© All Rights Reserved

0 vues

© All Rights Reserved

- Ground Improvement Techniques
- Beyond EC8- The New Italian Seismic Code
- 09-004 UCB Gen IV Base Isolation Rpt Final
- DLL Template g8 2nd Quarterdone-
- NDRRMC - SitRep - Earthquake & Flooding in Misamis Oriental - 22 February 2011
- 2008 Damage Eval Tunnel in Earthquakes
- GB 50011-2010-EN
- d6066(PotencialLicuefaccion)
- priebe 1995
- Martin et al (2002) - Stability analysis of upstream tailings dams.pdf
- Granular Piles
- 2005 Rajiv Ranjan (Dehradun).pdf
- Earthquake Safety Tips
- 12619804 09Cubrinovski EGESC 17ICSMGE Alexandria
- Mona Ar Dika 2015
- The October 1980 El-Asnam Earthquake in n.w. Algeria Modelling Incoherence of Ground Motion
- I Have 90 Ft Diameter Tank With 90 Ft Height
- Seismic_hazard_assessment.pdf
- Evaluating earthquake loss
- Gravel Drain Mitigation of Earthquake-Induced Lateral Flow of Sand

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 13

ASSESMENT OF SOIL DEPOSITS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

neers in regions where earthquake hazards exist is to esti-

mate the site-specific dynamic response of a layered soil deposit. The problem is

commonly referred to as a site-specific response analysis or soil

amplification study (although ground motions may be de-amplified). This is generally the

beginning point for most aseismic studies and a solution to this problem allows the

geotechnical engineer to:

Assess ground motion amplification.

Provide structural engineers with various parameters, primarily response spectra,

for design and safety evaluation of structures.

Evaluate the potential for liquefaction.

Conduct first analytical phase of seismic stability

evaluations for slopes and embankments.

Soil conditions and local geological features affecting the ground response are

numerous. Some of the more important features are horizontal extent and depth of

the soil deposits overlying bedrock, slopes of the bedding planes of the soils overlying

bedrock, changes of soil types horizontally, topography of both bedrock and deposited

soils and faults crossing the soil deposits.

A complete ground response analysis

Ideally, a complete ground response analysis should take into account the following

factors:

Rupture mechanism at source of an earthquake (source).

Propagation of stress waves through the crust to the top of bedrock beneath

the site of interest (path).

How ground surface motion is influenced by the soils that lie above the

bedrock (site amplification).

In reality, several difficulties arise and uncertainties exist in taking account the above

listed factors:

advance.

Crustal velocity and damping characteristics are generally poorly known.

Nature of energy transmission between the source and site is uncertain.

NON-LINEAR GROUND RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR LIQUEFACTION ASSESMENT OF SOIL DEPOSITS

In professional practice, the following procedures are usually adopted to make the

process tractable and overcome the above difficulties:

Seismic hazard analyses (probabilistic or deterministic) are used to predict

bedrock motions at the location of the site.

Seismic hazard analyses rely on empirical attenuation

relationships to predict bedrock motion parameters.

Ground response problem becomes one of determining

responses of soil deposit to the motion of the underlying

bedrock.

The following are the sequence of steps (Figure 1) to be followed to modify the

earthquake motions in the bedrock to account for the effects of soil profile at a site.

laboratory testing, one or more idealized soil profiles must be selected for the site of

interest. In this context, complete dynamic site characterization includes the following:

Shear wave velocity profile with depth (through geophysical testing method

such as Spectral Analysis of Surface Wave (SASW) method).

Variation of shear modulus with strain (or modulus reduction curve).

Variation of damping with strain (or damping ratio curve).

NON-LINEAR GROUND RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR LIQUEFACTION ASSESMENT OF SOIL DEPOSITS

sional analysis (linear, equivalent linear or nonlinear) are performed for the site specific

profiles using the rock motions as input motion, to compute the time histories at the

ground surface. Response spectra of calculated ground sur-

face motions are statically analysed or interpreted in some

manner to develop ‘design spectrum’ for the site.The

time histories from the ground response analysis can be

used directly to represent the ground surface motions or arti-

ficial time histories can be developed to match the design

spectrum.

