0 Votes +0 Votes -

2 vues15 pages2014_Comparison of Seismic Ground

Nov 13, 2016

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

2014_Comparison of Seismic Ground

© All Rights Reserved

2 vues

2014_Comparison of Seismic Ground

© All Rights Reserved

- Liquefaction
- Liquefaction Hazard Zonation for the City of Bhuj
- 14_03-03-0030
- 16 Sindur p Mangkoesoebroto Paper
- tmpEFE3.tmp
- Undrained Shear Strengths
- [Doi 10.1007%2F978-981!13!0365-4_13] Rao, A. Rama Mohan; Ramanjaneyulu, K. -- [Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering] Recent Advances in Structural Engineering, Volume 2 Volume 12 (Select Proceedings of
- 1809
- lec35
- Ganapathy Cutural Site Seismology
- Design of LRB Seismic Isolators
- turkey-SEISMIC DESIGN AND ANALYSIS.pdf
- Liquefaction
- PB86163110.pdf
- Soil - Structure Interaction Effects With Application Seismic Risk
- Geotech Module 1
- An experimentalstudyoftheliquefactionstrengthofsiltysandsintermsof
- experiment3-1.pdf
- Prosiding SLOPE 2015
- 191

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 15

Nozomu Yoshida

ISSN 0971-9555

Indian Geotech J

DOI 10.1007/s40098-014-0104-8

1 23

all rights are held exclusively by Indian

Geotechnical Society. This e-offprint is for

personal use only and shall not be selfarchived in electronic repositories. If you wish

to self-archive your article, please use the

accepted manuscript version for posting on

your own website. You may further deposit

the accepted manuscript version in any

repository, provided it is only made publicly

available 12 months after official publication

or later and provided acknowledgement is

given to the original source of publication

and a link is inserted to the published article

on Springer's website. The link must be

accompanied by the following text: "The final

publication is available at link.springer.com.

1 23

DOI 10.1007/s40098-014-0104-8

ORIGINAL PAPER

Earthquakes

Nozomu Yoshida

Indian Geotechnical Society 2014

stress analyses are compared at 268 sites under 11 large

earthquake motions in order to grasp general feature of the

applicability of the equivalent linear method and total

stress analysis. Equivalent linear analysis shows larger

peak acceleration and smaller peak displacement than total

stress nonlinear analysis, but other indices such as instrumental seismic intensity, peak velocity, and spectral

intensity are nearly same to each other. Therefore, it is

applicable when truly nonlinear analysis is applicable. On

the other hand, all earthquake motion indices are much

smaller in the effective stress analysis compared with the

total stress analysis at the liquefiable sites, except two

indices peak ground displacement and maximum strain that

are much larger. Therefore, it is recommended to use

effective stress analysis at these sites. However, as indices

are overestimated, use of the total stress can be said to

result in conservative design when inertia force is interested at.

Keywords Total stress analysis

Equivalent linear analysis Effective stress analysis

Earthquake motion index

Introduction

Static analysis based on the seismic coefficient has been

made long time. Recently, however, seismic response

analysis becomes a powerful and important tool for the

N. Yoshida (&)

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tohoku

Gakuin University, Chuo 1-13-1, Tagajo, Miyagi, Japan

e-mail: yoshidan@tjcc.tohoku-gakuin.ac.jp

seismic response analysis becomes important. One of the

big reasons is that input earthquake motions becomes large,

under which design based on the static analysis frequently

results in too conservative design. In order to make the

design based on the seismic response analysis, seismic

response analysis of ground also becomes important as a

tool to obtain the input earthquake motions to the structure.

Input earthquake motion was increased significantly in

Japan, especially after the 1995 Kobe earthquake and more

after the 2007 Niigataken-chuetsu-oki earthquake. Magnitude of the design earthquake motion, for example, exceeds

1 G in the design of nuclear power plants. In Japan,

maximum recorded earthquake motion in the past is usually used as design earthquake motion, as level 2 ground

motion. Design input earthquake motions with maximum

acceleration more than 0.5 m/s2 is not an extraordinary

case, but frequently appears in the practical design of civil

and building structures. In these situations, maximum shear

strain frequently reaches a few percent or more.

Various methods and computer programs have been

proposed for the seismic response analysis of ground.

One of the frequently used computer programs is

SHAKE [1], which is based on an equivalent linear

method. The name SHAKE is now used as if it is a common noun, and it is also used as common noun in this

paper. Unlike the name equivalent, however, it is an

approximate method. Therefore, it is believed that it cannot

be applied at large strains. For example, Ishihara [2] suggested to use different constitutive models and methods of

the seismic response analysis depending on different shear

strain ranges and soil properties as shown in Fig. 1. If

maximum shear strain yields several percent, therefore, it is

recommended to use the truly nonlinear method because

the equivalent linear method is not applicable. However,

123

Indian Geotech J

its easy handling compared with the truly nonlinear

method, and partly because of the huge accumulation of

experience to use the equivalent linear analysis.

Next problem is soil liquefaction. Considering that the

definition of the soil liquefaction by means of shear strain

is usually 5 % double amplitude axial strain under the triaxial test condition, which corresponds to 3.75 % shear

strain, effective stress analysis considering the excess

porewater pressure generation is necessary if maximum

strain yields several percent. However, use of the effective

stress analysis is more difficult than that of total stress

analysis. Therefore, total stress analysis is frequently carried out even when shear strain becomes very large.

