
and damping values are initially determined at an effective shear strain near the peak or
maximum behavior; this causes overestimation of damping for the higher frequencies, which in
turn results in underestimation of the high frequency components. On the other hand, the
nonlinear analysis is able to preserve these high frequency components as it has the capabilities
to take into account the changes in shear modulus and damping that occur at every time step.
The analytical responses from both analysis methods are not identical to the field data. This is
discussed in detail in Section 5.3.2.
84
Basemat level, BAN

0.020
Field data
PGA (OpenSees) = 0.017g Nonlinear analysis via OpenSees
0.015
SASSI - Equivalent linear
Acceleration, g
0.010
0.005
0.000
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24s
Time,
-0.005
-0.010
-0.015
PGA (SASSI) = -0.017g
-0.020
Figure 5-15: Acceleration time history output at location BAN for the Event 2 ground motion
7
Field data
Amplitude
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
20
Figure 5-16: Fourier amplitude of the acceleration response at location BAN for the Event 2 ground motion
80
Field data
70
60
TF
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
85
20
0.08
Field data

0.06

Acceleration, g
0.04
0.02
0.00
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Time, s
-0.02
25
-0.04
-0.06
-0.08
-0.10
Figure 5-18: Acceleration time history output at location BAN for the Event 9 ground motion
12
Field data
Amplitude
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
Frequency, Hz
Figure 5-19: Fourier amplitude of the acceleration response at location BAN for the Event 9 ground motion
40
Field data
35
30
25
TF
Identical amplification in the TF

of the nonlinear time domain
analysis and that of the field data
Distinct smooth peak in the TF
of the equivalent linear analysis
20
15
10
5
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
86
20
Surface level, WLN

0.02
Field data
0.015
Acceleration, g
0.01
0.005
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
-0.005
24
Time, s
-0.01
-0.015

-0.02
Figure 5-21: Acceleration time history output at location WLN for the Event 2 ground motion
7
Field data
Amplitude
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
20
Figure 5-22: Fourier amplitude of the acceleration response at location WLN for the Event 2 ground motion
80
Field data
70
60
TF
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
Figure 5-23: Transfer function; ratio of the response at location WLN to the Event 2 input motion
87
20
0.10
0.08

Acceleration, g
0.06
Field data
0.04
0.02
0.00
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
-0.02
25
Time, s
-0.04
-0.06
-0.08
-0.10
Figure 5-24: Acceleration time history output at location WLN for the Event 9 ground motion
12
Field data
Amplitude
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
20
Figure 5-25: Fourier amplitude of the acceleration response at location WLN for the Event 9 ground motion
40
30
25
TF
Field data

35


20
15
10
5
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
Figure 5-26: Transfer function; ratio of the response at location WLN to the Event 9 input motion
88
20

0.02
Field data
PGA (Field data) = 0.015gPGA (OpenSees) = 0.016g
0.015

Acceleration, g
0.01
0.005
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
Time, s
-0.005
-0.01
-0.015
-0.02
-0.025
Figure 5-27: Acceleration time history output at location WHN for the Event 2 ground motion
8
Field data
Amplitude
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
20
Figure 5-28: Fourier amplitude of the acceleration response at location WHN for the Event 2 ground motion
80
Field data
70
60
TF
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
Figure 5-29: Transfer function; ratio of the response at location WHN to the Event 2 input motion
89
20
0.10
Field data
0.08
0.06
Acceleration, g

0.04
0.02
0.00
-0.02
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Time, s
25
-0.04
-0.06
-0.08
-0.10
Figure 5-30: Acceleration time history output at location WHN for the Event 9 ground motion
12
Field data
10
Amplitude

8
6
4
2
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
20
Figure 5-31: Fourier amplitude of the acceleration response at location WHN for the Event 9 ground motion
40
Field data

35
30
TF
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
Figure 5-32: Transfer function; ratio of the response at location WHN to the Event 9 input motion
90
20
Roof level, RFN

Field data
0.03
Acceleration, g
0.02
0.01
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
-0.01
Time, s
-0.02
PGA (OpenSees) = -0.024g

-0.03
Figure 5-33: Acceleration time history output at location RFN for the Event 2 ground motion
10
Field data
Amplitude
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
20
Figure 5-34: Fourier amplitude of the acceleration response at location RFN for the Event 2 ground motion
80
Field data
70

60
TF
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
91
20
0.10
Field data
PGA (SASSI) = 0.097g

0.08

Acceleration, g
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
-0.02
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Time, s
-0.04
-0.06
-0.08
-0.10
Figure 5-36: Acceleration time history output at location RFN for the Event 9 ground motion
12
Field data
10
Amplitude

8
6
4
2
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
20
Figure 5-37: Fourier amplitude of the acceleration response at location RFN for the Event 9 ground motion
Field data
60

50
TF
40
30

Overestimated high
Frequency to frequency fluctuations frequency component
indicate variation in stiffness
due to nonlinear soil behavior
20
10
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
92
20
5.3.2
Comparison of the Analysis Results to the Field Data
Figure 5-15 through Figure 5-38 show that the acceleration responses from the nonlinear time
domain and equivalent linear analyses are not in good agreement with the recorded field data, for
both the Event 2 and Event 9 earthquakes. For the low intensity Event 2 earthquake, both
analysis methods generally overestimated the responses when compared to the field data.
However, for the more intense Event 9 earthquake, the overestimation is higher for the
equivalent linear analysis method than the nonlinear time domain analysis method. The plausible
reasons for the discrepancies are explained below:
For the equivalent linear analyses, this is because the method is inherently linear and considers
the soil nonlinearity only through an iterative procedure. This equivalent linearization results in
the smooth narrow transfer functions with distinct peaks at the fundamental frequencies of the
SSI system (Appendix A), as observed in Figure 5-8, Figure 5-11, Figure 5-17, Figure 5-20,
Figure 5-23, Figure 5-26, Figure 5-29, Figure 5-32, and Figure 5-38. These distinct peaks in the
transfer functions are inaccurate, validated by the comparison to the field data. In fact, it is these
peaks that induce the high amplification bias at the fundamental frequencies of the SSI system
when they coincide with high amplitude motions in the input excitation, as shown in the Fourier
spectra of the equivalent linear analyses in Figure 5-7, Figure 5-10, Figure 5-16, Figure 5-19,
Figure 5-22, Figure 5-25, Figure 5-28, Figure 5-31, Figure 5-34, and Figure 5-37. These high
amplifications result in the overprediction of the acceleration responses by the equivalent linear
analysis method (e.g., for the basemat channel, in Figure 5-15, the PGA of the equivalent linear
analysis results is higher than that of the field data by 45%).
In the Fourier spectra comparisons, it can also be observed that at the lower frequencies (<3Hz),
the Fourier spectra from the equivalent linear analyses, and even from the nonlinear time domain
analyses, are identical to those of the field data. However, this similarity is only due to the
influence of the input motion i.e., the transfer functions have a value of 1 for the lower
frequencies, and thus the input motion and output motion are similar (Appendix A).
The equivalent linear analysis results obtained in this study and the comparisons to the field data
are also similar to the findings and conclusions by previous researchers such as Choi et al.
(2003). The authors used the equivalent linear analysis method in the frequency domain (as
93
discussed in Section 1.3.3) to analyze the Hualien LSST model and showed that method tends to
overestimate the soil and structure responses when compared to the field data (Appendix G).
For the nonlinear time domain analysis method; the variations in its transfer functions, which are
similarly observed in the field data responses, indicate that the method has the capabilities to
consider the changes in the stiffness and damping that occur during an earthquake. However for
the low intensity Event 2 earthquake, because of the small degree of soil nonlinearity, the Fourier
spectra from the nonlinear time domain analyses have a high amplitude peak at the at the natural
frequency of the SSI system (4.41Hz); as evidenced in Figure 5-16, Figure 5-22, Figure 5-28 and
Figure 5-34. This high amplitude peak is one of the probable causes for the overestimation of the
nonlinear time domain analysis results for the Event 2 earthquake (e.g., for the basemat channel,
in Figure 5-15, the PGA of the nonlinear time domain analysis results is higher than that of the
field data by 45%).
For the stronger Event 9 earthquake, the high peak amplitudes at the fundamental frequencies of
the SSI system are minimized for the nonlinear time domain analysis responses, as shown in the
Fourier spectrum comparisons in Figure 5-19, Figure 5-25, Figure 5-31, and Figure 5-37. This is
because with the increased degree of soil nonlinearity the stiffness varies over time, represented
by the frequency to frequency fluctuations in the transfer functions. As a result, there are no
distinct peaks at the fundamental frequencies of the SSI system, and the transfer functions of the
nonlinear time domain analyses are in better agreement with those of the field data for the
frequency range of 0Hz 10Hz, as observed in Figure 5-20, Figure 5-26, Figure 5-32, and Figure
5-38.
Nonetheless, the transfer function comparisons also show that for the frequencies greater than
10Hz, the nonlinear time domain analysis method has the disadvantage of reproducing
overestimated high frequency components when compared to the field data. These high
amplifications are usually caused by numerical errors due to the mesh size and the domain size
of the soil model, and the spurious oscillations in the numerical scheme. Therefore, the
overestimated high frequency components indicate that the modeling and analysis parameters
used herein were most probably not effectively implemented to dampen out the high frequency
94
components. This is one of the plausible reasons for the discrepancies between the nonlinear
time domain analysis results and the field data.
Other potential reasons for the discrepancies between the nonlinear time domain analysis results
and the field data include:
i)
The energy absorbing boundary of the soil model in the SSI system used to complete the
nonlinear time domain analyses was calibrated using soil properties in the linear range i.e.,
constant shear wave and primary wave velocities. However, it is rationally clear that this is an
approximation since for nonlinear time domain analyses the soil shear wave and primary wave
velocities decrease with increasing earthquake excitation. Therefore for the nonlinear time
domain analyses herein, though the shear wave and primary wave velocities of the soil model
changed during the nonlinear time domain analyses, those used to calibrate the energy absorbing
boundary remained constant. This most likely resulted in more reflected stress waves at the soil
boundary, which distorted the soil response.
ii)
The Hualien shear modulus and damping ratio curves used to complete the analyses in
this chapter were obtained via laboratory tests by CRIEPI using equivalent linear techniques, and
may therefore not accurately represent the actual field conditions.
iii)
The nonlinear time domain analyses did not also take into account the possibility of soil-
structure separation at the foundation interface, which is a well recognized phenomenon in