Wave propagation analysis/site amplification

amplitude of motion, frequency content and duration of

the ground motion change as the seismic waves propagate

through overlying soil and reach the ground surface. The

phenomenon, wherein the local soils act as a filter and

modify the ground motion characteristics, is known as

‘soil amplification problem’. Physically, the problem is to

predict the characteristics of the seismic motions that can

be expected at the surface (or at any depth) of a soil stratum.

Mathematically, the problem is one of the wave propaga-

tion in a continuous medium.

Excitation of a compliant medium (for example, a soil

deposit or an earth dam) is not instantly felt at other

points within the medium. It takes time for the effects of

the excitation to be felt at distant/different points. The effects

are felt in the form of waves that travel through the medium.

The manner in which these waves travel is a function of

the stiffness and attenuation characteristics of the medium

and will control the effects they produce. Usually, the

geological materials are treated as continua and the dyna-

mic response of these materials to dynamic/transient load-

ing such as earthquakes, blasts, traffic-induced vibrations,

etc. are evaluated in the context of one or two or three-dimen-

sional wave propagations depending on the geometry and

loading conditions.

These are widely used for ‘ground response analysis’ or ‘soil amplification studies’ as:

A large number of commercial programs with different soil models are available for

NON-LINEAR GROUND RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR LIQUEFACTION ASSESMENT OF SOIL DEPOSITS

They are time tested, i.e. most design projects in the past

designed using this methodology survived the earthquakes.

The soil layers are horizontal and extend to infinity.

The ground surface is level.

The incident earthquakes motions are spatially-uniform, horizontally-polarized shear

waves, and propagate vertically.

Methods of analysis

analysis’. The methods differ in the simplifying assump-

tions that are made, in the representation of stress-strain

relations of soil and in the methods used to integrate the

equation of motion. The development of existing methods

of dynamic response analysis has been a gradual evolu-

tionary process stimulated by changing needs of practice

and the increasing knowledge about the fundamental be-

haviour of soils under cyclic loading derived from field

observations and laboratory testing. The method can be

broadly grouped into the following three categories:

Linear analysis.

Equivalent linear analysis.

Nonlinear analysis.

study analytically the dynamic response of soil deposits. Closed form

analytical solutions have been derived for idealized geometries and soil

properties e.g. by assuming that the deposit consists of one Uniform layer with

soil stiffness either constant or varying with depth in a way which can be

expressed by simple mathematical functions. In general, however, soil does not

behave elastically and its material properties can change in space. In such

situations, no analytical solutions are possible and numerical techniques such as

finite element or finite difference method are used.

strain properties of sand by using an equivalent linear method of analysis. The

method was originally based on the lumped mass model of sand

deposits resting on rigid base to which the seismic motions

were applied. Later, this method was generalized to wave

NON-LINEAR GROUND RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR LIQUEFACTION ASSESMENT OF SOIL DEPOSITS

The seismic excitation could be applied at any level in the

new model.

discrete model such as finite element and lumped mass models, and

performing time domain Step-by-step integration of equations of motion. For

nonlinear analysis to give meaningful results, the stress-

strain characteristics of the particular soil must be realis-

tically modeled.

NON-LINEAR GROUND RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR LIQUEFACTION ASSESMENT OF SOIL DEPOSITS

earthquake response study for hazard assessment in Kolkata city, India”. They focuses

on the seismic response studies of the various soil strata (i.e. for local

subsurface conditions) obtained from various construction sites in the city for predicted

earthquake. It is very well recognized that site response studies (a part of seismic

microhazard zonation for urban areas) are the first step towards performance-based

foundation design or seismic risk analysis and mitigation strategy. One of the problems for

carrying out site-specific study in Kolkata is the lack of recorded strong motion data in the

city. Hence, this paper outlines a methodology to carry out site-specific study, where no

strong motion data or seismic data are available. The methodology uses wavelet-based

spectrum compatibility approach to generate synthetic earthquake motions and equivalent

linear method for seismic site response analysis. The Mega City of Kolkata has been

considered to explain the methodology. Seismic hazard zonation map by the Bureau of