There were not a few reports that compare various

analytical methods. Some reported that, however, SHAKE

is applicable, some are not. There seem at least two reasons

to make this confliction. The one is that comparison is

made on very few numbers of case studies, usually one or

two, in which case obtained conclusion can be accidental

except that the mechanism is clearly explained such as Ref.

[3] which shows two shortages of SHAKE and improvement to overcome it. The second reason is that there is no

common method to evaluate accuracy of the result of the

seismic response analysis.

Looking at past researches to show applicability of the

seismic response analysis, agreement of the maximum

acceleration, similarity of waveforms, etc. have been used

as indices to discuss applicability. It is well known that,

however, maximum acceleration is not a good ground

motion index for long period structures.

For example, Yamahara [4] described that damage to a

structure is controlled by the energy absorbed in the

Shear

strain

10-6

10-5

Small

strain

10-4

10-3

Medium strain

10-2

Large

strain

10-1

Failure

strain

Elastic

Failure

Linear

elastic

model

Linear

method

Viscoelastic

model

Equivalent

linear

method

Load history

tracing type

model

Step-by-step

integration

method

modelling principle and method of response analysis [2]

123

grounds used in this paper. These 268 sites had been used

to evaluate applicability of the conventional method to

evaluate onset of liquefaction during the 1995 Kobe

earthquake [7].

Soils are classified into 6 categories, i.e., sand, silt, clay,

gravel, humus, and others. Here, others include concrete

and cobble, etc. In the modeling in this paper, humus soils

are treated same as clay, and others are neglected by

replacing them by the soil below it. The SPT-N values are

averaged in the same soil layer. If there is no N value data

in a layer, it is set same with the one below the layer. These

modeling may not be good if actual behavior of the ground

is investigated, but are not because the purpose of this

paper is to investigate different ground model.

Unit weight of each layer was included in the original

data. The shear wave velocity Vs is evaluated based on the

specifications for highway bridges [8], i.e.,

Vs 100N 1=3

Vs 80N 1=3

clayey soil)

sandy soil, other soils)

sf 19N kPa

Effect of

load-repetition

Effect of

loading rate

Method of

response

analysis

average value suggested by JGS [9]

Elasto-plastic

Model

Nagahashi and Kobayashi [5] showed that peak acceleration is a good index for short period range (0.10.3 s), but

peak velocity and peak displacement are good indices for

periods 0.31.0 s and more than 1.0 s, respectively. Tong

et al. [6] showed that peak acceleration does not agree with

damage rate of houses.

Detailed investigation is difficult only from the similarity of the waveform. Applicability must be evaluated by

using objective and effective ground motion indices.

In this paper, accuracy of the total stress analysis by

equivalent linear and truly nonlinear methods is evaluated

by comparing the effective stress analysis for more than

250 sites and under various types of input earthquake

motions.

evaluated based on Hatanaka and Uchida [10] as

p

/ 20 20N1 degree

3

where N1 is corrected N value considering the effective

over burden stress, and is evaluated as [6]

N1

170N

100

r0v

r0v in kPa

Indian Geotech J

0

10

15

20

10

15

20

Sandy soil

Clayey soil

Silty soil

Gravelly soil

Humic soil

Other

10

N value

0 30 60

15

20

s

G0 c

1 sf c=G0

the Masings rule is used to obtain damping characteristics,

where G0 is an elastic shear modulus.

Liquefaction strength of the sandy soils is evaluated

based on the design specification of road bridges [6]. Shear

stress ratio RL is calculated as

p

0:0882 Na =1:7

Na \14

RL

p

4:5

0:0882 Na =1:7 1:6 106 Na 14

Na 14

6

where Na is corrected SPT-N value considering fines

contents Fc as

Na C1 N1 C2

where

123

Indian Geotech J

C1

8

>

<

>

:

60% Fc 100%

0% Fc \10%

Fc =20 1

0

C2

0% Fc \10%

10% Fc \60% ;

1

Fc 40=50

Fc 10=18

10% Fc 100%

overburden stress obtained from Eq. (4).

This shear stress ratio (liquefaction strength) corresponds to 20 cycles of loading. Shear stress ratio at other

cycles of loading is evaluated based on Seed et al. [11].

Earthquake Motions

Input earthquake motion must have various and typical

natures in order to obtain the general feature of the

response. Eleven recorded earthquake motions which have

different characteristics are employed so as to satisfy this

requirement. They are shown in Table 1 with several

earthquake motion indices which are explained in Earthquake Motion Indices Section. Duration of the earthquake

T in the table is computed from the time difference when

powers are 5 and 95 %.

The input earthquake motions are classified into two

categories, inland earthquakes and ocean trench type

earthquake.

Waveforms of the input motion are shown in Figure 3.

Generally speaking, duration of the earthquake is shorter in

the inland earthquakes, but intensity is larger. Figure 4

shows response spectra of the input motions under 5 %

damping.

