23sept2015 04 K.Pitilakis-Site Characterization and Seismic Codes PDF

2015 ORFEUS Annual Observatory Coordination meeting
Site characterization and seismic codes
Kyriazis Pitilakis, Professor

Evi Riga, Civil Engineer, M.Sc.
Dr. Roula Roumelioti
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

Lab. of Soil Mechanics, Foundations and Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering
Bucharest, 23 September 2015
1
Aim
Importance of soil and site characterization in Earthquake Engineering and

Engineering Seismology.
What do we mean with site characterization? and for what purpose?
 Understanding ground motion?
 Research oriented?
 Seismic design of structures?
 Codes?
 Risk assessment?
2
Aim
Reduce uncertainties
at least the epistemic ones!
Increase safety within reasonable margins
3
More data or better data
More data generally increase uncertainties
Better constrained and well focused data is what we really need
Good and sufficient records in various rock conditions are still very few
worldwide!
4
5
Objectives
Soil-site characterization for seismic codes (EC8)
Seismic codes: Ordinary structures and “normal” soil-site conditions
 Ground shaking characteristics for “normal” soil-site conditions
 Basin and topographic effects
Seismic codes: Special soil-site conditions (beyond A,B,C,D soil classes of

EC8)
 Liquefaction, precarious slopes
 Near field conditions
6
Miscellaneous
• Importance of geological information and data

• Tectonics, active faults, fault mechanism, distance measure, azimuth effects
• Near field conditions, long period pulses, fault normal-parallel motions
• Hazard occurrence [NDP, HP, LP]
• Geometry of geological formations, lateral geological discontinuities,

topography and basin geometries
• Most of our ideas and ways of tackling the problem of ground motion
evaluation are stemming from 1D wave propagation theory
• Rock basement, depth, characteristics i.e. Vs, Vp

• Records on real rock basement or outcrop are limited
• Water table, saturation, seasonal variations, pore pressure
7
Miscellaneous
• Uncertainties in site characterization: How important they really are?
• Geotechnical parameters are practically measured locally. Their

extrapolation to large 3D structures involves several uncertainties
• Laboratory and in situ tests and surveys (local or global?)
• Good correlation of in situ geotechnical and geophysical surveying and
testing methods i.e. SPT, CPT, SASW etc with Vs and shear strength
parameters: It is of paramount importance.
• The correlation of site characterization and soil classification parameters

i.e. Vs, T0, strength, compressibility etc with different Intensity Measures IM
used for seismic design and performance assessment of various structures
is still rather poor.
• Appropriateness of IM for different structural typologies
8
Other issues
We should also keep in mind that in engineering practice soil-site classification
and the parameters describing this classification are also used for other design
purposes like:
• Earthquake induced settlements
• Seismic bearing capacity of shallow and deep foundations
• Seismic design of foundations to ground motions and permanent ground
displacements
• Seismic design of retaining walls
• Seismic design of underground structures and pipelines
• Soil-foundation-structure interaction effects
Moreover the soil classification in EC8 and the proposed parameters should be
conforming with EC7 soil parameters
9
Outline
• Introduction- General comments
• Site – soil classification and site-dependent elastic response spectra

• Is Vs,30 appropriate for site – soil classification?
• New site – soil classification
• New elastic response spectra and amplification factors
• Demand spectra
• Effects of subsurface geology – Basin effects
• Soil strength parameters and G-γ-D curves
• Topography effects
• Liquefaction
• Seismically precarious slopes
• Summary of parameters needed for soil and site characterization
• EUROSEISTEST data base and portal
10
Site – soil classification
• For the seismic design of structures using the current seismic codes the site
of interest must be classified into one of the soil categories adopted by the
code. Based on the soil class the appropriate site-dependent design
spectrum can be defined.
• Site categorization schemes of the seismic codes use different description of

geological and geotechnical parameters to define the soil classes. The most
commonly used parameter is the Vs,30, i.e. the average shear wave velocity
of the top 30m of the soil profile.
11
Site – soil classification (U.S. seismic codes)
• U.S. seismic codes prior to 1994 (e.g. 1978 ATC provisions) proposed four
soil types characterized by both qualitative and quantitative criteria,
including type, thickness and shear wave velocity.
• In post 1994 U.S. seismic codes (e.g. the 1994 and 1997 editions of NEHR
and the 2000 International Building Code) a new soil categorization scheme
was introduced, which uses Vs,30 as the main categorization parameter.
Standard penetration blow count NSPT and undrained shear strength Su may
also be used to characterize the top 30m of the soil.
Soil
Description Vs,30 (m/s) NSPT Su (kPa)
class
A Hard rock >1500 - -
B Rock 760-1500 - -
C Very dense soil and soft rock 360-760 >50 >100
D Stiff soil 180-360 15-50 50-100
E Soft soil <180 <15 <50
Soils requiring site-specific - -
F -
evaluations
12
Site – Soil Classification in Seismic Codes
Qualitative Additionally
Code Categories Soil Stratigraphy Vs
Criteria Criteria
ATC3 4   Vs -
IBC2000 6 (5+1*)   Vs,30 NSPT, Su
7
EC8-EN   Vs,30 NSPT, Su
(5+2*)
Vs,T1, T2,
Japan 2001 3   Descr.
H
5 NSPT, Su
France 1990   Vs, Vp
(4+1*) Dr, Cc, etc.
Turkey 2007 4   Vs, H NSPT, Su, Dr
Norway 1998 3   Vs Descr.
New Zealand NSPT, Su, To