nonlinear SSI analyses (Hayashi et al., 1988).
5.3.3
Effects of Amplified Ground Motions
In this section, the analyses are not compared to field responses but rather completed using
amplified variations of the Event 2 earthquake, with PGAs of 0.1g, 0.2g, and 0.3g. The purpose
of these amplified motion analyses is to consider the effects of high intensity ground motions (
0.1g), and for a more meaningful insight into the differences between the nonlinear time domain
analysis and the equivalent linear analysis methods. The results for the Amplified motion 1
(PGA = 0.1g) are shown below while the rest of the data is available in Appendix F. In addition,
the transfer functions of the surface and the basemat channel responses are computed using the
windowing function in order to demonstrate their general trend.
95
For the Amplified motion 1 analysis, the differences between the nonlinear time domain analysis
and equivalent linear analysis methods are now more evident. In Figure 5-43, the large areas of
the hysteresis loops from the nonlinear time domain analysis indicate an increase in damping due
to the higher degree of soil nonlinearity. On the contrary, at the higher strains, the shear-strain
curves from the equivalent linear analysis reveal a stiffer response. This is because the method
uses an effective shear strain (calculated with a shear strain ratio of 0.65) rather than the
maximum strain, which results in overestimation of the shear modulus, and possible
underestimation of damping.
For this high intensity ground motion analysis, the acceleration response comparisons in Figure
5-39, Figure 5-44, Figure 5-48, Figure 5-51, and Figure 5-54 show that in this study the
equivalent linear analysis method overestimates the acceleration responses when compared to the
nonlinear time domain analysis method (e.g., at the roof channel RFN, in Figure 5-54, the PGA
of the equivalent linear analysis results is higher than that of the nonlinear time domain analysis
results by 59%). The Fourier spectrum comparisons in Figure 5-40, Figure 5-45, Figure 5-49,
Figure 5-52, and Figure 5-55 also show that the equivalent linear method overestimates the
amplitude of the responses by nearly 50%; evidenced by the high amplitude peak at the
fundamental frequency of the SSI system, which is absent in the Fourier spectra from the
nonlinear time domain analysis.
Though the analysis results with the Amplified motion 1 are not validated by comparison to field
data, the transfer function comparisons in Figure 5-42, Figure 5-46, Figure 5-50, Figure 5-53,
and Figure 5-56 clearly reveal the main limitation of the equivalent linear analysis method.
Because the method uses a constant shear modulus and damping determined at an effective shear
strain throughout the analysis, this results in smooth and narrow transfer functions with distinct
peaks at the predominant frequencies of the SSI system. These peaks cause amplification of the
acceleration responses especially at the fundamental frequency of the SSI system, as observed in
the Fourier spectra in Figure 5-40, Figure 5-45, Figure 5-49, Figure 5-52, and Figure 5-55.
In contrast, the frequency to frequency fluctuations in the transfer functions from the nonlinear
time domain analysis suggest that the method has the capabilities to consider the changes in
stiffness and damping due to the nonlinear behavior of soil. However, the nonlinear time domain
96
transfer functions also reveal high sudden amplifications, especially for the high frequency
components. These high sudden amplifications, as mentioned before, are most likely due to
numerical errors in the FE SSI model used to complete the nonlinear time domain analyses.
a)
1D Site Response Analysis:

0.4
0.3
Acceleration, g
0.2
0.1
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
-0.1
Time, s
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4

90
80
Amplitude
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
Figure 5-40: Fourier amplitude of the acceleration response at the soil surface
97
18
20
20
18
16
14
TF
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
20

5
4
TF
Frequency to frequency fluctuations
Overestimation of the high

frequency components
by the nonlinear time
domain analysis method
2
1
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
Figure 5-42: Transfer functions obtained with the windowing function
98
18
20
Stressxy (kN/m2)
1)
50
40
30
20
10
Strainxy
0
0.0E+00
-10
-4.0E-04
4.0E-04
8.0E-04
-20

backbone-curve
-30

analysis
2)
-2.00E-04
-1.00E-04
30
3)
20
10
0
1.00E-19
Stressxy (kN/m2)
Stressxy (kN/m2)
-40
Strainxy
1.00E-04
-10
2.00E-04
3.00E-04
-1.5E-04
-1.0E-04
-5.0E-05
10
Strainxy
0
0.0E+00
5.0E-05
1.0E-04
1.5E-04
2.0E-04
-5

backbone-curve
analysis
-20
15

backbone-curve
analysis
-10

-15
-30
b)
SSI Analysis:
Basemat level, BAN

0.4
0.3
Acceleration, g
0.2
0.1
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
Figure 5-44: Acceleration time history output at location BAN

99
22
24
Time, s
90
80
Amplitude
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
20
Figure 5-45: Fourier amplitude of the acceleration response at location BAN

25
Nonlinear analysis via
OpenSees
20
TF
15
10
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
20
Figure 5-46: Transfer function; ratio of the response at location BAN to the input motion
7

5
4
TF
Overestimation of the high

frequency components
by the nonlinear time
domain analysis method
3
2
1
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
Figure 5-47: Transfer functions computed using the windowing function

100
18
20
Surface level, WLN

0.4
0.3
Acceleration, g
0.2
0.1
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
Time, s
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
Figure 5-48: Acceleration time history output at location WLN

90
80
Amplitude
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
20
Figure 5-49: Fourier amplitude of the acceleration response at location WLN

20
18
16
14
TF
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
Figure 5-50: Transfer function; ratio of the response at location WLN to the input motion
101
20

0.4
0.3
Acceleration, g
0.2
0.1
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
Time, s
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3

-0.4
Figure 5-51: Acceleration time history output at location WHN

100

OpenSees
90
80
Amplitude
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
20
Figure 5-52: Fourier amplitude of the acceleration response at location WHN

20
18
16
14
TF
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
Figure 5-53: Transfer function; ratio of the response at location WHN to the input motion
102
20
Roof level, RFN

0.4

0.3
Acceleration, g
0.2
0.1
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
Time,24
s
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
Figure 5-54: Acceleration time history output at location RFN

100
90
80
Amplitude
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
20
Figure 5-55: Fourier amplitude of the acceleration response at location RFN