These waves are applied as the earthquake motion of the

outcropped base. Layers with Vs = 300 m/s is added at the

bottom of the ground in Fig. 2 because SHAKE requires

velocity of the base layer is confirmed not to affect the

behavior in the subsoil [12], it can be any value; a layer

with Vs = 300 m/s is considered to be an engineering

seismic base layer (bedrock) in the Japanese design specification for port facilities [13].

Two different total stress analyses, equivalent linear

method and truly nonlinear method, and one effective

stress analysis are used. A computer program DYNEQ [14]

is used for the equivalent linear analysis. DYNEQ is an

open source program that has various functions based on

complex moduli method, among which technique same

with SHAKE is used in the calculation, and is referred as

SHAKE. A computer program YUSAYUSA-2 [15], which

is also an open source program, is used for the truly nonlinear and effective stress analyses. It will be referred as

YUSAYUSA in the followings.

These two programs are examined under the same condition, i.e., the same ground model and the same stressstrain

relationships. The only difference is that velocity proportional damping is considered in YUSAYUSA for the stability

of numerical integration. Since the Rayleigh damping is

employed, viscous coefficient matric [c] is calculated from

the mass matrix [m] and stiffness matrix [k] as

c am bk

where a and b are constants and are set 0.090 and 0.00091,

respectively, so that average damping ratio between 0.5 Hz

and 6 Hz becomes 1.43 % (Q = 35).

Method of each analysis is briefly explained in the

followings.

Record name

Inland

543.5

JMA Kobe, NS

1995 Kobe

Hakuta, NS

1999 Tottoriken-seibu

JMA Kawaguchi, EW

2004 Niigataken-chuetsu

Kashiwa-Kariwa Service

hole SG1, NS

2007 Niigataken-chuetsu-oki

Ichinoseki-nishi, EW

2008 Iwate-Miyagi-nairiku

66.5

29.0

5.5

300.6

67.1

7.8

818.0

45.9

5.1

5.8

464.9

50.7

4.1

719.2

834.2

7.7

5.7

307.2

41.4

7.3

1675.8

146.6

38.3

6.5

789.0

155.3

9.6

347.2

45.2

5.3

219.4

42.3

9.25

6.31

1434.6

65.1

22.2

6.0

569.4

73.8

1978 Miyagiken-oki

286.8

31.5

8.1

4.9

147.4

22.6

16.3

Akita port

1983 Nihonkai-chubu

235.3

29.4

14.3

5.1

147.8

33.7

46.6

Hachinohe office, EW

1994 Sanriku-haruka

675.5

45.2

13.3

5.8

436.8

70.9

12.9

Hanasaki, EW

Taiki, EW

1994 Hokkaido-toho-oki

2003 Tokachi-oki

350.7

499.8

24.8

77.2

6.9

51.2

5.3

5.9

205.0

378.8

31.7

67.3

26.5

61.1

123

Earthquake

Type

10.8

Acceleration (cm/s )

Indian Geotech J

400

200

0

-200

-400

-600

10

15

20

2

Acceleration (cm/s )

Acceleration (cm/s )

Time (s)

500

JMA Kobe, NS

0

-500

-1000

10

15

Kaihoku

200

0

-200

0

10

15

20

0

-500

0

10

15

20

40

Akita Port

0

-200

0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Acceleration (cm/s )

Time (s)

Acceleration (cm/s )

35

200

1500

1000

500

0

-500

-1000

Kawaguchi

10

15

20

500

Hachinohe

0

-500

0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Time (s)

Acceleration (cm/s )

Time (s)

Acceleration (cm/s )

30

Acceleration (cm/s )

Hakuta

500

Time (s)

400

Kashiwazaki

200

0

-200

-400

10

15

20

Hanasaki

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Time (s)

Acceleration (cm/s )

Time (s)

Acceleration (cm/s )

25

Time (s)

Acceleration (cm/s )

Time (s)

1500

1000

500

0

-500

-1000

Ichinoseki-nishi

10

15

20

500

Taiki

0

-500

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80

Time (s)

Time (s)

1000

100

10

0.1

PI

Ichinoseki

Kobe

Kawaguchi

Hakuta

Kashiwazaki

Period (s)

10

5% Damping

Displacement (cm)

1000

Akita

Hanasaki

Kaihoku

Kaiki

Hachinohe

Velocity (cm/s)

Acceleration (cm/s )

5% Damping

100

10

1

0.1

Akita

Hanasaki

Kaihoku

Kaiki

Hachinohe

Period (s)

PI

Ichinoseki

Kobe

Kawaguchi

Hakuta

Kashiwazaki

10

100

5% Damping

PI

Ichinoseki

Kobe

Kawaguchi

Hakuta

Kashiwazaki

10

Akita

Hanasaki

Kaihoku

Kaiki

Hachinohe

1

0.1

10

Period (s)

123

Indian Geotech J

SHAKE

Amplification factor

GL-1.5 m

equation of motion is solved in the frequency domain.

Equivalent linear method is used in order to consider nonlinear behavior, in which stiffness and damping ratio at the

effective stress ceff are used in whole analysis. The effective

stress is evaluated from the maximum strain cmax as

0.1

Downhole

Suspension

Observed

0.01

0.1

10

Two shortages are known in SHAKE [1] in addition to

the fact that it cannot express the accurate stressstrain

behavior because it is produced by the complex moduli.

The first shortage of SHAKE is overestimation of the

maximum acceleration. The mechanism is shown in Fig. 5.