5 (4+1*)   Vs, Vs,30
Draft-2000 H< 100m
www.iaee.or.jp/worldlist.html
13
Site – soil classification (EC8)
• The first version of Eurocode 8
(CEN, 1994) proposed the use of
site-dependent elastic response
spectra for three soil classes A, B
and C, which roughly correspond to
hard, intermediate and soft soils.
• In the current version of EC8, Vs,30

parameter is used as the main
classification parameter, following
the U.S. practice, along with NSPT,
plasticity index PI and cu.
• 5 main + 2 special soil classes are

defined
14
Site – soil classification (EC8)
• For the definition of ground type, in situ data from the same or close by areas
with similar geological characteristics (?) may be integrated.
• Vs profile may be estimated by empirical correlations with in-situ penetration

resistance (SPT, CPT) and other geotechnical tests and soil properties.
• For important structures in high seismicity regions, site specific in situ

measurements of the Vs profile should be used , especially for soil classes D, S1
or S2.
• “More detailed consideration of site effects to account for deep geology may be
specified in the National Annexes. Unfortunately, this refinement rarely takes
place” (Trifunac, 2012).
• “While the EC8 code uses the term ground types, it can be seen from the above
that in fact they represent only five ranges of soil stiffness near surface, without
any reference to the thickness of the soil layers or the geological deposits
bellow.“(Trifunac, 2012)
15
Site-dependent elastic response spectra (EC8)
16
• Elastic response spectra depend on site class through:

• Soil amplification factor S
• Corner periods TB,TC,TD which define PGA-normalized response spectra
maximum S
17
Validation of EC8 normalized response spectra
A, M ≤ 5.5
A, M ≤ 5.5 A, M > 5.5
Soil class A
only 230 rather
reliable records!
B, M > 5.5 C, M > 5.5
Soil classes B-C
Pitilakis et al. (2012) 18

Validation of EC8 normalized response spectra
D, M ≤ 5.5 D, M > 5.5
Soil class D
E, M ≤ 5.5 E, M > 5.5
Soil class E

Validation of EC8 S factors
Logic tree approach
Pitilakis et al. (2012)
20
Approach 1 (Choi & Stewart, 2005)
Sij (T) = GM ij /(GM r ) ij
= 0.35 ⋅ (GM r ) ij,AB

(GM r )ij (T)
+0.35 ⋅ (GM r ) ij,CF
+0.10 ⋅ (GM r ) ij,Zh
+0.20 ⋅ (GM r ) ij,CY
Main problem:
Results depend on the
reliability of the GMPEs
prediction for rock

Approach 2 (Rey et al., 2002)
(a) 4000
3500
3000
R*SA (km*cm/s2)
2500
C, M=5-5.5, N=127
2000 A, M=5-5.5, N=36
C, M=4.5-5, N=126
1500 A, M=4.5-5, N=36
C, M=4-4.5, N=100
1000 A, M=4-4.5, N=33
500
0.01 0.1 1
Period (s)
(b) 20000
18000
16000 C, M=7.5-8, N=200 Main problem:

Lack of reliable and
A, M=7.5-8, N=6
14000 C, M=7-7.5, N=158
numerous records for