25
20
TF
15
10
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
Figure 5-56: Transfer function; ratio of the response at location RFN to the input motion
103
20
Table 5-1 shows the shear-strain relationships at various locations in the FE SSI model used the
completed the nonlinear time domain analyses with the Amplified motion 1. The shear - strain
relationships in the near field (column B at the 0m depth) are different from those in the far-field
(column D at the 0m depth); this is due to the SSI effects which alter the propagating waves in
the near-field. For the far-field and at the greater depths of -7m and -20m the SSI effects
diminish and the shear - strain relationships tend to revert to their normal form i.e., in closer
agreement with those of the FFM analysis. Furthermore, at the 0m depth in column B (base of
the foundation), the stress - strain relationships reveal a sudden increase in damping highlighted
by the large area of the hysteresis loops. This increase in damping is due to the yielding effects
that typically occur at the soil-foundation interfaces of nonlinear SSI systems due to weakening
of the soil support as its stiffness decreases. The fact that the nonlinear time domain can
represent this effect is another advantage it has over the equivalent linear method.
Figure 5-57: Front view of the FE SSI model showing locations of various nodes in the SSI model
104
Table 5-1: Shear stress-strain relationships at various points in the FE SSI model
8
6
4
2
0
0.0E+00
5.0E-04
8
6
4
2
0
0.0E+00
-5.0E-04
6
4
2
0
0.0E+00
Strainxy
Strainxy
-4
-6
-8
-8
-8
15
10
5
0
0.0E+00
-5
2.0E-04
25
20
15
10
5
0
0.0E+00
-5
-2.0E-04
Strainxy
-10
2.0E-04
25
20
15
10
5
0
0.0E+00
-5
-2.0E-04
Strainxy
-10
-15
-20
-20
-20
40
40
Stressxy (kN/m2)
30
20
10
0
0.0E+00
5.0E-04
-30
-40
30
20
10
0
0.0E+00
-5.0E-04
5.0E-04
-10
-10
-20
Stressxy (kN/m2)
-15
Stressxy (kN/m2)
-15
40
Strainxy
-20
-5.0E-04
2.0E-04
Strainxy
30
20
10
0
0.0E+00
5.0E-04
-10
Strainxy
-20
-30
-30
-40
-40
105
5.0E-04
-2
-6
Stressxy (kN/m2)
Stressxy (kN/m2)
-6
-10
-5.0E-04
-4
20
-2.0E-04
-20m
Strainxy
25
-7m
-5.0E-04
-2
-2
-4
5.0E-04
Stressxy (kN/m2)
-5.0E-04
FFM Analysis
Stressxy (kN/m2)
D
Stressxy (kN/m2)
0m
Stressxy (kN/m2)
Strainxy
5.4 Conclusion
In this chapter, the Hualien LSST FE model was analyzed using the nonlinear time domain
analysis method and the equivalent linear analysis method in the frequency domain. For the low
intensity Event 2 earthquake, the results from both methods were similar. This shows that for
low intensity earthquakes, the equivalent linear method can be used to predict well nonlinear
responses.
However, for the stronger Event 9 and Amplified motion 1, the results from the nonlinear time
domain analysis were different from those of equivalent linear analysis. This is because,
regardless of the earthquake intensity, the equivalent linear analysis method uses a constant shear
modulus and damping at a representative strain throughout its analysis. This results in smooth
narrow transfer functions with distinct peaks at the fundamental frequencies of the SSI, which
induce high amplitude response when they coincide with strong components of the input
motions, typical in linear systems. As a result, in this study the equivalent linear method
generally overestimated the acceleration responses (e.g., for the amplified motions at the roof
channel RFN, in Figure 5-54, the PGA of the equivalent linear analysis results was higher than
that of the nonlinear time domain analysis results by 59%). In contrast, because the nonlinear
time domain analysis method is able to take into account the stiffness variations that occur at
each time step, this greatly minimized the high amplitude peaks at the fundamental frequencies
of the SSI system.
Nevertheless, for the recorded ground motion analyses, the results from both methods were not
identical to the field data. For the low intensity Event 2 earthquake, both methods generally
overestimated the responses. For the more intense Event 9 earthquake, the overestimation was
generally higher for the equivalent linear analysis method. As aforementioned, this is because the
method is inherently linear and uses an effective shear strain rather than the maximum shear
strain to determine the shear modulus and damping throughout the analysis.
For the nonlinear time domain analysis method, its transfer functions were close to those of the
field data for a frequency range 0Hz 10Hz, which showed that the method is able to recreate
the changes in stiffness and damping due to the nonlinear soil behavior. However, for the higher
frequencies, the transfer functions from the nonlinear time domain analyses were different from
106
those of the field data, and had sudden sharp high amplifications. As stated earlier, these
inaccurate sharp amplifications were most likely due to numerical errors in the FE model, which
was unable to dampen out the high frequency components.
However, it should also be noted that the Hualien shear modulus and damping ratio curves used
herein were obtained via laboratory tests by CRIEPI using equivalent linear techniques and
therefore may not accurately represent the actual field conditions. Also, the nonlinear time
domain analyses did not take into account the possible effects of soil-structure separation at the
foundation interface, and hence it would have been tremendously difficult to obtain responses
identical to the field data.
107
Conclusions
6.1 Summary of Findings

In this thesis, the Hualien LSST FE model was analyzed in the frequency domain and in the time
domain. In the former case, soil nonlinearity was approximated by iteratively adjusting the soil
shear modulus and damping ratios using the equivalent linear method while in the latter case the
nonlinear analyses were completed by integrating the equations of motion in small time steps via
the finite element method. The proceeding sub-sections summarize the major findings from this
thesis:
a)
Verification of the Hualien LSST
Initially, the Hualien LSST FE model used to complete the nonlinear analyses was verified by
comparing its linear time domain responses to the linear frequency domain responses; the two
analysis methods are expected give identical results in the linear range. Despite the jagged nature
of the time domain transfer functions, which was likely due to numerical errors, the responses
from the linear time domain were similar to those obtained in the frequency domain. This
verified the FE model and the implemented analysis parameters, which included: the mesh size,
the domain size, energy absorbing boundary, and the modal frequencies used in the Rayleigh
damping formulation.
b)
Nonlinear Analysis of the Hualien LSST Model Using Recorded Ground Motions, and
Comparison to Field Data

For the low intensity Event 2, the nonlinear time domain analysis method and equivalent linear
analysis method generated similar results. This showed that equivalent linear method in the
frequency domain can be used to complete nonlinear analyses for low intensity earthquakes;
since the resulting strain levels are low, and hence the analyses are more or less linear. However,
for the more intense Event 9, the acceleration responses from the two analysis methods differed
by 15%. This was due to the higher degree of soil nonlinearity, and the subsequent changes in
the soil properties such as increased energy dissipation and reduction in the shear wave velocity,
both of which result in a reduction in the amplitudes of the acceleration responses. The nonlinear
time domain analysis method has the capabilities to take into account these changes in damping
108
and stiffness represented by the frequency to frequency fluctuation in its transfer functions. On
the contrary, the equivalent linear method assumes a constant linear shear modulus and damping
determined at a representative effective strain throughout the analysis.
Though the findings may not be generalized, in this study the use of a constant shear modulus
and damping resulted in smooth narrow transfer functions with distinct peaks, which induced the
high amplitude responses at the fundamental frequencies of the SSI system for the equivalent
linear analyses. As a result, the acceleration responses from the equivalent linear analyses were
generally overestimated compared to those of the nonlinear time domain analyses. Subsequently,
for the stronger Event 9 earthquake Fourier spectra and transfer functions from the nonlinear
time domain analyses were in better agreement with the field data than those of the equivalent
linear analysis method. However, this similarity was only observed at the lower frequencies (0Hz
10Hz), and for the higher frequencies high sharp inaccurate amplifications were introduced due
to numerical errors in the FE model.
c)
Nonlinear Analysis of the Hualien LSST Model Using Amplified Ground Motions
For the amplified input motions, the differences between the time domain and frequency domain
were more evident. Although no empirical data was available to validate the responses, the
results showed that the nonlinear time domain analysis method has the capabilities to model the
nonlinear behavior of soil while the equivalent linear analysis method resulted in overestimated
responses. For example, at the roof level (RFN channel) the equivalent linear analysis method
overestimated the acceleration responses by approximately 59%. In addition, despite the high
degree of soil nonlinearity, the transfer functions from the equivalent linear analyses maintained
a smooth narrow shape with distinct peaks while the frequency to frequency fluctuations in the
transfer functions from the nonlinear time domain analyses showed that the method can consider
the variations in soil stiffness and damping that occur during an earthquake.
Although the research results show that the nonlinear time domain analysis method can provide
more realistic inelastic behavior than the equivalent linear frequency domain analysis method,
the nonlinear time domain analyses in this thesis were extremely computer intensive. With
23,320 nodes and 28,130 elements in the Hualien LSST FE model, it took more than four weeks
of computing time to analyse 8,000 time steps. Even with this number of nodes and elements, it
109
was very difficult to accurately model vibration greater than 10 Hz, which is significantly lower
than the maximum frequency of interest for nuclear power plants (33Hz). On the other hand, for
the equivalent linear analysis method after obtaining the impedance functions of the soil model,
it only takes a few seconds to acquire the analytical responses of the soil model with different
input motions.
Nevertheless, the advances in computing power should allow easier and more accurate
application of the nonlinear time domain analysis method. Additionally, because the frequency
domain procedure is limited to equivalent linear systems, this makes it difficult to address the
nonlinear behavior of a structure, and the local nonlinear effects such as base sliding and/or uplift
and component isolation in a SSI system; this is another major disadvantage of the frequency
domain analysis method. The nonlinear time domain analysis method is also currently under
more active development than the equivalent linear method; as new soil models are developed,
its accuracy will be improved, and it should be the preferred method of analysis in the near
future.
6.2 Suggestions for Future Studies