Since stressstrain relationships is a linear line passing the

point A (ceff, s = Gceff), maximum stress at c = cmax (s1 at

point C) is larger than the actual stress (s2 at point B),

which overestimation of the maximum shear stress result in

overestimation of the maximum acceleration (See Total

Stress vs. Effective Stress section on the mechanism).

The second shortage is typically seen in Fig. 6. Amplification is significantly underestimated at high frequency.

Maximum acceleration is underestimated by this mechanism.

These two factors work in the opposite way. The first

mechanism overestimates maximum acceleration and the

second mechanism underestimates maximum acceleration.

Degree of effects depends on the degree of nonlinearity. This

may be one of the reasons why evaluations of SHAKE scatter.

10

Frequency (Hz)

Fa

con ilure

fin lin

ing e a

str t low

e ss

Ph

as

et F

ra ailu

ns re

fo

rm line

lin

e

ceff acmax

10

= Bu

v

v

v v

0

'v

'v

v' = m

v

Bp 2

m tan = 1

YUSAYUSA

analysis program. It uses hyperbolic model, Eq. (5), for

backbone curve and the Masings rule is used to develop

hysteresis curve. Both total and effective stress analyses

can be made. Excess porewater pressure generation is

evaluated in the effective stress analysis by specifying the

stress paths in the shear stress-effective overburden stress

to control excess porewater pressure generation. They are

evaluated so that R20 and R5 coincide with the liquefaction

strength defined in Analyzed sites and modeling of

mechanical properties section.

Relationship between

maximum strain and

maximum stress

C

Overestimation of

maximum stress

2

A

B

Stress-strain curve

Stress-strain curve

used in the analysis

O

eff

max

123

which indicates difficulty to express the intensity of the

ground motion in one index. In this paper, several frequently used indices are used.

(1) Peak acceleration Peak acceleration is the most frequently used index because it directly related to

inertia force of the structure. However, it is sometimes too sensitive.

(2) Peak velocity Applicability of the peak acceleration as

an earthquake motion index becomes less for longer

period structure. Instead of it, peak velocity becomes a

Indian Geotech J

11

duration where acceleration exceeds a0 is just 0.3 s in

the filtered acceleration-time history. It is defined by

using three directional components, but only onedirectional component is used in this paper. The

instrumental seismic intensity is considered to be

average of PGA and PGV [17].

(5) Spectral Intensity Spectral intensity SI is first proposed

by Housner [18] by integrating the response spectrum

from 0.1 s to 2.5 s. It is modified to divide 2.4 s in order

to make the dimension of the seismic intensity to be

same with velocity in Japan. Then it is calculated as

1

SI

2:4

Z2:5

Sv;0:2 dt

12

0:1

damping. Equation (12) indicates that SI is an average

of the velocity spectrum between 0.1 and 2.5 s. Pseudo

velocity spectrum is sometimes used instead of velocity

spectrum, but velocity spectrum is used in this paper.

Equivalent Linear vs. Truly Nonlinear

Results under 11 earthquake motions are shown in one

figure in the followings, in which result of each earthquake

motion is distinguished by the symbols shown in Fig. 8.

Inland eq.

Port Island

JMA Kobe

Hakuta

Kawaguchi

Kashiwazaki

Ichikan-nishi

Ocean trench eq.

Akita Port

Hachinohe

Hanasaki

Kaihoku Br.

Taiki

15

1.5:1

1:1

(4)

input earthquake

PGAEQ (m/s )

(3)

not relative velocity from the base although relative

velocity is frequently used as outputs because it is

directly obtained by solving the equation of motion.

Peak displacement Displacement is a very important

index for the design of the underground structures.

Comparison of the relative displacements with

recorded one is very difficult because vertical array

records are necessary and because it depends on the

method of integration as will be seen in in Fig. 11.

However, it can be done between analyses.

Instrumental seismic intensity Seismic intensity has

been used to express the degree of damage or ground

shaking. Because of its nature, it takes time to

evaluate the seismic intensity. After the 1995 Kobe

earthquake, Japan Meteorological Agency made an

seismic intensity which can be calculated from the

acceleration time history and which is consistent with

traditional JMA seismic intensity [16]. Evaluation of

the seismic intensity can be done very quickly.

Instrumental seismic intensity IJMA is evaluated as

10

10

15

PGANL (m/s )

Figure 9 compares PGAs by all analyses, where subscript EQ indicates equivalent linear method (SHAKE) and

NL indicates truly nonlinear method (YUSAYUSA). Two

lines are drawn in the figure whose gradients are 1:1 and

1.5:1. PGA by SHAKE is always larger than that by

YUSAYUSA except only several cases. PGA is overestimated more than 1.5 times in SHAKE in many cases which

agrees with the discussion in Ref. [4] and Fig. 5.

Peak ground velocity, PGV, is compared in Fig. 10.

Both PGVs are nearly the same although that by the

equivalent linear method seems to be a little larger than

that by the nonlinear analysis. There are, however, two

exceptions. PGV by nonlinear method shows much larger

value than that of equivalent linear method under Kawaguchi ( ) and Kaihoku ( ). This is not caused from the

difference of the analytical methods but other reason.