R*SA (km*cm/s2)
A, M=7-7.5, N=5
12000 C, M=6.5-7, N=207
rock sites
A, M=6.5-7, N=39
10000
C, M=6-6.5, N=520
8000 A, M=6-6.5, N=47
C, M=5.5-6, N=176
6000 A, M=5.5-6, N=28
4000
2000
0.01 0.1
Period (s)
1
Type 2 (Ms≤5.5)
Soil Class SHARE-DS1 SHARE-DS2 SHARE-DS3 EC8 Proposed
Ap.1 Ap.2 W.A. Ap.1 Ap.2 W.A. Ap.1 Ap.2 W.A.
B 0.90 1.55 1.23 1.51 1.37 1.44 - - - 1.35 1.40
C 1.93 2.54 2.23 2.19 2.12 2.16 - - - 1.50 2.10
D 3.36 3.07 3.22 2.92 2.00 2.46 - - - 1.80 1.80a
E 0.98 1.79 1.39 1.30 1.96 1.63 - - - 1.60 1.60a
Type 1 (Ms>5.5)
Soil Class SHARE-DS1 SHARE-DS2 SHARE-DS3 EC8 Proposed
Ap.1 Ap.2 W.A. Ap.1 Ap.2 W.A. Ap.1 Ap.2 W.A.
B 1.47 1.34 1.41 1.53 1.08 1.31 1.49 0.94 1.22 1.20 1.30
C 2.09 2.24 2.16 2.06 1.46 1.76 1.82 1.15 1.48 1.15 1.70
D 1.74 1.42 1.58 1.56 0.92 1.24 - - 1.35 1.35a
E 0.91 1.07 0.99 0.97 0.83 0.90 0.93 0.78 0.85 1.40 1.40a
(a) site specific ground response analysis required

Comparison of EC8 Type 1and 2 normalized response spectra for ground types
A and C with UBC spectra and the standard spectral shape by Biot 1941 (from
Trifunac, 2012)
Reference rock motion
SHARE project:
www.share-eu.org
http://www.efehr.org 25
• Very limited number of records from rock or rock-like sites (Vs,30>800m/s)
SHARE SM database, Yenier et al. (2010) 26

• Very limited number of records from rock or rock-like sites (Vs,30>800m/s)
Number of stations / records

(Total number: 536/3666)
1820
50
D C B A 1246
45
40
35
35 379
Number of sites
30 29 29 242 184
30
138 83 57
38 15
26 26 26
25 22
20 20
A B C D E
20 19
16 15 17 18 EC8 soil class
15 14 13
12 11
9 10 10
10 7 8 8 99
6
5 43 453 53 4
11 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 22 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1
0
1100
1140
1180
100
140
180
220
260
300
340
380
420
460
500
540
580
620
660
700
740
780
820
860
900
940
980
1020
1060
1220
1260
1300
1340
1380
1420
1460
1500
1540
1580
20
60
Vs,30 (m/sec)
SHARE-AUTH SM database, Pitilakis et al. (2013)

27
Records on soil class A sites (SHARE-AUTH database)
400 40 80 80 400
Oshika station, NMiyagi Ube station, Kamitsushima station, Nishinoomote station, Tolmezzo-Diga Ambiesta station,
Perfecture EQ, 2003 Nw Off Kyushu EQ, 2005 Nw Off Kyushu EQ,2005 Kyushu EQ, 1996 Friuli EQ, 1976
Acceleration (cm/s2)
200 20 40 40 200
0 0 0 0 0
-200 -20 -40 -40 -200
-400 -40 -80 -80 -400

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 0 10 20 30 40
Time (s) Time (s) Time (s) Time (s) Time (s)
40 80 150 40 80
Seto station, W Tottori Bisaccia station, Tarcento station, Tarcento station, Tolmezzo-Diga Ambiesta station,
Prefecture EQ, 2000 Irpinia aftershock, 1980 100 Friuli aftershock, 1976 Friuli aftershock, 1976 Friuli aftershock, 1976
20 40 20 40
50
0 0 0 0 0
-50
-20 -40 -20 -40
-100
-40 -80 -150 -40 -80

0 100 200 300 0 10 20 30 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 4 8 12 16
600 80 80 120
Bisaccia station,
400 Gilroy array, Gilroy array, Auletta station, 80 Irpinia EQ, 1980 400 Pacoima Dam station,
Morgan Hill EQ, 1984

Loma Prieta EQ, 1989 Irpinia EQ, 1980 Northridge EQ, 1994
40 40
200 40
0
0 0 0 0
-200 -40
-40 -40 -400
-400 -80
-600 -80 -80 -120 -800

0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 0 4 8 12 16 20
28
EC8-Class A-Type 1
5 EC8-Class A-Type 2
4
PSA/PGA
Bisaccia station ,
Irpinia EQ and aftershock, 1980
1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
T (s)
29
4 4
A1&A2, M<=5.5 A1&A2, M>5.5
MEDIAN MEDIAN
PROPOSED PROPOSED
3 16th-84th percentile 3 16th-84th percentile

N=11 N=18
PSA/PGA
PSA/PGA
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

T (sec) T (sec)
8 8
A1&A2, M<=5.5 A1&A2, M>5.5
MEDIAN MEDIAN
16th-84th percentiles 16th-84th percentiles
PROPOSED PROPOSED
6 6
N=11 N=18
PSA/PGA
PSA/PGA
4 4
2 2
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