Indian Standards classifies the City of Kolkata as moderate seismic zone (Zone III) with a

zone factor 0.16. On the other hand, GSHAP(Global Seismic Hazard Assessment

Program) map which is based on 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years specifies a

maximum peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 1.6 m/s2 (0.163 g) for this region. In the

present study, the seismic response has been carried out based on GSHAP. The results of

the analysis indicate the amplification of ground motion in the range of 4.46-4.82 with the

fundamental period ranging from 0.81 to 1.17 s. Furthermore, the maximum spectral

accelerations vary in the range of 0.78-0.95 g.

Kayen and Mitchell (1997) studied the ground failure following the 1989 Loma

Prieta earthquake. They note that the peak horizontal accelerations on sites underlain by

rock and stiff alluvium in the east bay of San Francisco generally ranged between 0.08 and

0.12g. On the other hand, the amplification due to the presence of soft and deep

cohesive soil deposits underlying artificial fills produced peak accelerations from 0.11 to

0.29 g. Further, the peak horizontal accelerations on Bay Shore fills in the vicinity of

Oakland International Airport, and Bay Farm Island were apparently about 0.27 g, and

at the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge toll plaza and Port of Oakland’s container

terminal at Seventh Street were about 0.28-0.29 g.

During the 1985 Michoacan earthquake, though the epicenter was located more than

350 km from Mexico City, the earthquake caused extensive damage in areas underlain by

soft deposits (Zeevaert 1991). As reported by Seed et al. (1988), Mexico City is underlain

partly by an ancient lake bed and partly by stiffer material. The shear wave velocities of

deposits in the lake bed are ranging from 40 to 90 m/s. But the bedrock below these

sediments has a shear wave velocity greater than 500 m/s. The high impedance contrast

between the two layers amplified shaking at the ground surface by factors ranging from 3

to 20 and caused extensive damage (Dobry et al. 2000). Seed et al. (1988) evaluated and

compared the ground motions from the main shock and after shock for a site. Ground

NON-LINEAR GROUND RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR LIQUEFACTION ASSESMENT OF SOIL DEPOSITS

motion was similar for both showing that ground shaking was due to the site conditions

rather than the source.

Observations from recent earthquakes have demonstrated that ground-motion amplifi-

cation is more pronounced for weak ground motions than for strong ground motions

because of nonlinear soil behaviour. The largest amplifications in both the Loma Prieta

and the Michoacan earthquakes were recorded at significant distances from the epicentre

where the amplitude of propagating seismic waves is generally considered to be less

due to attenuation (Romero and Rix 2005). During the Kobe earthquake the peak

values of accelerations measured in the heavily damaged areas were in the range of 0.7-0.8

g and in the reclaimed areas, these accelerations were from 0.3-0.6 g. The ground

motions were amplified by a factor of 1.5-2 times in the heavily damaged areas within deep

sedimentary layers.

Zaslavsky et al. (2003) carried out seismic site response studies along the coastal plain

of Israel. They found the loose sediments of sand and alluvium yielded amplification

factors of 2-3 in the frequency range 1.2-3.5 Hz. In the Carmel coast, the complex

calcareous sandstone and loose sediments, with a total thickness of 15-30 m, that covers

the Judea Group carbonates, had amplification factor up to 8 at frequency ranging from 2 to

6 Hz. Luc Chouinard et al. (2004) conducted ground response studies as a part of seismic

microzonation of Montreal Urban area. The results of their studies indicate that the

amplification factor for different seismic scenarios were in excess of 3 in zones with a

10-15 m clay layer. Further unconsolidated river deposits also exhibited amplification

factors of 3.