Input earthquake motions are integrated to obtain the

absolute velocity by the Fourier transform in SHAKE and

Newmarks b method (b = 0.25) in YUSAYUSA, respectively. Zero-th order or constant term is neglected in SHAKE,

123

Indian Geotech J

0.30

2.0

0.25

PGD EQ (m)

PGVEQ (m/s)

1.5

1.0

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.5

0.05

0.0

0.00

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

0.05

0.10

0.20

0.25

0.30

6.5

7.0

4

7.0

Kawaguchi

6.5

Ichikan-nishi

6.0

Kaihoku

Hakuta

Kashiwazaki

Taiki

Port Island

IJMA,EQ

0.15

PGDNL (m)

PGVNL (m/s)

5.5

5.0

JMA Kobe

4.5

Akita port

Hachinohe

Hanasaki

0

0

4.0

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

IJMA,NL

Fig. 11 Maximum velocity of input earthquake motions

123

200

150

SIEQ (cm/s)

maximum velocity integrated by the Fourier transform and by

the Newmarks b method. Almost all earthquake motion

shows the same maximum velocity in two methods, but

maximum velocity by the Newmarks b method is much

larger than that by Fourier transform for Kaihoku and JMA

Kawaguchi, which is the reason why PGVs by YUSAYUSA

are much larger than those by SHAKE in Fig. 10. The base

line correction is made on all earthquake motions except two

earthquakes. It indicates that the base line may be important

when absolute velocity is evaluated.

Considering these it can be concluded that PGVs are

nearly the same for both SHAKE and YUSAYUSA

although those by SHAKE is a little larger than those by

YUSAYUSA.

Figure 12 compares displacements at the ground surface

relative to base, PGD. PGD by SHAKE is in general

smaller than that by YUSAYUSA. This behavior can be

explained by the mechanism in Fig. 5, too. Since stiffness

100

50

50

100

150

200

SINL (cm/s)

small. It is also seen that degree of difference depends on

the earthquakes as the same symbol shows similar

7.0

0.14

6.5

0.12

6.0

0.10

IJMA,EF

Indian Geotech J

0.08

0.06

5.5

5.0

0.04

4.5

0.02

4.0

3.5

3.5

0.00

0

0.04

0.08

0.12

4.0

4.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

10

140

120

SIEF (cm/s)

PGAEF (m/s )

5.5

IJMA,NL

Fig. 15 Comparison of maximum strains

5.0

100

80

60

40

20

0

10

20

40

60

80

SINL (cm/s)

PGANL (m/s )

2.0

ru

PGV EF (m/s)

1.5

dz r u

1.0

t +dt

Fig. 20 Equilibrium of soil column

0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

PGVNL (m/s)

Fig. 17 Comparison of PGV

under Kaihoku. PDGs under Hachinohe also seem similar

although PGD by SHAKE becomes smaller when PDG

under the ocean type earthquake than under the inland

earthquake, except the Taiki earthquake motion.

Figures 13 and 14 compare JMA seismic intensity IJMA

and spectral intensity SI, respectively. Same with PGV,

both indices are nearly the same although those by SHAKE

are a little larger than that by YUSAYUSA. It is also

pointed out that data under the same earthquake motion

show similar characteristics.

123

Indian Geotech J

by both methods. Here, the largest strain in each ground is

used as the maximum strain. Therefore, it may not be the

same layer. If the mechanism shown in Fig. 5 works,

the shear strain by SHAKE is smaller than that by

YUSAYUSA. Validity of this mechanism was confirmed

through Figs. 5 and 12 in general. However, there are many

data that strains by SHAKE are larger than those by

YUSAYUSA. It may indicate that vibration modes are

different under each analysis.

1.4

PGD EF (m)

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

PGDNL (m)

1.0

0.5

0.0

0.05

0.10

0.15

analysis are compared here. Both calculations are made by

YUSAYUSA; the only difference is consideration of

excess porewater pressure generation or not. The subscript

EF and NL indicate effective stress and total stress analyses, respectively.

The peak ground acceleration PGA is compared in

Fig. 16. Many data lie on the line PGAEF = PGANL. They

are the case where there is no liquefiable layer, in which

case results become identical. Beside these data, PGA by

effective stress analysis is smaller than that by total stress

analysis. Sometimes it reaches 1/3 or less.

The peak ground velocity PGV is compared in Fig. 17.

Again magnitude by the effective stress analysis is much

smaller than that by the total stress analysis. This is quite

different feature compared with the comparison between

equivalent linear and truly nonlinear analyses in Fig. 10, in

which PGVs are similar.

PGA

PGA

2

SI

`PGV

1

PGV

SI

Port Island

JMA Kobe

Hakuta

Kawaguchi

Kashiwazaki

Ichinoseki-nishi

Akita

Hachinohe

Hanasaki

Kaihoku

Taiki

1

1

2

1

PGD

IJMA

1

max

2

PGD

IJMA

2

max

Fig. 23 Ratio of earthquake motion indices by different seismic response analyses. a Equivalent/nonlinear. b Effective stress/nonlinear

123

Indian Geotech J

PGA

PGA

2

SI

`PGV

PGV

SI

1

1

2

PGD

IJMA

1

2

PGD

IJMA

2

max

max

Fig. 24 Average of ratio of earthquake motion indices by different seismic response analyses

Fig. 18 and the spectral intensity SI is compared in Fig. 19.