T (sec) T (sec) 30
Is Vs,30 appropriate for site – soil classification?
• Advantages of Vs,30:
• Simple and effective in practice
• Requires little data: a simple N-SPT of 30m long or less is enough!
• Disadvantages of Vs,30:
• It is not a fundamental (geotechnical) parameter
• Could mislead grossly in different cases like: deep low stiffness deposits
lying on much harder rock; sites with a shallow velocity inversion; sites with
velocity profiles which are not monotonically increasing with depth or do
not exhibit a strong impedance contrast in the first dozen meters or in
basin type structures.
• Can the single knowledge of Vs,30 quantify properly amplification, which is

mainly due to the effects of impedance contrast?
• Proposal of different alternative parameters (T0, H, Vs,av, Vs,10, Vs,25)
31
Vs(m/ s) Vs(m/ s) Vs (m /s)
0 4 0 0 8 0 0 1 2 0 0 16 0 0 0 40 0 800 1200 1600 0 400 800 1200
0 0 0
-3.6 0 -2.50 CL
SM - SC 38 CL
SC 34 3
80 1/5
100/10 C L- M L
SM 24,60/10
65
Representative SC 60/10 SM
soil profiles from 10

ML 51 10 CL
127
10 10
strong-motion
SM --SC
18,60/15 8
CL
station sites in 47 ML
> 100
Greece classified
ML 102
24,60/15 t rav. R*
-19 .30 SM
as soil class B 20
sch 60/5
20
100/10
20
according to EC8 SM 81 CL
trav. R
sch C L- M L
100/10
30 30 30
CH
' 100/15
sch
CL
40 40 40
0 40 80 120 160 40 80 120 0 20 40 60 32
80 100
N30--S..P ..T.. N3 0--S..P ..T.. N3 0--S..P..T..
Vs(m/ s) Vs(m/ s) Vs( m/ s)
0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800
0 0 0
-2.00
CL
3
CL
--5..70 SM 11 --5..70 SM 11
5
28 28 CH
Representative
ML ML
10
12 12 SC
soil profiles from

CL 10
M L
10 CL 4 10 CL 4 10
strong-motion 5 5 ML 13
station sites in
53
C L- M L C L- M L CL
16 16 54
Greece classified
ML ML
54 54 72
CL
as soil class C 20
SM 78
20
SM 78
20
CL 84
according to EC8 CL CL 79
50/15 50/15
106
50/15 50/15
89
50/5 50/5
30 CL 30 CL 30 CL 86
50/12 50/12
CL 105
50/15 50/15 126

CL CL
50/12 50/12 CL
CL
40 CL ' 50/13 40 CL ' 50/13 40

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 40 80 33
120 160
N30--S..P ..T.. N30--S..P ..T.. N30--S..P ..T..
Is Vs,30Soil Profilesfor
appropriate from
siteCoastal Area
– soil classification
Vs(m/s) Vs(m/s) Vs(m/s)

0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800 0 800 1600
0 0 0
Debris GW - GC
59
SandSt .
100
Calc. SC- GC
SandSt . 66 4
100
21 100 Sand 15
Calc. 100 St one
26 Sand
10 10 St one 100 10 7
21
21
M arl- 100 22
M arles 23 68
27 Serp.
61 4
29 80
St ones 20
50 50
20 25 20 M arls 45 20
26
85
27
35 36
30
Serp.
30 36 30 30
283 427 916

RQD
40 40 40
0 20 40 60 80 100 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
N30-S.P.T. N30-S.P.T. RQD
Elevated marine terraces:

gradual decrease of Vs with depth – large variability
2nd International Conference on Performance-Based Design in Earthquake Geotechnical 34
Engineering
Sites with identical Vs,30, but different layering, can have significantly
different response
Idriss (2011)
• Bucharest, Mexico City, other deep basin sites like the basin of Po in North
Italy or even cities with archeological layers of considerable thickness like
Rome or Thessaloniki, are among the most characteristic cases of not
appropriateness of Vs,30
36
Gradient shear wave velocity
a
z
V (z) = V + (V −V )⋅ 
s s, top s,bot s, top  h 
1
a=0.69
0.8
Fit Results
Equation Y = pow(x,a)
[Vs(z)-Vs top]/(Vs bot-Vs top)
a = 0.69
0.6
,
Number of data points used = 2988