It was observed that a number of medium-to-high-rise residential reinforced concrete

buildings having four to ten storeys suffered extensive damage and/or collapse in Ah-

medabad city, located 300 km away from the epicentre following the 2001 Bhuj (India)

earthquake. The soil conditions at the site represented deep alluvial deposits. A case study

on seismic response of ground and reinforced concrete buildings carried out by Gov-

indaraju et al. (2004) showed that there was amplification of peak ground acceleration by a

factor 1.66. Further, high degree of damage to multi-storey buildings was essentially due

to the transfer of large accelerations to high-rise buildings by soil amplification.

The site amplification characteristics of the 2003 Bam, Iran, earthquake were investi-

gated by Mohammad Kazem Jafari et al. (2005). Based on their geological studies as well

as geophysical, microtremor and aftershock measurements in the study area a site-effect

microzonation map was prepared classifying the ground conditions of the city into five

distinct categories depending on their stiffness, thickness and frequency characteristics.

The highest percentage of damage was concentrated in sites with stiff shallow and medium

depth soils, which possessed considerable amplification potentials in high frequency ran-

ges. The effect of alluvial deposits in Central Khartoum, Sudan, on the propagation of

seismic motion parameters to the ground surface was investigated by Mohamedzein et al.

(2006). The subsoil conditions at Central Khartoum are characterized by alluvial deposits

underlain by Nubian sandstone at a depth of 25 m. The equivalent-linear earthquake

response analyses (EERA) were carried out to study the effect of local soil conditions on

ground-motion parameters. The results indicated that amplification of ground motion was

NON-LINEAR GROUND RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR LIQUEFACTION ASSESMENT OF SOIL DEPOSITS

up to 4.93.

seismic responses at liquefied and non-liquefied sites with same site conditions” and

attempt to investigate mean values using non-liquefied site response instead of

liquefied site response. For the purpose, we choose two sites which are all classified

into Class D in National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), one for

liquefiable site and the other for non-liquefiable site, the distance between the two sites is

about 500 m, and the natural periods are 1.31 s and 1.32 s, respectively. Effective stress

analysis method is used to investigate the change of pore-water pressure, and simplified

bounding surface models are used to model truly nonlinear soil behavior. A suite of

earthquake records on rock sites have been selected from the Next Generation

Attenuation strong motion dataset, and then scaled to the Boore, Joyner and Fumal (BJF)

acceleration spectra in a period range of 0.2T0 to 1.5T0, where T0 is the natural period of

the site, for a magnitude 7.5 earthquake at a distance of 50 km. The reason for selecting

a suite of records is that we attempt to obtain the mean values for various intensity-

measure parameters. These scaled re-cords are then used to excite the two sites. We

have noted that different scaling approaches have been proposed, but we prefer to use

the scale approach, because the scale approach not only captures the effect of the first

mode, but also accounts for soil stiffness softening and possible higher mode effect. The

comparisons of seismic responses at the liquefiable and non-liquefiable sites are

performed from the following aspects: mean site response spectra, Peak Ground

Acceleration (PGA), Peak Ground Displacement (PGD), and permanent displacements

on the ground surface and along the depth.

Results show that the mean ground response spectrum at the non-liquefied site

is close to the estimated ground response spectrum from the JBF model, but the mean

ground response spectrum at the liquefied site is much lower than the estimated ground

response spectrum from the JBF model for periods of up to 1.3 s. The mean PGA at the

non-liquefied site is about 1.6-1.7 times as large as that at the liquefied site, but the mean

peak ground displacement (PGD) at the non-liquefied site has a slight difference with that

at the liquefied site. The mean permanent displacements at the liquefied site are larger

than those at the non-liquefied site, particularly at the liquefied layer.

M.J. Arefi, M. Cubrinovski & B.A. Bradley (2013)conducted study on “Site response

analysis of Christchurch soil sites using a non-linear model” on a set of equivalent linear and

nonlinear site response analysis, using the RHSC and CBGS strong motion station soil

profiles were carried out in order to evaluate the influence of the induced hysteretic

damping. The commonly used two-mode Rayleigh damping was employed to separately

simulate the low-strain damping. Furthermore, both Masing and proposed model give a

PGA that is lower than the equivalent approach. However, in the midperiod range (0.04-

1s) they provide responses that are significantly higher than the EQL spectrum.