Similar with PGA and PGV, those by the effective stress

analysis are frequently much smaller than those by the total

stress analysis. These observations can be explained by

considering the upper bound ground motion caused by the

nonlinear behavior [19].

Left side of Fig. 20 shows equilibrium of a infinitesimally small element, from which equation of motion or

equation of wave motion can be derived. On the other

hand, right side of Fig. 20 shows equilibrium of a soil

column above the weak layer. If shear stress of the weak

layer reaches shear strength, average acceleration above

this layer reaches upper bound. This mechanism can

explain the reason why PGA by the effective stress analysis

is smaller than that by the total stress analysis.

There are also upper bounds on IJMA and SI values, but

the mechanism is somewhat different from the upper bound

of PGA. IJMA uses frequency between 0.5 to 8 Hz and SI

uses period between 0.1 to 2.5 s. Period of the wave

and if period becomes longer than the period that is used in

these indices, earthquake motion does not contribute these

indices. Indices by the effective stress analysis are sometimes much smaller than that by the total stress analysis,

which indicates that nonlinear behavior is significant when

liquefaction occurs.

Peak ground displacements are compared in Fig. 21 and

maximum shear strains are compared in Fig. 22. Those by

the effective stress analysis are sometimes much larger

than those by the total stress analysis, which also suggests

significant nonlinear behavior.

Summary

Figure 23 shows summary of the comparisons. Ratios of

earthquake motion indices by the equivalent linear analysis

to that by the truly nonlinear analysis are shown by means

of rader chart in Fig. 23a for each input earthquakes. Here,

cmax indicates maximum shear strain. The average values

123

Indian Geotech J

seismic response methods is discussed by means of several

indices, the rader chart is one of the best methods to see the

general nature of the applicability, although it has not been

used in the past researches as only one or two indices are

investigated.

The PGA is always larger in the equivalent analysis

than the nonlinear analysis regardless of earthquakes. The

average of overestimation is 1.41 although it scatters a

little. On the other hand, ratios for instrumental seismic

intensity IJMA are always very close to 1.0 and average of

them is 1.01. In the same manner, average of SI is 1.05

and ratios scatters around 1.0 depending on earthquakes.

Again scattering is small. The average of PGV is 0.94,

but in increases two exceptional data explained in Fig. 11.

It becomes 1.04 if these two data are neglected. On the

other hand, PGDs are underestimated by the equivalent

linear method; the average underestimation is 0.80. In the

same manner, maximum shear strain cmax is also underestimated with average of 0.75. Scatters of ratios by

different earthquakes are larger than those of SI, IJMA and

PGV.

The peak ground acceleration PGA is much smaller in

the effective stress method; the average ratio is 0.60. Here

it is noted that cyclic mobility behavior, by which pulsy

acceleration may appear, is considered in YUSAYUSA,

but it sometimes do not appear significantly. Therefore, this

ratio may be different if other computer programs are used.

However, these pulsy wave usually does not affect other

indices.

The peak ground absolute velocity PGV, Spectral

intensity SI, and instrumental seismic intensity IJMA are

also much smaller in the effective stress analysis than those

the total stress nonlinear analysis; the average values are

0.70, 0.51 and 0.89, respectively. Scattering of IJMA is very

small. Scattering of PGV and SI are a little larger than that

of IJMA. On the other hand, peak displacement PGD and

maximum shear strain cmax are much larger in the effective

stress analysis than in the total stress analysis. The average

values are 2.26 and 5.11 for PGD and gmax, but they may

not have practical meaning as the scatterings are very large.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

the equivalent linear analysis compared with the truly

nonlinear analysis; the overestimation is 1.41. It

decreases significantly in the effective stress; PGA by

effective stress is 0.6 times of PGA by nonlinear analysis.

The peak ground displacement PGD is underestimated by the equivalent linear analysis; the average

value is 0.80. It increases significantly in the effective

stress analysis with average of 2.26.

Other indices such as peak ground absolute velocity

PGV, seismic intensity IJMA, and spectral intensity SI

are nearly the same between the equivalent linear

analysis and truly nonlinear analysis; the average

ratios are 1.04, 1.01, and 1.05 respectively. However,

they are significantly small in the effective stress

analysis; the average ratios compared with the total

stress analysis are 0.70, 0.87, and 0.51, respectively.

Vibration mode may be different depending on

different analyses because maximum shear strain

and PGD sometimes shows different nature.

stress analysis at the liquefiable site in order to make

rational design, but total stress analysis is applicable

because it shows larger earthquake motion indices which

result in conservative design. Use of total stress analysis is

not recommended for the design of underground structures

because displacement and strain of the ground are underestimated such as piles and pipes.

Equivalent linear method is applicable in many fields

when there is no liquefiable layer because all the earthquake motion indices are nearly same with those by the

truly nonlinear analyses. Use of equivalent linear method is

not recommended for the case where maximum acceleration is a key factor of the design. Even in this case, however, it can be used because use of equivalent linear

analysis result in a conservative design. Use of total stress

is important when displacement of the ground is of interested such as piles and pipes.