,
Average X = 0.446144
Average Y = 0.516936
,
Residual sum of squares = 123.441

0.4 Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.51
Soil class C sites

0.2 from SHARE-AUTH
SM database with
depth>30m
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Riga (2015)

z/h
37
New site – soil classification scheme (Pitilakis et al., 2013)
• Soil classes initially proposed based on theoretical 1D analyses of representative
models of realistic soil conditions (Pitilakis et al., 2004, 2006)
• Further developed based exclusively on experimental data from the SHARE data
base enriched where possible from other sites worldwide (Pitilakis et al., 2013)
• Main parameters:
• Fundamental period of soil deposit T0
• Average shear wave velocity of the entire soil deposit Vs,av
• Thickness of soil deposit H
• N-SPT, PI, Su
• More detailed geotechnical soil description and categorization
38
Description Τ0 Remarks
Α1 Rock formations Vs ≥ 1500 m/s
Surface weathered
Slightly weathered / segmented rock formations layer: Vs,av ≥ 200 m/s
(thickness of weathered layer <5.0m ) Rock Formations:
≤ 0.2s Vs ≥ 800 m/s
Α2
Geologic formations resembling rock formations in their
mechanical properties and their composition (e.g. Vs ≥ 800 m/s
conglomerates)
Highly weathered rock formations whose weathered Weathered layer,
layer has a considerable thickness (> 5.0m - 30.0m) Vs,av ≥ 300 m/s
Soft rock formations of great thickness or formations Vs: 400-800 m/s
which resemble these in their mechanical properties N-SPT > 50
Β1 (e.g. stiff marls) ≤ 0.5s Su> 200 KPa
Soil formations of very dense sand – sand gravel and/or Vs,av: 400-800 m/s
very stiff/ to hard clay, of homogenous nature and small N-SPT > 50
thickness (up to 30.0m) Su > 200 KPa
Soil formations of very dense sand – sand gravel and/or Vs,av: 400-800 m/s
very stiff/ to hard clay, of homogenous nature and
Β2 ≤ 0.8s N-SPT > 50
medium thickness (30.0 - 60.0m), whose mechanical
properties increase with depth Su > 200 KPa
39
Soil formations of dense to very dense sand – sand

Vs,av: 400-800 m/s
gravel and/or stiff to very stiff clay, of great thickness
C1 ≤ 1.5s N -SPT> 50
(> 60.0m), whose mechanical properties and strength
Su > 200 KPa
are constant and/or increase with depth
Soil formations of medium dense sand – sand gravel

Vs,av: 200-450 m/s
and/or medium stiffness clay
C2 ≤ 1.5s N -SPT> 20
(PI > 15, fines percentage > 30%) of medium thickness
Su > 70 KPa
(20.0 – 60.0m)
Category C2 soil formations of great thickness (>60.0

Vs,av:200-450 m/s
m), homogenous or stratified that are not interrupted
C3 ≤ 1.8s N-SPT > 20
by any other soil formation with a thickness of more
Su > 70 Kpa
than 5.0m and of lower strength and Vs velocity
40
Recent soil deposits of substantial thickness (up to Vs,av ≤ 300 m/s

60m), with the prevailing formations being soft clays
D1 ≤ 2.0s N-SPT < 25
of high plasticity index (PI>40), high water content
and low values of strength parameters Su < 70KPa
Recent soil deposits of substantial thickness (up to

60m), with prevailing fairly loose sandy to sandy-silty Vs,av ≤ 300 m/s
D2 ≤ 2.0s
formations with a substantial fines percentage (not to N-SPT < 25
be considered susceptible to liquefaction)
Soil formations of great overall thickness (> 60.0m),

interrupted by layers of category D1 or D2 soils of a
D3 small thickness (5 – 15m), up to the depth of ~40m, ≤ 3.0s Vs,av : 150-600 m/s
within soils (sandy and/or clayey, category C) of
evidently greater strength, with Vs≥ 300 m/sec
41
Surface soil formations of small thickness (5 - 20m),
small strength and stiffness, likely to be classified as Surface soil layers,
Ε category C and D according to its geotechnical ≤ 0.7s
properties, which overlie category Α formations (Vs ≥ Vs,av ≤ 400 m/s
800 m/sec)
Loose fine sandy-silty soils beneath the water table, susceptible to liquefaction (unless a
special study proves no such danger, or if the soil’s mechanical properties are improved)
Soils near obvious tectonic faults
Steep slopes covered with loose lateral deposits
ΕX Loose granular or soft silty-clayey soils, provided they have been proven to be hazardous in
terms of dynamic compaction or loss of strength.
Recent loose landfills
Soils with a very high percentage in organic material
Soils requiring site-specific evaluations
42
EC8
EC8 t a New
s et aCS 0
800 800
700 700
600 600
B1 B2 C1
Vs,av (m/s)
Vs,30 (m/s)
500 500
A2
400 B 400
C2 C3
300 300
E
200 C 200 D1, D2
A Ε D D3
100 100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
H (m) H (m)
43
Amplification factors S (at T=0sec)
Type 2 (Ms≤5.5) Type 1 (Ms>5.5)