Interestingly, all the results are similar for long period ranges.

NON-LINEAR GROUND RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR LIQUEFACTION ASSESMENT OF SOIL DEPOSITS

The performance of the nonlinear site response analysis as well as the proposed

formulation can be assessed employing the deconvolved fault-parallel motion

for site response analyses of other strong motion stations such as

CBGS in this case. In terms of PGA, all methods resulted in similar results;

however Masing-type analyses slightly underestimated the PGA at the CBGS stations. In

general, the proposed model predicted higher response values than the Masing-type

formulation except for the period range 0.04-0.1s. It is seen in Figure 1b that

all methods overestimated the spectral acceleration at periods higher 1s.

The overestimation of damping using Masing rules is more pronounced at larger

strain levels and because the maximum shear strains computed in this profile were less than

0.1%, it is not conclusive whether the proposed model can adequately capture the response.

A new simple equation was proposed for modeling of unloading-reloading branches

of cyclic stress-strain hysteresis loops for sandy soils. The proposed model uses the

hyperbolic model as the backbone

curve to represent the modulus reduction curve. It was shown that the model is capable of

capturing any desired level of energy dissipation as a function of shear strain in contrast to

conventional models which tend to overestimate damping. Therefore, both the

modulus reduction and damping curves can

be simulated simultaneously. In a further attempt, the proposed model was employed to

simulate the nonlinear behaviour of two profiles which underlie two strong

motion stations. The equivalent analysis, nonlinear analysis using Masing criteria,

and nonlinear analysis using the proposed model

were compared in order to study the effect of modelling damping in the surface ground

motion.

“RECENT ADVANCES IN NON-LINEAR SITE RESPONSE ANALYSIS”

Measurements from earthquakes over the past 50 years have demonstrated the

inherent non-linear behavior of soil materials subjected to earthquake loading, and thus

the importance of their consideration in site response analysis. Numerous methods and

models have been, and continue to be developed for determining the soil response in the

time domain. While advanced models are available, they require extensive

information in regard to a specific soil's exhibited behavior while in most cases only

the modulus reduction and damping curves are available. The hyperbolic model has

proven to be a simple, yet versatile model which allows for the inclusion of effects of

overburden pressure, small-strain and hysteretic damping, as well as modulus

degradation due to the generation, dissipation, and redistribution of excess pore

pressures.

The paper described many of the important and practical developments designed to

improve the quality of nonlinear site response analysis. This included small and large

strain damping formulations, porewater pressure generation models, inverse analysis for

NON-LINEAR GROUND RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR LIQUEFACTION ASSESMENT OF SOIL DEPOSITS

learning dynamic soil behavior. The paper also discussed other practical issues including

layer thickness and rock base modeling requirements.

recorded soil behavior (based on the modulus reduction and damping curves)

according to the parameters of the hyperbolic model. Using these curve-fitting

procedures, a new procedure is described which uses the results of dynamic tests for

small to medium strains and the shear strength of the soil for large strains to construct the

soils curve.

Techniques for the extraction of dynamic soil behavior from downhole array

measurements are reviewed. Such techniques include both parametric and non-

parametric system identification approaches which provide insight from field

observations, but are limited by assumptions made about soil behavior or the employed

soil model. An inverse analysis framework, SelfSim, has shown the capability of an

evolving soil model to reproduce global behavior of the site while simultaneously

extracting the underlying soil behavior. Further research is currently being

conducted to extend this concept towards the extraction of excess pore pressure

response in addition to soil behavior.

column response as long as the model parameters are implemented and understood

correctly. To this end, the accuracy of the results is dependent on the

engineering practitioner's understanding of requirements for a proper site response

analysis; which can be significantly augmented by the use of a well designed

graphical user interface in the site response analysis software.