The following are recommended for future research:
1)
The verification of the time domain analysis method in Chapter 3 was completed using a
single concrete structure with a surface foundation. In order to generalize some of the
conclusions, more analyses with different structures and foundations (e.g., embedded
foundations) should be carried out, using the procedures outlined in Chapter 3.
2)
Chapter 3 showed that an important part of SSI is governed by the impedance function
analysis. However, most of the available theoretical impedance functions, as in this study, are
only for homogenous soil models. Therefore, there is a need for field tests and laboratory
experiments to try and develop empirical impedance functions for layered soil profiles.
3)
The nonlinear analyses in Chapter 5 were completed using a domain scale of only 50m x
50m x 26m, and as a result the analysis results are valid for frequencies < 10Hz. The impedance
function comparisons in Chapter 2 showed that accuracy and frequency range of a linear soil
110
response analysis can be improved with a larger domain scale. As a result, in order to increase
the frequency range (up to 33Hz which is the minimum cut-off frequency in seismic analyses)
and to determine the effect of the domain size on the accuracy of nonlinear time domain
analyses, the nonlinear analyses in Chapter 5 should be carried out using larger soil domains.
4)
The nonlinear analyses in Chapter 5 should also be carried out using different structures
so as to generalize the conclusions. In addition, the future nonlinear SSI analyses in the time
domain should consider the local nonlinear effects in the structure such as base-sliding, and
foundation-soil separation.
111
References
Ansary, M.A., Yamazaki, F., Kokusho, T. and Ueshima, T. (1995). Microtremor Observation at Hualien LSST
Array Site, Taiwan, Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering International Conference, 1. 357-362.
Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, International Society of Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering.
Baylor, J.L. (1974). TRANL: A 3D Finite Element Code for Transient Nonlinear Analysis, DNA 3501F, Weidlinger
Associates, New York.
Borja, R. 1. and Chao, H. Y. (1998). Nonlinear Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis. The John A. Blume
Earthquake Engineering Center, 6-18.
Chen , C.H. and Chiu, H.J. (1998). Anisotropic Seismic Ground Response Identified from the Hualien Vertical
Array. International Journal of Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, Vol. 1, pp.
205-210.
Chen, C-H and Yang, S-H. (1999). Use of Simple Model to Predict the Forced Vibration Responses of Hualien
Model Structure. Journal of Mechanics, Department of Civil Engineering, National Taiwan University,
Taipei, Taiwan 10617, R.O.C, Vol. 15, pp. 117-126.
Choi, J-S., Yun, C-B. and Kim, J-M. (2001). Earthquake Response Analysis of the Hualien Soil-Structure
Interaction System Based on Updated Soil Properties Using Forced Vibration Test Data. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Department of Civil Engineering, Korea, Advanced Institute of
Science and Technology, Taelon 305-701, Korea.
Choi, J-S, Lee, J.S. and Yun, C-B. (2003). Input and System Identification of the Hualien Soil-Structure Interaction
System Using Earthquake Response Data. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, Department of
Civil Engineering, Hanyang University, Ansan, Korea.
Clough, R.W. and Penzien, J. (2003). Dynamics of Structures. Computers & Structures Inc., Berkeley, U.S.A.
Constantino, C.J., Xu, J., Philippacopoulas, A.J., Miller, C.A. (1990). CARES Computer Analysis for Rapid
Evaluation of Structures, Version 1.0, NUREG/CR-52241, Brookhaven Nationa; Laboratory.
De Barros, Francisco C.P. and Luco J. Enrique (1995). Identification of Foundation Impedance Functions and Soil
Properties from Vibration Tests of the Hualien Containment Model. Department of Applied Mechanics and
Engineering Sciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CAN 92093, U.S.A.
De Barros, Francisco C.P. and Luco J. Enrique (2004). Assessment of Predictions of the Response of the Hualien
Containment Model During Forced Vibration Tests. Elsevier, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,
Department of Structural Engineering, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0085,
U.S.A., Vol. 24, pp. 1013-1035.
Elgamal, A., Yang, Z. and Stepp, J.C. (2001). Seismic Downhole Arrays and Application in Practice. Univeristy of
California at San Diego, and COSMOS, Berkeley, California, pp. 14.
Elgamal, A., Yan, L., Yang, Z., and Conte, J. P. (2008). Three-Dimensional Seismic Response of Humboldt Bay
Bridge-Foundation-Ground System. Journal of Structural Engineering, 134(7), 1165.
Ganev, T., Yamazaki, F., Katayama, T., and Ueshima, T. (1997). Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis of the Hualien
Containment Model. Institute of Industrial Science, University of Tokyo, Roppongi, Minato-ku, Tokyo,
Japan.
Gazettas, G. (1983). Analysis of Machine Foundation Vibrations, State of the Art. Soil Dynamics Earthquake
Engineering, 2(1): 2-42.
Graves, H.L., Tang, H.T. and Liao, Y.C. (1996). Large Scale Seismic Test Program at Hualien Taiwan, Nuclear
Engineering and Design, 163, pp. 323 332.
Gunturi, V.R., Elgamal, A-W.M. and Tang, H.T. (1997). Hualien Seismic Downhole Data Analysis. Elsevier,
Engineering Geology, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT, New Delhi, India, Department of Applied
Mechanics and Engineering Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, U.S.A., pp.
9 29.
Hardin, B.O. and Drnevich, V.P (1972). Shear Modulus and Damping in Soils: Design Equations and Curves.
Journal of SMFE, ASCE, Vol. 98, No,SM7, pp. 667-692.
Hashash, Y.M.A and Park, D. (2002). Viscous Damping Formulation and High Frequency Propagation in Nonlinear
Site Response Analysis. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 22 (7), pp. 611-624.
Hashash, Y. M. A. and Park, D. (2004). Soil Dmping Formulation in Nonlinear Time Domain Site Response
Analysis. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 8(20: 249-274.
112
Hashash, Youssef M.A. (2009). Deepsoil, Tutorial and User Manual, 2002-2009. University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign, Urbana, Illinois.
Haskell, N. A. (1953). The Dispersion of Surface Waves on Multilayered Media. Bull, Seismology Society of
America, 43, pp. 17-35.
Hayashi, Y., Fukuwa, N., Nakai, S. and Koyanagi, Y. (1988). Eartquake Response Analysis Considering SoilStructure Separation Using Contact Elements and Dynamic Flexibility of Soil in Time Domain.
Proceedings of 9th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Ohsaki Research Institute, Shimizu,
Corporation.
Hryniewicz, Z. (1981). Dynamic Response of a Rigid Strip on Elastic Half-Space. Computer Methods in Applied
and Mechanical Engineering, 25(3): 355-364.
Huang, H.C., Shieh, C.S., and Chiu, H.C. (200). Linear and Nonlinear Behavior of a Soil Site Using Lotung
Downhole Array in Tawian. Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, New
Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Upper Hutt, New Zealand, Paper No. 1705.
Idriss, I.M., and Seed, H.B. (1968). An Analysis of Ground Motion During the 1957 San Fransisco Earthquake.
Bulletin of the Sesmological Society of America. Vol. 58, No. 6, pp. 2013-2032.
Idriss, I.M. and Sun, J.I. (1992). Equivalent Linear Analyses of Horizontally Layered Soil Deposits. Users Guide,
University of California, Davis.
Jeremi, B., Jie, G., Preisig, M., and Tafazzoli, N. (2009). Time domain simulation of soil-foundation-structure
interaction in non-uniform soils. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 38(5), 699718.
Kagawa, T., Mejia, L., Seed, H.B., and Lysmer, J. (1981). TLUSH: A Computer Program for 3D Dynamic Analysis
of Earth Dams. Reports UCB/EERC-81/14, University of California, Berkeley.
Katayama, I. (1991). Wave Scattering Effect in Soil-Structure Interaction. Proceedings, 11th International
Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, Tokyo, Vol. K, pp. 153-158.
Kobayashi, T., Yamaya, H., Kitamura, E. and Sugiyama, T. (1997). System Identification of the Hualien LSST
Model Structure. Eleventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, Japan.
Kobayashi, T., Yoshikawa, K., Takaoka, E. and Shikama, Y. (2002). Time History Nonlinear Earthquake Analysis
Considering Materials and Goemetrical Nonlinearity. Kajima Technical Research Institute, Tobitakyu 219-1, Chofu-sho, Tokyo 182 00361, Japan.
Kokusho, T., Kudo, Kudo, K., Okamoto, T., Tanaka, Y., Kawai, T., Sawada, Y., Yajima H. and Suzuki, K. (1994).
Soil-Structure Interaction Research of a Large Scale Model at Hualien, Taiwan (Part 1). Proceedings of the
Ninth Japan Earthquake Engineering Symposium, Vol. 2, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 1369 137.
Kramer, Steven L. (1996). Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458,
U.S.A.
Kramer, S.L. and Paulsen, S.B. (2004). A Predictive Model for Seismic Displacements of Reinforced Slopes.
Geosynthentics International, Vol. 11, No. 6, pp 407-428.
Kwon, O. (2013). Seismic Soil-Structure Interaction: Chapter 5. Fundamentals of Earthquake Engineering,
University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Luco, J.E, and Wong, H.L. (1982). Response of Structures to Non-Vertically Incident Seismic Waves. Bulletin of
the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 72, No 1, pp. 265-302.
Lysmer, J. and Kuhlemeyer, R.L. (1969). Finite Dynamic Model for Infinite Media. Journal of Engineering.
Mechanics Division, ASCE, 95(4): 859-877.
Lysmer, J. and Kuhlemeyer, R.L. (1973). Finite Element Method Accuracy for Wave Propagation Problems.
Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, 99(SM5): 421-427.
Lysmer, J., Udaka, T., Tsai, C.F., and Seed, H.B. (1975). FLUSH: A Computer Program for Approximate 3D
Analysis of Soil-Structure Interaction Problems. Report EERC 75-30, Earthquake Engineering Research
Centre, University of California Berkeley, 83 pp.
Lysmer, J., Ostadan, F., Chin, C. (1999). SASSI2000 System for Analysis of Soil-Structure Interaction, University
of California, Berkeley.
McKenna, F. and Fenves, G.L. (2001). The OpenSees command language manual, version 1.2. Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley.
Miller, C.A., Costantino, C.J., Pires, J. A. and Higgins, C. J. (2001). Evaluation of the Hualien Quarter Scale Model
Seismic Experiment, Geotechnical Site Characterization Review, Vol. 2, City College of New York,
Principal Contactor, Earthquake Research Center, Department of Civil Engineering, New York, NY 10031.
Miller, C.A. and Costantino, C.J. (2001). Evaluation of the Hualien Quarter Scale Model Seismic Experiment,
Results of the Forced Vibration Tests, Vol. 3, City College of New York, Principal Contactor,
Earthquake Research Center, Department of Civil Engineering, New York, NY 10031.
113
Miller, C.A. and Costantino, C.J. (2001). Evaluation of the Hualien Quarter Scale Model Seismic Experiment,
Response of the Model to Seismic Events, Vol. 4, City College of New York, Principal Contactor,
Earthquake Research Center, Department of Civil Engineering, New York, NY 10031.
Ordonez, G.A. (2007). SHAKE2000: A Computer Program for the 1D Analysis of Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering Problems, Users Manual.
Ostadan, F., Deng, N. and Roesset, J.M. (2004). Estimating Total System Damping for Soil-Structure Interaction
Systems. Proceedings Third UJNR Workshop on Soil-Structure Interaction, Menlo, Park, California,
U.S.A.
Rayleigh, J.W.S and Linsay, R.B. (1945). The Theory of Sound. 1sr American Edition, New York, Dover
Publications.
Singh, S., Yang, M.S., McIntyre, J.W., and Moslemian, J. (2013). Verification/Validation Summary Plan for
SASSI2010, Version 1.0-250USER-M01, Sargent and Lundy.
Schnabel, P.B., Lysmer, J., and Seed, H.B. (1972). SHAKE: A Computer Program for Earthquake Response
Analysis of Horizontally Layered Sites. Report EERC 72-12, Earthquake Engineering Center, University
of California, Berkeley.
Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M. (1969). Influence of Soil Conditions on Ground Motions During Earthquakes. Soil
Mechanical and Foundation Dvision, ASCE, Vol. 95 (SMI).
Seed, Bolton H., Wong, R.T., Idriss, 1.M. and Tokimatsu, K. (1986). Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic
Analyses of Cohesionless Soils. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 112, No.
GT11, pp. 1016-1032.
Stewart, J.P., Fenves, G.L. and Seed, R.B. (1999). Seismic Soil-Structure Interaction in Buildings. I: Analytical
Aspects, J. Geotech. & Geoenv. Engrg., ASCE, 125 (1), 26-37.
Stewart, J.P., Kwok, A. O-L., Matasovic, N., Pyke R., Wang, Z and Yang, Z. (2008). Benchmarking of Nonlinear
Goetechnical Ground Response Analysis Procedures. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.
Sugawara, Y., Sugiyama, T., Kobayashi, T., Yamaya, H. and Kitamura E. (1997). Correlation Analysis for Forced
Vibration Test of the Hualien Large Scale Seismic Test Program. Elsevier, Nuclear Engineering and
Design. Tokyo, Japan, pp. 281-288.
Sugito, M., Goda, H. and Masuda, T. (1994). Frequency Dependent Equi-Linearized Technique for Seismic
Response Analysis of Multi-Layered Ground, Proc. JSCE, Vol. 493/III-27, pp. 49-58.
Tang, H.T. (1987). Large Scale Soil-structure Interaction at Lotung, Taiwan. EPRI NP-5513-SR Special Rep.,
Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California.
Vaughan, D.K. (1983). Flex Users Guide, Document UG8298, Weidlinger Associates, New York.
Ueshima, T., Kokusho, T., Okamoto, T. and Yajima, H. (1997). Seismic Response Analysis of Embedded Structure
at Hualien, Taiwan. Elsevier, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Central Research Institute of Electric
Power Industry (CRIEPI), 1646 Abiko, Abiko-shi, Chiba-ken 270-11, Japan, pp. 289-295.
Wolf, J. P. (1985). Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., U.S.A.
Wolf, J.P. (1994). Foundation Vibration Analysis Using Simple Physical Models. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ.
Yang, Y-C., Huang, W-G, Lui, Cheng, S-N and Yeong, T.Y. (1995). Strong Motion Earthquake Records for the
Hualien LSST. Report 1ESER95-003, Institute of Earth Sciences, Academia Sinica, for Taiwan Power
Copmany.
Yoshida, N. (1984). Applicability of Conventional Computer Code SHAKE to Nonlinear Problem. Proceedings
Symposium on Amplification of Ground Shaking in Soft Ground, ISSMFE, pp. 4-31.
Yoshida, Nozomu, Kobayashi, Satoshi and Miura, Kinya (2000). Equivalent Linear Analysis Considering Large
Strains and Frequency Dependent Characteristics, Department of Civil Engineering, Hokkaido University,
Sapporo, Japan.
Zhang, J. and Tang, Y. (2007). Finite Element Modelling of Shallow Foundations on Nonlinear Soil Medium.
Structure Congress, UCLA Civil Engineering and Environmental Engineering, UC Los Angeles.
114
Appendices
A. Site Response Analysis of a Linear Elastic Soil Using Transfer Functions
Transfer functions (Equation 1) determine how each frequency in the input motion is amplified
or de-amplified by a soil deposit. Transfer functions basically express a response parameters (e.g.
displacement, acceleration, shear stress and strain) to a given input motion parameter such as the
rigid bedrock acceleration (Section 1.2.1). The 1D site response analyses below were carried out
in MATLAB using the theoretical transfer functions by Kramer (1996), and in MIDAS GTS. The
analyses were carried using different soil profiles: uniform undamped soil on rigid rock, uniform
damped soil on rigid rock, uniform damped soil on elastic rock and a layered damped soil on
elastic rock. The Gilroy 1989 East-West earthquake (PGA = 0.442g) was used as the input
motion, Figure 3-2.
a)
Transfer function analysis and results for a homogenous undamped soil on rigid bedrock:
Figure A-1: Linear elastic undamped soil profile underlain by rigid bedrock
14
MIDAS GTS
MATLAB
12
F()
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
15
20
Figure A-2: Transfer function that relates the surface output motion to the input motion
115
25
30
MIDAS GTS
MATLAB
Amplitude
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
10
Frequency
15
20
25
Figure A-3: Fourier spectrum of the surface acceleration