Soil
Class Ap. 1 Ap. 2 Weighted Proposed EC8 Ap. 1 Ap. 2
Weighted
Proposed EC8
Average Average
B1 1.28 0.99 1.13 1.20 1.35 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.10 1.20
B2 1.89 1.17 1.53 1.50 (B) 1.36 1.28 1.32 1.30 (B)
C1 2.02 1.46 1.74 1.80 2.19 1.27 1.73 1.70

1.50 1.15
C2 2.08 1.39 1.74 1.70 1.35 1.15 1.25 1.30
(C) (C)
C3 2.59 1.61 2.10 2.10 1.57 1.07 1.32 1.30
D 2.19 2.26 2.23 2.00a 1.80 2.03 1.79 1.91 1.80 a 1.35
E 1.54 1.30 1.42 1.60a 1.60 1.10 0.94 1.02 1.40 a 1.40
a Site specific ground response analysis required
44
Elastic acceleration response spectra (5%)
45
Period-dependent amplification factors
EC8 Improved EC8

Current EC8 - Type 1 Improved EC8 - Type 1
3 3
2.5 2.5
B B
C C
2 2
S
S
D D
E E
1.5 1.5
1 1
New CS
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
T (sec) T (sec)
New CS - Type 1
5
4 B1
Β2
C1
3 C2
S
C3
D
2 E
1
Pitilakis et al. (2012, 2013)
0 1 2 3 4
T (sec) 46
Site – soil classification - The case of Thessaloniki
EC8 classification scheme New classification scheme
47
Demand spectra
• Performance-based design
48
Demand spectra
49
Soil strength parameters and G-γ-D curves (EC8)
• Soil strength parameters:
• Undrained shear strength Su for cohesive soils
• Cyclic undrained shear strength τcy,u for cohesionless soils
• Angle of friction and cohesion (UU or CU conditions)
• Soil stiffness:
• Maximum shear modulus G=ρ Vs2 at very low strains
• Dependence of G (and Vs*) on the soil strains must be taken into account
through proper reduction factors (EC8?) or better selecting appropriate
G/G0-γ- D curves for all soil types
• Soil damping:
• Soil damping should be estimated from laboratory or field tests (?)
• The dependence of damping ratio on the soil strain level must be taken
into account (as for the soil stiffness)
51
Vs and G –γ - D
Field methods for Vs

Invasive: CH, DH, P-S log, SCPT
Non-Invasive: SASW, f-k, SPAC, ReMi, SWI, MAM
Several correlations with SPT, CPT
52
Vs and G-γ-D
Vucetic and Dobry (1991)
RC and CTX lab tests, or/and

Typical set of curves from the literature (PI and Dr% for clayey and
cohesionless soils are proposed in the literature)
53
Vs and G-γ-D values suggested in EC8
For Vs>360m/s?
54
Basin effects
• They can be taken into account through an aggravation factor AGF
Spectral acceleration from 2D analysis
AGF (T ) =
Spectral acceleration from 1D analysis
Chávez-García and Faccioli (2004)
• Parametric numerical analyses for idealized trapezoidal basins
Material property Material 1 Material 2 Material 3

S-wave velocity (Vs in m/s) 250 350 500
Quality factor of S-waves (Qs) 25 35 50
Sediments P-wave velocity (Vs in m/s) 1600 1750 2000
Quality factor of P-waves (Qp) 50 70 100
Density (ρ in kg/m3) 2000
55
Basin effects
Maximum aggravation factor along the surface of the basin
(linear viscoelastic analyses)
h=120m, a1=a2=45o, Vs=250m/s w=5000m, h=120m, Vs=250m/s

2 2
1.8 1.8
1.6 1.6
1.4 1.4
max AGF
max AGF
1.2 1.2
1 1
0.8 0.8
w=2500m a1=a2=20
w=5000m a1=a2=45
Pitilakis et al. (2015)
0.6 0.6
w=10000m a1=a2=65
0.4 0.4
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
56
x/W x/W
Basin effects
Effect of shear wave velocity gradient
homogenous - viscoelastic
gradient - 0.1g
w=2500m, h=250m, a=45o, Vs,av=250m/s w=2500m, h=250m, a=45o, Vs,av=350m/s w=2500m, h=250m, a=45o, Vs,av=500m/s
2.4 2.4 2.4
2.2 2.2 2.2
2 2 2
1.8 1.8 1.8
1.6 1.6 1.6

max AGF
max AGF
max AGF
1.4 1.4 1.4
1.2 1.2 1.2
1 1 1
0.8 0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4 0.4
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 0 250 500 750 1000 1250
x x x
Riga (2015)
• Detrimental (increase of AGF) effect of shear wave velocity gradient at the