microzonation of Bangalore, India”, an attempt has been made to evaluate the

seismic hazard considering local site effects by carrying out detailed geotechnical and

geophysical site characterization in Bangalore, India to develop microzonation maps. An area

of 220 km2, encompassing Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BMP) has been chosen as the

study area. Seismic hazard analysis and microzonation of Bangalore are addressed in three

parts: in the first part, estimation of seismic hazard is done using seismotectonic and

geological information. Second part deals with site characterization using geotechnical and

shallow geophysical techniques. In the last part, local site effects are assessed by carrying out

one-dimensional (1-D) ground response analysis (using the program SHAKE 2000) using

both standard penetration test (SPT) data and shear wave velocity data from multichannel

analysis of surface wave (MASW) survey. Further, field experiments using microtremor

studies have also been carried out for evaluation of predominant frequency of the soil

columns. The same has been assessed using 1-D ground response analysis and compared

with microtremor results. Further, the Seed and Idriss simplified approach has been adopted

to evaluate the soil liquefaction susceptibility and liquefaction resistance assessment.

NON-LINEAR GROUND RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR LIQUEFACTION ASSESMENT OF SOIL DEPOSITS

This study shows that, expected peak ground acceleration (PGA) at rock level

using DSHA for Bangalore is about 0.15 g. Based on large amount of borehole data with SPT

‘N ’ values, 3-D geotechnical borehole model has been generated using GIS. Field ‘N’ values

were corrected for various corrections. The site characterization of Bangalore

is attempted using measured shear wave velocity from Multichannel Analysis of Surface

Wave. Average shear wave velocity at each 5 m interval up to a depth of 30 m was evaluated

and presented. Based on soil average shear wave velocity and 30 m average shear wave

velocity, as per NEHRP and IBC, Bangalore is classified as “Site class D”. Theoretical 1-D

site response study shows that the amplification factor is in the range of 1 to 4.7and

predominant frequency varies from 3 to 12 Hz. The results of site response studies using

SPT data and MASW data are comparable. Ground response parameters evaluated using

MASW data are slightly lower when compared to the para-

meters obtained using SPT data. Field study of microtremor also shows similar values of

predominant frequencies for the selected sites. Predominant frequency obtained from these

three methods matches very well. Liquefaction hazard map has been generated using factor of

safety against liquefaction. Liquefaction study shows that Bangalore is safe against

liquefaction except at few locations where the overburden is sandy silt with presence of

shallow water table.

Nonlinear Seismic Ground Response Using Adaptive Nero Fuzzy Inference Systems”

Evaluation of ground response due to earthquake is one the most important problems

in geotechnical earthquake engineering. This includes prediction of ground

movements caused by the “hard bed rock” transmitting through soil

layers. Several linear, semi-linear and nonlinear techniques have been proposed in this

context. Linear methods, however, are not reliable since the soil material behave

nonlinearly when facing large displacements occurred by

earthquakes. In current study we use adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) to

assess this problem. Data needed to train the system are generated using the

software NERA working based upon nonlinear method. Two

training strategies namely gird partitioning and subtractive clustering are adopted for

training the fuzzy model. Once the models are trained their predictions are

compared with the well-known commercial software SHAKE. The

results indicate that the model trained by subtractive clustering algorithm predicts the ground

motion better than the other model.

motion using adaptive neuro fuzzy inference systems (ANFIS). Two training

methods were adopted: grid partitioning and subtractive clustering.

Data required to train fuzzy models were generated using NERA (a computer code to

perform nonlinear analyses of ground seismic response). Comparing the

results of these to ANFIS models with outputs of SHAKE showed that

NON-LINEAR GROUND RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR LIQUEFACTION ASSESMENT OF SOIL DEPOSITS

they both present reasonable results. Furthermore, the model trained by subtractive

clustering offers high accuracy compared with the other model. This study revealed

that ANFIS models are appropriate frame work to deal with the

problem of nonlinear ground response to earthquake-induced motions. It is to be

mentioned that some other methods, including finite element method, FEM, have

been proposed before to predict this response when soil

material behave nonlinearly. The method introduce herein, however, offers ease of use

as well as high accuracy simultaneously. Moreover, such models may be

trained on experimental data to achieve more legitimate results from

practical point of view.