0.5
MIDAS GTS
MATLAB
0.4
Acceleration, g
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Time, s
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
Figure A-4: Acceleration time-history at the soil surface

30
Input motion
Ground surface response
Amplitude
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
10
Frequency
15
20
25
Figure A-5: Comparison of the input motion and surface response Fourier spectra: since the transfer function for this
soil profile has a value of one for most of the frequency range, it thus had almost no effect on the input motion,
hence the similarity between the input motion and surface response.
116
b)
Transfer function analysis and results for a homogeneous damped soil on rigid bedrock:
Figure A-6: Linear elastic damped soil profile underlain by rigid bedrock
12
MIDAS GTS
MATLAB
10
F()
8
6
4
2
0
0
10
15
20
25
Frequency, Hz
70
MIDAS GTS
60
MATLAB
Amplitude
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
Frequency
15

117
20
25
0.5
MIDAS GTS
0.4
MATLAB
Acceleration, g
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Time, s
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
c)
Transfer function analysis and results for a homogeneous damped soil on elastic rock:
Figure A-10: Linear elastic damped soil overlying a half-space of elastic rock
4.0
MIDAS GTS
MATLAB
3.5
3.0
F()
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
10
15
20
Frequency
118
25
25
MIDAS GTS
MATLAB
Amplitude
20
15
10
0
0
10
Frequency
15
20
25