vicinity of the lateral discontinuity in particular for low Vs values
• Minor effect at the constant-depth part of the basin
57
Basin effects
Effect of soil nonlinearity
gradient - 0.1g
gradient - 0.3g
gradient - 0.5g
w=2500m, h=250m, a=45o, Vs,av=250m/s w=2500m, h=250m, a=45o, Vs,av=350m/s w=2500m, h=250m, a=45o, Vs,av=500m/s
2.4 2.4 2.4
2.2 2.2 2.2
2 2 2
1.8 1.8 1.8
1.6 1.6 1.6
max AGF
max AGF
max AGF
1.4 1.4 1.4
1.2 1.2 1.2
1 1 1
0.8 0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4 0.4
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 0 250 500 750 1000 1250
x x x
Riga (2015)
• Consideration of soil nonlinearity for the sediments material does not affect
the estimated aggravation factor significantly (small decrease of AGF far from
the basin edge and minor increase close to the basin edge)
58
Basin effects - Summary
• Average AGF is varying from 1.1 to 1.5 (sometimes more!)

• AGF is not uniform along the basin
• AGF depends mainly on the following parameters
• Geometry (width, depth, slope)
• Vs(z)
and less on
• Intensity of ground motion
• Soil NL (G-γ-D)
59
Topography effects (EC8)
• Simplified period-independent amplification factors ST are proposed for
slope inclination greater than 15o and height greater than H=30m.
• In the presence of a soft surface layer the amplification factor should be

increased by 20%.
Not sufficiently complete and accurate: Further improvement is needed
60
Liquefaction (EC8)
• EC8 calls for an evaluation of liquefaction susceptibility for extended layers of
loose sand with or without silt/clay fines beneath the water table level. For
shallow foundations evaluation of liquefaction susceptibility may be omitted
when the saturated sandy soils are at depths greater than 15m.
• Minimum required investigations for evaluation of liquefaction susceptibility:

SPT or CPT (or CPTU) in-situ tests and grain size distributions. PI may be used
as complementary information
• If liquefaction hazard may not be neglected, and the liquefaction

susceptibility is high, well established methods of geotechnical earthquake
engineering can be used.
• A simplified liquefaction analysis is proposed, which uses empirical charts

correlating situ measurements (SPT blow-count, CPT resistance or Vs) with
cyclic shear stresses
61
Liquefaction (EC8)
• Simplified liquefaction analysis
FS = CRR / CSR
cyclic resistance ratio CRR from
empirical charts based on SPT
blowcount, CPT cone resistance
or Vs
cyclic stress ratio:
CSR=0.65 (amax/g) (σv0 /σ΄v0) S
If FS = CRR / CSR ≤ 1,25, the soil is

considered as susceptible to
liquefaction
62
Liquefaction (EC8)
Detailed liquefaction analysis needs detailed knowledge of the soil properties
and local geology
• Analysis under effective stresses

• Pore pressure build-up
• Estimation of the permanent ground settlements and lateral spreading
Question: in case of a record with liquefaction evidence:

Is it rational to compute an elastic response spectrum for the entire record
and if this is acceptable can this spectrum be used as a design spectrum?
63
Seismically precarious slopes
• Displacement-based approaches are preferred.
• The yield acceleration coefficient ky is used to represent the overall
resistance of the slope. (Newmark 1965)
• ky depends primarily on the dynamic strength of the material along the
critical sliding surface and the structure’s geometry and unit weight.
• EC8 does not provide any relationships for ky. In the literature there are
analytical equations, e.g. Bray and Travasarou 2007, Pitilakis et al., 2015
Shallow sliding Deep sliding
Bray et al., (2007)

64
New predictive relationships (Fotopoulou and Pitilakis, 2015): Numerical
The optimal scalar and vector IM are identified through regression analyses
correlating the numerical seismic slope displacements (D) with various IMs:
-Peak ground acceleration (PGA)

-Peak ground velocity (PGV)
-Arias intensity (Ia)
-Mean period (Tm)
-Spectral acceleration at period at 1.5Ts [Sa(1.5Ts) ]
-ky/PGA: ratio of critical or yielding acceleration ky to PGA
New predictive relationships (Fotopoulou and Pitilakis, 2015)
In(D)= -9.891+ 1.873·ln(PGV) - 5.964·ky + 0.285·M ± ε·0.65

Scalar
In(D)= -2.965 + 2.127·ln(PGA) - 6.583·ky + 0.535·M ± ε·0.72
models
In(D)= -10.246 - 2.165·ln(ky/PGA) + 7.844·ky + 0.654·M ± ε·0.75
In(D)= -8.076 + 1.873·ln(PGV) + 0.200·ln(Ia) - 5.964·ky ± ε·0.61 Vector