References

Concluding Remarks

Three seismic response analyses, the equivalent linear

analysis, the total stress truly nonlinear analysis, and the

effective stress analysis, are compared by using more than

250 sites and 11 large earthquake motions. Since typical

grounds and earthquake motions are included, the conclusions obtained here shows general feature of the analysis.

The following conclusions are obtained.

123

program for earthquake response analysis of horizontally layered

sites, Report No. EERC72-12. University of California, Berkeley

2. K. Ishihara (1982) Evaluation of soil properties for use in

earthquake response analysis, 9th International Symposium on

Numerical Models in Geomechanics, Zurich, 237259, 1982

3. Yoshida N, Kobayashi S, Suetomi I, Miura K (2002) Equivalent

linear method considering frequency dependent characteristics of

stiffness and damping. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 22(3):205222

4. Yamahara H (1971) Seismic response of structure considering

energy balance. J Struct Eng 187:6974 (in Japanese)

Indian Geotech J

5. Nagahashi S, Kobayashi H (1987) Maximum amplitude as a

simple index to represent strength of earthquake motion. J Struct

Eng 181:1522 (in Japanese)

6. Tong H, Yamazaki F, Sasaki H, Matsumoto SA (1994) relationship between seismic ground motion severity and house

damage ratio, 9th Japan Earthquake Engineering Symposium,

22992304, 1994

7. Public Work Research Institute (1996) Report on accuracy of method

to identify liquefaction during the Hyogoken-nambu earthquake.

Public Work Research Institute, Bunkyo-ku (in Japanese)

8. Japan Road Association (2012) Specifications for highway

bridges, Part V (seismic design). Japan Road Association, Chiyoda-ku (in Japanese)

9. Japanese Geotechnical Society (2004) Japanese standards for

geotechnical and geoenvironmental investigation methods-standards and explanations. Japanese Geotechnical Society, Bunkyoku (in Japanese)

10. Hatanaka M, Uchida A (1996) Empirical correlation between

penetration resistance and internal friction angle of sandy soils.

Soils Found 36(4):19

11. Seed HB, Idriss IM, Arango I (1981) Evaluation of liquefaction

potential using field performance data. J Geotech Eng, ASCE

109(3):458482

12. Y. Usami, T. Sasaki, N. Yoshida (2009) Effect of velocity

structure under seismic base layer on earthquake response,

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

Japanese)

The Over-seas Coastal Area Development Institute of Japan

(2007) Technical standards and commentary of port and harbour

facilities in Japan. The Over-seas Coastal Area Development

Institute of Japan, chiyoda-ku (in Japanese)

N. Yoshida (1995) A computer program for dynamic response analysis of level ground by equivalent linear method, Revised in 2004

(version 3.25), Tohoku Gakuin University; http://www.civil.tohokugakuin.ac.jp/yoshida/computercodes/index.html, 1995

N. Yoshida, I. Towhata, YUSAYUSA-2 and SIMMDL-2, theory

and practice, revised in 2003 (version 2.1), Tohoku Gakuin

University and University of Tokyo; http://www.civil.tohokugakuin.ac.jp/yoshida/computercodes/index.html, 1991

Muramatsu I (1996) On JMA instrumental seismic intensity.

JSEEP NEWS 150:2736 (in Japanese)

Kinoshita S, Ohtake M (eds) (2000) Fundamentals of strong

motion, National Re-search Institute for Earthquake Science and

Disaster Prevention, Tsukuba http://www.k-net.bosai.go.jp/k-net/

gk/publication/

Housner GW (1965) Intensity of earthquake ground shaking near

the causative fault, 3WCEE, I, III-94-III-115, 1965

Yoshida N (1999) Large earthquake motion and ground-nonlinear

problem. Jishin J, Association for Development of Earthquake

Prediction 28:6674 (in Japanese)

123

- LiquefactionTransféré parVarun Shastry
- Liquefaction Hazard Zonation for the City of BhujTransféré parmm
- 14_03-03-0030Transféré parNirav Acharya
- 16 Sindur p Mangkoesoebroto PaperTransféré parfadliamalia
- tmpEFE3.tmpTransféré parFrontiers
- Undrained Shear StrengthsTransféré parIan Ibañez
- [Doi 10.1007%2F978-981!13!0365-4_13] Rao, A. Rama Mohan; Ramanjaneyulu, K. -- [Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering] Recent Advances in Structural Engineering, Volume 2 Volume 12 (Select Proceedings ofTransféré parsumitsaha263
- 1809Transféré parkamatchi
- lec35Transféré parNaveen
- Ganapathy Cutural Site SeismologyTransféré parRamesh Radhakrishnan
- Design of LRB Seismic IsolatorsTransféré parErhan
- turkey-SEISMIC DESIGN AND ANALYSIS.pdfTransféré parsnehar redkar
- LiquefactionTransféré parEkta Verma
- PB86163110.pdfTransféré parSajjad
- Soil - Structure Interaction Effects With Application Seismic RiskTransféré parAnonymous 5exSer
- Geotech Module 1Transféré parChristian Valerio
- An experimentalstudyoftheliquefactionstrengthofsiltysandsintermsofTransféré parita85
- experiment3-1.pdfTransféré parLJ
- Prosiding SLOPE 2015Transféré parMhd Afriadi
- 191Transféré parOpu Debnath
- FONDSUP2003 pp 361-368 Mets.pdfTransféré parchatxxnoir
- Invariants of Stress and Fabric Tensors in Charged Granular SystemsTransféré parAshar Smy
- Instability of a Geogrid Reinforced Soil Wall on Thick Soft Shanghai Clay With Prefabricated Vertical Drains a Case StudyTransféré parJianfeng Xue
- Limitations to the Use of Effective Stresses in Partly Saturated Soils-Jennings & BurlandTransféré parAnonymous GnfGTw
- A Study of the Geotechnical Properties of Some Post-Glacial Clays-SkemptonTransféré parAnonymous GnfGTw
- Exp 3 Direct Shear TestTransféré parumar
- soil mechanicsTransféré parNeeraj Agrawal
- project 2 - alkhaldi - earthquake resistant building 1Transféré parapi-342767788
- LAPORAN DINTAN.docxTransféré parAbel Maulidiah
- Synopsis Steel Earthquake[1]Transféré parKundan KR