0.3
MIDAS GTS
MATLAB
Acceleration, g
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
15
20
25
30
-0.1
35
40
Time, s
-0.2
-0.3
d)
Transfer function analysis and results for a multi-layered damped soil on elastic rock:
Table A-1: Soil properties for the multi-layered profile
Depth, D(m)
0.0 6.0
6.0 14.0
14.0 21.0
21.0 40.0
40.0 165.0
165.0
Shear wave velocity, Vs(m/s)

152
213
457
305
610
1524
119
Density (kg/m3)
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
Damping (%)
5
5
5
5
5
5
4.0
MIDAS GTS
3.5
MATLAB
3.0
F()
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
15
20
25
50
MIDAS GTS
45
MATLAB
40
Amplitude
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
15
20
25

0.5
MIDAS GTS
0.4
MATLAB
0.3
Acceleration, g
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
15
20
25
30
-0.1
35
40
Time, s
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5

120
B. Dynamic Impedance Function Solutions by Hryniewicz (1981)

The closed-form equations below were developed by Hryniewicz (1981) to describe the
frequency dependent linear dynamic stiffness of a strip foundation in the vertical direction.
k=
1.2*a 1.1*a + 2.4*a + 0.04

3
+ 0.55-0.25
c = 3.4*2 0.5* + 0.9a + 0.1
where is the normalized frequency, = b/Vs = 0.04 ~ 0.8 and is Poissons ratio.
121
(B-1)
(B-2)
C. Verification of the Time Domain Analysis Method

The following figures provide the full results for the linear verification analyses of the time
domain analysis method in Chapter 3.
1)
Problem 1 - 1D Site Response Analysis

0.8

SHAKE
OpenSees
MIDAS GTS
0.6
Acceleration, g
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
-0.2
35
Time, s
40
-0.4
-0.6
PGA = -0.73g
-0.8
Figure C-1: Acceleration time history output at the soil surface
2)
Problem 3 - SSI Analysis
i)
Part 1, determination of the FFM uKI:

1.5E-03
OpenSees
MIDAS GTS
1.0E-03
uKI, m
5.0E-04
0.0E+00
0
10
15
20
25
-5.0E-04
-1.0E-03
-1.5E-03
Figure C-2: FFM uKI at the surface of the soil
122
30
35
Time, s
40
Part 2, determination of the displacement of the concrete structure only, u1:
ii)
1.5E-05
MIDAS GTS
OpenSees
1.0E-05
u1, m
5.0E-06
0.0E+00
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
Time, s
-5.0E-06
40
-1.0E-05
-1.5E-05
Figure C-3: Displacement at the centre of the roof of the concrete structure, u1
iii)
Part 3, soil structure interaction analysis:

1.0E-03
MIDAS GTS
8.0E-04
OpenSees
6.0E-04
u2, m
4.0E-04
2.0E-04
0.0E+00
-2.0E-04
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Time, s
-4.0E-04
-6.0E-04
-8.0E-04
-1.0E-03
Figure C-4: Displacement at the centre of the roof of the concrete structure u2, taking into account the SSI effects
iv)
Determination and verification of the overall structure displacement uc:

0.003
0.002
uc, m
0.001
0.000
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
Time, s
-0.001
-0.002
-0.003
Figure C-5: Overall structure displacement uc, at the centre of the roof of the concrete structure
123
40
0.5
PGA = 0.44g
0.4

0.3
Acceleration, g
0.2
0.1
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
-0.1
40
Time, s
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
Figure C-6: Acceleration response at the centre of the roof of the structure from the direct analysis time domain with
the energy absorbing boundary, and the frequency domain
0.5
PGA = 0.44g
0.4
PGA = 0.38g
0.3
Acceleration, g
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
15
20
-0.1
25
30
35
40
Time, s
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
Figure C-7: Acceleration response at the centre of the roof of the structure from the direct analysis time domain with
and without the energy absorbing boundary
124
D. Verification of the Hualien LSST Model

The following figures provide the full results for the linear verification analyses of the Hualien
LSST Model in Chapter 4.
1)
1D Site Response Analysis

0.02
PGA = 0.0185g
Acceleration, g
0.01
0.00
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
Time, s
-0.01
-0.02
Figure D-1: Acceleration time history output at the soil surface
2)
SSI Analysis
Basemat level, BAN

0.015

BAN - Time domain analysis with energy
absorbing boundary
Acceleration, g
0.01
0.005
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
-0.005
Time, s
-0.01
-0.015
35
PGA = -0.01615g
Figure D-2: Acceleration time history output at location BAN
125
40
Surface level, WLN

0.015
Acceleration, g
0.01
WLN - Time domain analysis with an

energy absorbing boundary
0.005
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
-0.005
40
Time, s
-0.01
-0.015
PGA = -0.01644g
Figure D-3: Acceleration time history output at location WLN

0.02
WHN - Time domain analysis with an

energy absorbing boundary
0.015
Acceleration, g
0.01
0.005
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
-0.005
Time, s
-0.01
-0.015
PGA = -0.02g
-0.02
-0.025
Figure D-4: Acceleration time history output at location WHN
Roof level, RFN

0.03
RFN - Frequency domain
Acceleration, g
0.02
0.01
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Time, s
-0.01
-0.02
PGA = -0.02371g
-0.03
Figure D-5: Acceleration time history output at location RFN

126
E. Soil Properties: Shear Modulus and Damping Ratio Curves

To run the nonlinear analyses in OpenSees, the strain dependent nonlinear behavior of the soil
model in Chapter 5 was represented using the PressureIndependentMultiYield material. This
soil model is an elastic-plastic material, and is one of the UCSD material models in OpenSees
capable of simulating nonlinear responses, in particular for undrained soils as in this study.
To verify the proper implementation of the PressureIndependentMultiYield material for the
non-linear analyses, a 2D plain strain single element, shown in Figure F-1, was modeled in
OpenSees and subjected to strain controlled cyclic loading conditions.
Figure E-1: 2D plain strain single element in OpenSees
The resulting shear stress vs strain, and damping ratio vs strain plots from the strain controlled
cyclic loading analyses of the different soil layers were compared to the implemented shearstress and damping ratio backbone-curves, Figure E-2 through Figure E-12 below.
Hualien Shear Modulus and Damping Ratio Curves:
Sand 1
6
18
16
0
-0.0008
-0.0004
0
-2
0.0004
0.0008
Strainxy
-4
Hualien shear modulus

curve
-6
Cyclic load analysis in

OpenSees
Damping ratio (%)
Stressxy (kN/m2)
a)
14
12
10
8
6
4
Hualien damping ratio

curve

OpenSees
0
0.0000
0.0002
0.0004
Strainxy
Figure E-2: Shear modulus and damping ratio curves

127
0.0006
0.0008
20
18
15
16
14
10
5
0
-0.0008
-0.0004
0.0004
-5
0.0008
Strainxy
Damping ratio (%)
Stressxy (kN/m2)
Sand 2
12
10
8
curve
-10
-15

curve
-20

OpenSees

OpenSees
2
0
0.0000
0.0002
0.0004
Strainxy
0.0006
0.0008
14
30
12
20
10
0
-0.0004
-0.0002
0.0002
0.0004
Strainxy
Damping ratio (%)
Stress xy (kN/m2)
Backfill 1
-10
-20

curve
OpenSees
10
8
6
4

curve

OpenSees
0
0.0000
-30
0.0001
0.0002
Strainxy
128
0.0003
0.0004
Stress xy (kN/m2)
Backfill 2
30
14
12
10
0
-0.0004
-0.0002
0.0002
0.0004
Strainxy
-10
Damping ratio (%)
20
10

curve
OpenSees
-20
8
6
4

curve

OpenSees
0
0.0000
0.0001
-30
0.0002
Strainxy
0.0003
0.0004
60
16
14
40
20
0
-0.0008
-0.0004
0
-20
-40
-60
0.0004
0.0008
Strainxy
Damping ratio (%)
Stress xy (kN/m2)
Gravel 1
12
10
8
6
4

curve

curve

OpenSees

OpenSees
0
0.0000
0.0002
0.0004
Strainxy
129
0.0006
0.0008
60
16
14
40
20
0
-0.0008
-0.0004
0.0004
0.0008
Strainxy
-20
Damping ratio (%)
Stress xy (kN/m2)
Gravel 2
12
10
8
6
curve
OpenSees
-40

curve

OpenSees
0
0.0000
0.0002
0.0004
-60
0.0006
0.0008
Strainxy
150
16
14
100
12
50
10
0
-0.0008
-0.0004
0.0004
0.0008
Strainxy
8
6
4

curve

curve

OpenSees

OpenSees
0
0.0000
-50
-100
Damping ratio (%)
Stress xy (kN/m2)
Gravel 3
-150
0.0002
0.0004
Strainxy
130
0.0006
0.0008
150
16
14
100
12
50
10
0
-0.0008
-0.0004
Damping ratio (%)
Stress xy (kN/m2)
Gravel 4
0.0004
0.0008
Strainxy
6
4

curve

curve

OpenSees

OpenSees
0
0.0000
-50
-100
0.0002
0.0004
0.0006
0.0008
Strainxy
-150
Shear Modulus and Damping Ratio Curves by Seed et al. (1986):
Sand
20
30
15
25
10
5
0
-0.01
-0.005
0
-5
-10
-15
0.005
0.01
Strainxy
Damping ratio (%)
Stress xy (kN/m2)
b)
20
15
10
Industry data (Seed et

al., 1986)