“Characteristics of Nonlinear Response of Deep Saturated Soil Deposits”

Recent EPRI seismic design guidelines call for dynamic soil properties

(shear modulus ratio and damping) and liquefaction strength curves to be character-

ized as a function of the effective vertical stress (or depth). A modified version of

the DESRA2 constitutive model for saturated soil has been applied to study the

nonlinear seismic response including liquefaction of medium dense soil deposits of

various thicknesses. The results of the stress-dependent soil properties model show

lower deamplification and higher first-mode (resonant) frequency than that of the

stress-independent soil properties model. By using the stress-dependent model with

impulse base excitation, the nonlinear behavior of various soil deposits has been

investigated under a variety of conditions. The results show that (1) the saturated

soil deposit has a smaller surface amplitude and significantly lower resonant fre-

quency than the unsaturated soil deposit of the same thickness; (2) for the saturated

soil conditions, the larger the base excitation, the lower the surface amplification and

the resonant frequency; (3) the deep soil deposits show lower surface amplification

and resonant frequency compared to the response of shallow deposits; (4) when

shallow and deep deposits are compared, the shallow deposits develop much higher

residual pore-water pressure; and (5) the amplification and residual pore-water-pres-

sure response of deposits deeper than 100 m or so are very similar. The application

of the method has also been illustrated using a strong synthetic base excitation applied

to the base at a site near Reno. The results in general are consistent with those

computed using the impulse loading. The study reveals that the response predicted

from the conventionally used stress-independent soil properties model is unconservative

for deep deposit.

NON-LINEAR GROUND RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR LIQUEFACTION ASSESMENT OF SOIL DEPOSITS

REFERENCES

study for hazard assessment in Kolkata city, India” Nat Hazards, VOL. 61, pp.943-

965.

specific ground response analysis”, SPECIAL SECTION: GEOTECHNICS AND

EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS , CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 87, pp.1354-1362.

Program for earthquake response analysis of horizontally layered sites, EERC Report

72-12. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, California, 1972.

[4] Jianjing ZHANG and Changwei YANG (1972) “Characteristics of seismic responses

at liquefied and non-liquefied sites with same site conditions” Journal of Modern

Transportation, Volume 19, Number 2, Page 134-142.

[5] Bagheripour, M. H., Asadi, M., Ghasemi, M. (2012) “Analysis of Nonlinear Seismic

Ground Response Using Adaptive Nero Fuzzy Inference Systems” J. Basic. Appl. Sci.

Res, 2(4)3839-3843, 2012.Page 3839-3843.