- StiffnessCoefficients.pdfTransféré parThanit Thanadirek
- Bard Et Al-2019-Pure and Applied GeophysicsTransféré parVarun Mishra
- Experimental Stress AnalysisTransféré parVarun Mishra
- Mechanical Science IITransféré pareduarvesan1597
- Impact Load FactorsTransféré parMuralidharan Shanmugam
- Matlab TutorialTransféré parPinaki Mishra
- WCEE2012_3419Transféré parVarun Mishra
- 22 Shaft and Its Design Based on StrengthTransféré parPRASAD326
- Attachment M - John Fowler - AnnexXRevB (1)Transféré parBùi Văn Hợp
- matlabTransféré parsvio
- 3d Surface Plot in MatlabTransféré parkyanboo
- s 164 ContentTransféré parOrvin Rommel
- EQTip01Transféré parAhmadi BOt
- 3mile IsleTransféré parUmar Alijandro
- PFBRTransféré parBubai111
- 2.pdfTransféré parVarun Mishra
- Generating Spectrum-Compatible Time Histories Using EigenfunctionsTransféré parVarun Mishra
- Day-1 Basic of Vibration Analysis & DiagnosticsTransféré parVarun Mishra
- Doe Nuclear Physics and Reactor Theory Volume 1 of 2 Doe-hdbk-10191-93Transféré parTiter
- IJETT-V3I5P203.pdfTransféré parVarun Mishra
- Modeling of Nonlinear Structural Response From Explosion Loads on Offshore StructuresTransféré parVarun Mishra
- ANALYSIS OF TENT STRUCTURES.pdfTransféré parVarun Mishra
- ANSYS Workbench vs ANSYS APDLTransféré parVarun Mishra
- lecture7.pdfTransféré parVarun Mishra
- Seismic Waves AttenuationTransféré parVarun Mishra
- Non-linear Seismic AnalysisTransféré parrshaghayan
- Basic Vibration Training documentsTransféré parVarun Mishra
- Factsheet on Radiological Safety and Environment - Englis & HindiTransféré parVarun Mishra

- Bhubaneswar Development Authority Regulations, 2008Transféré parPrasant Jena
- Retaining Wall scopeTransféré parVenkata Mayur
- k14-1Transféré parbinukumar100
- Seismic Slope StabilityTransféré parMUHAMMAD ALI
- DigitisationTransféré parAmit
- ChimenyTransféré parVenkatesha Hebbar
- Earth,Notes,RevQs,Ch5Transféré parGerald Jem Bernandino
- I Predict a Magnitude 9 EarthquakeTransféré parChristopher Michael Simpson
- Masonry StructuresTransféré paranuj seth
- japan timelineTransféré parapi-378150904
- 2016 Harris and Major Eq Catalog SmallTransféré parmooibandoeng
- Underhand cut and fillTransféré parLuis Ortega
- The Ucayali-Ene Basin Report, 2002Transféré parCamilo Matta Torres
- Structural AnalysisTransféré parREY
- Regulations 10 CourseTransféré parBurak Gökdağ
- civil question and answer.xlsxTransféré parAnirudh Agarwalla
- 6.Eng-behaviour of Reinforced -Shivani SridharTransféré parImpact Journals
- CS Podium StructuresTransféré parebazzana
- Night School 12 Session 7Transféré parLCS
- WebTransféré parGetachew Kebede
- Bearing Capacity Shear Wave(1)Transféré pardownloadfast
- A new analytical procedure for the derivation of displacement-based vulnerability curves for populations of RC structureTransféré parakshay chauhan
- Effect of Soil Deformability on RigidityTransféré parCesar Basantes Avalos
- Foundation EQ Design Requirements C7Transféré parthadikkaran
- Insights From Analogue Modelling Into the Deformation Mechanism of the Vaiont LandslideTransféré parSaurabh Bansal Bansal
- lesson plan template-plate tectonicsTransféré parapi-316632323
- LAND SUBSIDENCE REPORT.docxTransféré parsushmithakalkani
- Soal Les Bahasa Inggris Kls ViiiTransféré parFitra Annurhutami
- Tugas SeismologyTransféré parRahman Wahyu Nurmajid
- plate-boundaries.pptTransféré parChristian Ramos

## Bien plus que des documents.

Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.

Annulez à tout moment.