OpenSees
Industry data (Seed

et al., 1986)
0
0.000
Cyclic load analysis

in OpenSees
0.002
0.004
0.006
Strainxy
-20
131
0.008
0.010
30
250
200
25
150
100
50
0
-0.01
-0.005
0.005
-50
0.01
Strainxy
Damping ratio (%)
Stress xy (kN/m2)
Backfill
20
15
10
-100
Industry data (Seed et al.,

1986)
OpenSees
5
Industry data (Seed
et al., 1986)
in OpenSees
-150
-200
0
0.000
0.002
-250
0.004
0.006
Strainxy
0.008
0.010
150
30
25
100
50
0
-0.01
-0.005
0.005
0.01
Strainxy
-50
Damping ratio (%)
Stress xy (kN/m2)
Gravel
20
15
10
Industry data (Seed et

al., 1986)
5
-100

OpenSees
Industry data (Seed

et al., 1986)
0
0.000

in OpenSees
0.002
0.004
0.006
Strainxy
-150
132
0.008
0.010
F. Nonlinear Analysis of the Hualien LSST Model

1)
Recorded Ground Motions
a)
Event 2
i)
Site response analysis results:

0.020
Field data
0.015
Acceleration, g
0.010
0.005
0.000
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
-0.005
Time, s
-0.010
-0.015
-0.020
Figure F-1: Acceleration time history output at the soil surface
ii)
SSI analysis results:
Basemat level, BAN

0.020
Field data
0.015
Acceleration, g
0.010
0.005
0.000
0
10
15
20
25
30
-0.005
-0.010
-0.015
-0.020
Figure F-2: Acceleration time history output at location BAN
133
35
40
Time, s
Surface level, WLN

0.02
0.015
0.01
Acceleration, g
Field data
0.005
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
-0.005
Time, s
40
-0.01
-0.015

-0.02
Figure F-3: Acceleration time history output at location WLN

0.02
Field data

0.015
Acceleration, g
0.01
0.005
0
-0.005
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Time, s
-0.01
-0.015
-0.02
-0.025
Figure F-4: Acceleration time history output at location WHN
Roof level, RFN

Field data
0.03
Acceleration, g
0.02
0.01
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
-0.01
-0.02

-0.03
Figure F-5: Acceleration time history output at location RFN

134
35
Time, s
40
b)
Event 9
i)

0.08
0.06
Field data
Acceleration, g
0.04
0.02
0.00
0
10
15
20
25
30
-0.02
35
40
Time, s
-0.04

-0.06
-0.08
ii)
Basemat level, BAN

0.08
Field data

0.06
Acceleration, g
0.04
0.02
0.00
0
10
15
20
25
30
-0.02
-0.04
-0.06
-0.08
135
35 Time, s
40
Surface level, WLN

0.08
Field data

0.06
Acceleration, g
0.04
0.02
0.00
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
-0.02
40
Time, s
-0.04
-0.06
-0.08

0.08
Field data

0.06
Acceleration, g
0.04
0.02
0.00
0
10
15
20
25
30
-0.02
35
Time, s
40
-0.04
-0.06
-0.08
Roof level, RFN

0.10
Field data

0.08
Acceleration, g
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
-0.02
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Time, s
-0.04
-0.06
-0.08
-0.10

136
c)
Event 1
i)

0.12
Field data
PGA (SHAKE) = 0.12g

0.08
Acceleration, g

0.04
0.00
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
Time, s
40
-0.04
-0.08
-0.12

8
Field data
Amplitude
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
20
Figure F-12: Fourier amplitude of the acceleration response at the soil surface
80
Field data
70
60
TF
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
15
20
Figure F-13: Transfer function; ratio of the soil surface response to the input motion
137
25
Stressxy (kN/m2)
1)
15
10
Strainxy
-3.0E-05
-2.0E-05
-1.0E-05
0
0.0E+00
1.0E-05
-5
2)
Stressxy (kN/m2)
Stressxy (kN/m2)
-15
3)
Strainxy
-3.0E-05
-2.0E-05
-1.0E-05
0
0.0E+00
1.0E-05
2.0E-05
3.0E-05
-3.0E-05
-2.0E-05
-1.0E-05
3.0E-05

backbone-curve
Nonlinear time
domain analysis
Equivalent linear
analysis
-10
2.0E-05
0
0.0E+00
Strainxy
1.0E-05
2.0E-05
3.0E-05
-1
-2
-4

backbone-curve
-2

backbone-curve
-6
Nonlinear time
domain analysis
-3

analysis
-8
Equivalent linear
analysis
-4
Equivalent linear
analysis
Figure F-14: Shear stress vs. strain relationships
138
ii)
Basemat, BAN
0.06
Field data
0.04
Acceleration, g

0.02
0.00
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Time, s
-0.02

-0.04
-0.06

7
Field data
Amplitude
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
20
Figure F-16: Fourier amplitude of the acceleration response at location BAN

60
Field data
50
TF
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
Figure F-17: Transfer function; ratio of the response at location BAN to the input motion
139
20
Surface level, WLN

0.05
0.03
Acceleration, g
Field data

0.04
0.02
0.01
0.00
-0.01
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Time, s
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04
-0.05

8
Field data
7
Amplitude
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
20
Figure F-19: Fourier amplitude of the acceleration response at location WLN

60
Field data
50
TF
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
Figure F-20: Transfer function; ratio of the response at location WLN to the input motion
140
20

0.06
Field data

Acceleration, g
0.04

0.02
0.00
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Time, s
-0.02
-0.04
-0.06
Amplitude
Field data
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
20
Figure F-22: Fourier amplitude of the acceleration response at location WHN

80
Field data
70
60
TF
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
Figure F-23: Transfer function; ratio of the response at location WHN to the input motion
141
20
Roof level, RFN

0.10
Field data
0.08
Acceleration, g
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
Time, s 40
-0.02
-0.04
-0.06
-0.08
-0.10

12
Field data
10
Amplitude
8
6
4
2
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
20
Figure F-25: Fourier amplitude of the acceleration response at location RFN

80
Field data
70
60
SASSI - Equivalent linear analysis
TF
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
Figure F-26: Transfer function; ratio of the response at location RFN to the input motion
142
20
2)
Amplified Earthquake Motions
a)
Amplified Motion 1
i)
1D site response analysis results:

0.3

Acceleration, g
0.2
0.1
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
-0.1
Time, s
-0.2
-0.3
ii)
Basemat level, BAN

0.3

Acceleration, g
0.2
0.1
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Time, s
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
143
Surface level, WLN

0.3

Acceleration, g
0.2
0.1
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
Time, s
40
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
Acceleration, g

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
-0.1
35
Time, s
40
-0.2
-0.3

-0.4
Roof level, RFN

0.4

Acceleration, g
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4

144
35Time, s
40
b)
Amplified motion 2
i)
1D site response analysis results:

0.6
Acceleration, g
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Time,s
-0.2
-0.4

-0.6

160
140
Amplitude
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
10
12
14
16
Frequency, Hz
145
18
20
20
18
16
14
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
20
Stressxy (kN/m2)
Figure F-33: Transfer function; ratio of the surface motion to the input motion
80
60
40
20
Strainxy
-1.0E-03
-5.0E-04
0
0.0E+00
-20
-40
5.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.5E-03

backbone-curve
analysis
-5.0E-04
-3.0E-04
Stressxy (kN/m2)
-60
Stressxy (kN/m2)
TF
12
60
40
20
0
-1.0E-04
3.0E-04
5.0E-04
-3.0E-04
-60
10
-2.0E-04
-1.0E-04
0
0.0E+00
-10
-20
-40
20
Strainxy
Strainxy
1.0E-04
30

backbone-curve
Nonlinear time
domain analysis
Equivalent linear
analysis
-20
-30

146
1.0E-04
2.0E-04
3.0E-04
4.0E-04

backbone-curve
analysis
Equivalent linear
analysis
ii)
Basemat level, BAN

0.5
0.4
Acceleration, g
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Time, s
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
-0.6

OpenSees
160
140
Amplitude
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
20

20
18
16
14
TF
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
147
20
Surface level, WLN

0.6
Acceleration, g
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Time, s
-0.2
-0.4

-0.6

160
140
Amplitude
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
Frequency, Hz

20
18
16
14
TF
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
Frequency, Hz
148
20

0.6
Acceleration, g
PGA (SASSI) = 0.49g
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
-0.2
Time, s
-0.4
-0.6

160
140
Amplitude
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
20

20
18
16
14
TF
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
149
20
Roof level, RFN