India” J. Earth Syst. Sci.117, S2, pp. 833-852

- Ground Improvement TechniquesTransféré parAkshay Singh Rathore
- Beyond EC8- The New Italian Seismic CodeTransféré parGabriel Lepadatu
- 09-004 UCB Gen IV Base Isolation Rpt FinalTransféré parHaris Alam
- DLL Template g8 2nd Quarterdone-Transféré parChai Barcelon
- NDRRMC - SitRep - Earthquake & Flooding in Misamis Oriental - 22 February 2011Transféré parKagawaran Ng Tanggulang Pambansa
- 2008 Damage Eval Tunnel in EarthquakesTransféré parofelix505
- GB 50011-2010-ENTransféré parrahman fatah
- d6066(PotencialLicuefaccion)Transféré parVictor Hernandez
- priebe 1995Transféré parGuilhermeslongo
- Martin et al (2002) - Stability analysis of upstream tailings dams.pdfTransféré parMunnaz
- Granular PilesTransféré parsgaluf5
- 2005 Rajiv Ranjan (Dehradun).pdfTransféré parVishal
- Earthquake Safety TipsTransféré parNurul Islam32
- 12619804 09Cubrinovski EGESC 17ICSMGE AlexandriaTransféré parAndrea Velasco
- Mona Ar Dika 2015Transféré parPutika Appha
- The October 1980 El-Asnam Earthquake in n.w. Algeria Modelling Incoherence of Ground MotionTransféré parcontrerasc_sebastian988
- I Have 90 Ft Diameter Tank With 90 Ft HeightTransféré paralokbdas
- Seismic_hazard_assessment.pdfTransféré parSushil Dhungana
- Evaluating earthquake lossTransféré parAvi Mero
- Gravel Drain Mitigation of Earthquake-Induced Lateral Flow of SandTransféré parioan_nebunu
- Ley 19948Transféré parDavid Silva
- 1-s2.0-S0038080614000808-mainTransféré parTony Ke Wang
- 38 Indian Cities in High-Risk Seismic Zones _ IndiaSpend-Journalism India _Data Journalism India_Investigative Journalism-IndiaSpendTransféré parDinesh Vaghela
- Linear Procedures in Seismic Performance Analysis of Different.pptxTransféré parAngelina Cruz
- New Microsoft Office Word DocumentTransféré parpadmaja
- New Microsoft Office Word DocumentTransféré parPadmaja Sharma
- Seismic Reliability of Steel Framed Buildings-2010Transféré parelif firuze
- DisasterTransféré parMuqutadir Ahmed
- Geo HazardsTransféré parhartonowu
- bode.docxTransféré parJenica Anne Dalaodao

- (Www.entrance Exam.net) Gate Civil Engineering 2009 (1)Transféré parKrishnan Chockalingam
- ground response analysisTransféré parsridhar
- Civil Engineering Job Interview Preparation GuideTransféré parAbrar Hussain Khan
- [GATE IES PSU] IES MASTER PERT CPM & Construction Equipment St- By EasyEngineering.net.pdfTransféré parsridhar

- Human Origins Out of AfricaTransféré parWayne Jones
- Electrical Resistivity Ground Imaging _ERGI_ a New Tool ForTransféré parJitendra Vaish
- Landslides 2Transféré parJohn Gong
- Design of Roadside ChannelsTransféré parBesim Gülcü
- lesson plan earthquakesTransféré parapi-224842598
- Ch11 Pressure and WindsTransféré parKamlesh Yadav
- KrisEnergy Ltd - Appendix D_Volume1Transféré parInvest Stock
- Tutorial on Effective StressesTransféré parIsmail A Ismail
- Unified Soil Classification SystemTransféré parRoch battousai
- Technical Report Mineral Resources Bongará Zinc Project Amazonas DepartmentTransféré parRocio Emma Tapia Alva
- H. Genz, D. P. Mielke Insights Into Hittite History and Archaeology 2011.pdfTransféré parManticora Caelestis
- Surface Operations in Petroleum Production ITransféré parngoxuandang
- Worked Example 3 Crib WallTransféré parJosue Lewandowski
- Journal of the Czech Geological Society 2005_50, 3-4Transféré parDahli Devilin
- eg1_2017.08.29Transféré parh3493061
- Coastal Engineering ManualTransféré parGerry Roberts
- Oil Report 10262014Transféré parreagandr
- Cyclic Pile Load Test (Major Project)Transféré parvidyaranya_b
- Japan Tsunami and EarthquakeTransféré parRotsen Kho Yute
- 13665.pdfTransféré parSushil Dhungana
- Yardley ChemistryTransféré parvasamin
- Bucket Elevator Datasheet EnTransféré parpeymaneman
- bridge wih sdofTransféré parMai Othman
- Rose_Comprehensive Exam in Science6...2015Transféré parMiriam Garcia Villegas
- Chapter-4-Slope-stability.pdfTransféré parp130324
- Nyame Akuma Issue 020Transféré parJac Strijbos
- CodihueTransféré parmartin
- Plunketts CreekTransféré parMsKaroly
- Rock Engineering for Foundations, Slopes and TunnelsTransféré parGustavo Almeida
- CE 73 Basic Dynamics and Aseismic DesignTransféré pararunachelam