0.6
PGA (SASSI) = 0.53g
Acceleration, g
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Time, s
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6

180
160
140
Amplitude
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
20

20
18
16
14
TF
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
150
20
Table F-1: Shear stress-strain relationships at various points in the FE SSI model
0
-1.0E-03 0.0E+00 1.0E-03 2.0E-03
-2
-2
0
-1.0E-03 0.0E+00 1.0E-03
-6
-6
30
20
10
0
0.0E+00
4.0E-04
30
20
10
0
0.0E+00
-4.0E-04
-10
Strainxy
-20
-20
-30
-30
60
40
20
0
0.0E+00
1.0E-03
-1.0E-03
-60
30
20
10
0
0.0E+00
-10
Strainxy
-30
1.0E-03
-1.0E-03
60
40
20
0
0.0E+00
1.0E-03
-20
Strainxy
Strainxy
-40
-40
-60
-60
151
4.0E-04
-20
20
0
0.0E+00
-4.0E-04
Strainxy
40
Strainxy
-40
4.0E-04
60
-20
-20
Stressxy(kN/m2)
-6
Stressxy(kN/m2)
-4
2.0E-03
Strainxy
-2
Strainxy
Stressxy(kN/m2)
Stressxy(kN/m2)
-4
-4.0E-04
-1.0E-03
-4
-10
-20m
0
-1.00E-03 0.00E+00 1.00E-03 2.00E-03
Strainxy
Stressxy(kN/m2)
-7m
Free-field
Stressxy(kN/m2)
Stressxy(kN/m2)
0m
D
Stressxy(kN/m2)
Stressxy(kN/m2)
c)
Amplified Motion 3
i)

0.6

Acceleration, g
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
15
20
25
35 Time,s
30
40
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6

250

Amplitude
200
150
100
50
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
152
18
20
30
25
TF
20
15
10
5
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
20
Stressxy (kN/m2)
Figure F-49: Transfer function; ratio of the surface motion to the input motion
100
80
60
40
20
Strainxy
0
-0.002 -0.0015 -0.001 -0.0005
0
-20
0.0005
0.001 0.0015

backbone-curve
Nonlinear time
domain analysis
Equivalent linear
analysis
-40
-60
-80
Stressxy (kN/m2)
Stressxy (kN/m2)
-100
80
60
40
20
Strainxy
0
-0.0008 -0.0006 -0.0004 -0.0002 0.0000 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008
25
20
15
10
5
Strainxy
0
-0.0003
-0.0002
0.002 0.0025
-0.0001
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
-5
-20
-40
-60
-80
-10

backbone-curve
Nonlinear time
domain analysis
-15
Nonlinear time
domain analysis
Equivalent linear
analysis
-20

backbone-curve
-25

153
Equivalent linear
analysis
ii)
Basemat level, BAN

0.6

0.4
Acceleration, g

0.2
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Time, s
35
40
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6

250
Amplitude
200
150
100
50
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
20

20
18
16
14
TF
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
154
20
Surface level, WLN

0.6

OpenSees
0.4
Acceleration, g

0.2
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Time, s
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6

250

Amplitude
200
150
100
50
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
Frequency, Hz

20
18
16
14
TF
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
155
20

0.6

Acceleration, g
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Time, s
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6

250

Amplitude
200
150
100
50
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
20

20
18
16
14
TF
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
156
20
Roof level, RFN

0.8
0.6
Acceleration, g
0.4

0.2
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
-0.2
40
Time, s
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8

300
Amplitude
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
10
Frequency, Hz
12
14
16
18
20

20
18
16
14
TF
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
Frequency, Hz
157
20
Table F-2: Shear stress-strain relationships at various points in the FE SSI model
6
4
2
-7m
-1.0E-03
Strainxy
-4
1.0E-03
-1.0E-03
Strainxy
8
6
4
2
0
0.0E+00
-2
-4
-6
-6
-8
-8
-8
-10
-10
-10
40
30
20
10
6.00E-04
-6.00E-04
40
30
20
10
0
0.00E+00
-10
Strainxy
6.00E-04
-6.00E-04
30
20
10
0
0.00E+00
-10
Strainxy
-20
-20
-30
-30
-30
-40
-40
60
40
20
0
0.00E+00
-20
2.00E-03
60
40
20
0
0.00E+00
-2.00E-03
Strainxy
-20
2.00E-03
Strainxy
-2.00E-03
6.00E-04
Strainxy
60
40
20
0
0.00E+00
-20
-40
-40
-40
-60
-60
-60
158
1.0E-03
Strainxy
40
-20
Stressxy(kN/m2)
Stressxy(kN/m2)
-2.00E-03
0
0.0E+00
-2
-40
-20m
10
-6
0
0.00E+00
-10
-6.00E-04
Stressxy(kN/m2)
Stressxy(kN/m2)
-4
1.0E-03
10
Stressxy(kN/m2)
0
0.0E+00
-2
-1.0E-03
Stressxy(kN/m2)
10
Free-field
Stressxy(kN/m2)
0m
Stressxy(kN/m2)
Stressxy(kN/m2)
2.00E-03
Strainxy
G. Equivalent Linear Analysis of the Hualien LSST Model by Choi et al.

(2003)
Figure G-1: Measured and calculated (equivalent linear method) responses at the roof of the
Hualien LSST model for the Jnuary 20, 1994 earthquake
159
Figure G-2: Measured and calculated (equivalent linear method) responses at the roof of the
Hualien LSST model for the May 1, 1995 earthquake
160
Figure G-3: Measured and calculated (equivalent linear method) responses at the roof of
the Hualien LSST model for the May 5, 1996 earthquake
161

Kabanda John S 201311 MASc Thesis

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Kabanda John S 201311 MASc Thesis

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Evaluation of the Time and Frequency Domain SoilStructure Interaction Analysis Methods against the Hualien

Large-Scale Seismic Test (LSST) Data

JOHN SAMUEL KABANDA

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements

Copyright by JOHN SAMUEL KABANDA 2013

Evaluation of the Time and Frequency Domain Soil-Structure

Frequency Domain Analysis ................................................................................... 5

Time Domain Analysis ........................................................................................... 8

Comparison of the Time and Frequency Domain Analysis Methods for

1.3 Hualien Large-Scale Seismic Test (LSST) ....................................................................... 11

Soil and Structure Properties ................................................................................ 11

Previous Studies of the Hualien LSST in the Frequency Domain ........................ 15

Previous Studies of the Hualien LSST in the Time Domain ................................ 20

1.4 Research Objective ........................................................................................................... 21

2.3 Domain Size ...................................................................................................................... 28

Problem 1 1D Site Response Analysis............................................................... 39

Problem 2 Dynamic Impedance Function Analysis........................................... 42

Problem 3 SSI Analysis ..................................................................................... 47

3.7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 60

1D Site Response Analysis ................................................................................... 63

SSI Analysis .......................................................................................................... 66

4.5 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 72

Recorded Ground Motion Analysis Results ......................................................... 77

Comparison of the Analysis Results to the Field Data ......................................... 93

Effects of Amplified Ground Motions .................................................................. 95

5.4 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 106

Nonlinear Analysis of the Hualien LSST Model ............................................................ 133

Figure 3-13: Soil-structure interaction model in the Problem 3 analysis ..................................... 48

Figure 4-16: Acceleration time history output at location RFN ................................................... 71

1.1 Soil-structure Interaction

1.2 Modeling Methods for SSI

Frequency Domain Analysis

Figure 1-3: Hysteresis loop (Kramer, 1996)

Vs2, is the soil

of the shear strain of each soil layer.

From this effective shear strain, new equivalent linear values G

identified for the next iteration.

consecutive calculations. Although convergence is not always guaranteed, differences of less

Time Domain Analysis

Comparison of the Time and Frequency Domain Analysis Methods

1.3 Hualien Large-Scale Seismic Test (LSST)

Soil and Structure Properties

Table 1-1: Properties of the 1/4-scale Hualien concrete structure

Modulus of Elasticity, E (kN/m2)

Damping ratio, (%)

Figure 1-10: Location of the accelerometers on the Hualien concrete structure

PGA (g) at the D13

0.0039 0.0042 0.0059

Previous Studies of the Hualien LSST in the Frequency Domain

Table 1-3: Literatures on the Hualien LSST

Previous Studies of the Hualien LSST in the Time Domain

1.4 Research Objective

1.5 Thesis Overview

FE Modeling of Soil Domains for Time History

2.1 Mesh Size

lmax 8 ~ 10 * fmax (Lysmer and Kuhlemeyer, 1973),

2.2 Boundary Conditions

Figure 2-2: Illustration of the 2D soil model with a transmitting boundary

Figure 2-3: Illustration of the 2D soil model with a fixed boundary

Modulus of Elasticity, E (kN/m2)

Unit Weight, (kN/m3)

Shear Wave Velocity, (m/s)

Figure 2-4: Applied pulse load

Energy absorbing boundary