In(D)= -8.360 + 1.873·ln(PGV) - 0.347·ln(ky/PGA) - 5.964·ky ± ε·0.64 models
where D is in m, PGA in g, PGV in cm/s and Ia in m/s
The free field ground surface intensity parameters (i.e. PGA, PGV, Ia) could
be used in the equations without any modification with depth
Summary of soil-site classification parameters
• Site classification: Vs,30, NSPT, Cu, PI, H, Vs,av, T0

• Soil profile and soil properties description (soil type, PI, Dr%, etc)
• Soil strength: Cu, τcy,u (φ, c under UU or CU conditions)
• Ground water level
• G-γ-D curves
• Liquefaction: NSPT (or CPT or Vs), ρ, granulometry
• Topographic effects: slope inclination angle, H
• Basin effects: basin morphology and dimensions, (width, slope and depth)
sediments properties [mainly Go(z)], location along the basin surface
• Geology
• Tectonics, fault proximity and fault type/characteristics
• SFSI: G(γ), ν
• Slope stability evaluation of the slope displacements: c, φ, ρ
• Settlements: E, ν (except liquefaction)
• Foundation bearing capacity: Cu or τcy,u, ρ, c’, φ’, E
67
EUROSEISTEST database (http://euroseisdb.civil.auth.gr)
Station Dedicated webpage
68
EUROSEISTEST database
Available data and metadata
1. General Information
• Station Code
• Network
• Instrumentation
• Power Supply
• Housing
2. Geographical Information / Geomorphology
• Location
• Elevation from sea level
• Station coordinates
• Projection system
• Site morphology
3. Geological Information
• Surface geology
• Reference for geological map
• Existence of boreholes in the proximity of the site (yes/no)
69
Available data and metadata
4. Geotechnical Site Characterization (in graphical and/or ascii form)

• Sampling borehole(s)
• Standard Penetration Test (CPT)
• Cone penetration test (CPT)
• Laboratory tests (classification, strength and compressibility, RC and
CTX: G-γ-D curves, etc.)
• Geotechnical technical reports
5. Geophysical Site Characterization (in graphical and/or ascii form)
• Shear-wave velocity profile
• Compression-wave velocity profile
• Quality factor, Q
• CH, DH, SASW, Microtremor array measurements, etc
6. Site Response (in graphical and/or ascii form)
• Standard spectral ratios
• H/V ratios
70
Example station metadata (TST)
71
Geotechnical Site Characterization
72
Geophysical Site Characterization
73
Site Response
74
Station Description Sheets
75
Time histories of the 12/9/2005 earthquake (Μ~5, R~8 km)
as recorded in the down-hole accelerographic array at the center of the valley (TST)
Radial component Transversal component
0m 0m
21m 21m
40m 40m
72m 72m
136m 136m
196m 196m
0m
21m
Vertical component 40m

72m
136m
196m
76
Example
Waveforms
77
NNW
PRO Example Waveforms
PRR
PRO_033 GRA
W03W02W01TSTE01 E02 E03
SW NE Down-hole configuration
TST_18 FRM at TST
BUT
TST_40 STC
STE SW-NE direction
TST_73
TST_136 SSE
TST_196
78
Ongoing: Processing of the homogenized data set – Azimuthal variation in input
motion
Events:
• Doirani, 2009-05-24
• East of Sithonia, 2008-12-27
Same magnitude (Mw=4.1)

Similar epicentral distance (~80km)
Commonly recorded at stations PRR

and KOK
79
Ongoing: Processing of the homogenized data set – Azimuthal variation in input
motion
Station: KOK
H (m) Vs (m/sec)
10 185
20 260
40 340
50 468
90 625
90 622
100 730
1100
Station: PRR
H (m) Vs (m/sec)
13 300
25 475
35 590
>750
80
Aim
Importance of soil and site characterization in Earthquake Engineering and

Engineering Seismology.
What do we mean with site characterization? and for what purpose?
 Understanding ground motion?
 Research oriented?
 Seismic design of structures?
 Codes?
 Risk assessment?
81
Thank you for your attention
82

23sept2015 04 K.Pitilakis-Site Characterization and Seismic Codes PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

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

23sept2015 04 K.Pitilakis-Site Characterization and Seismic Codes PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

2015 ORFEUS Annual Observatory Coordination meeting

Site characterization and seismic codes

Kyriazis Pitilakis, Professor

Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

Importance of soil and site characterization in Earthquake Engineering and

What do we mean with site characterization? and for what purpose?

 Understanding ground motion?

 Seismic design of structures?

Increase safety within reasonable margins

More data generally increase uncertainties

Better constrained and well focused data is what we really need

Soil-site characterization for seismic codes (EC8)

Seismic codes: Ordinary structures and “normal” soil-site conditions

 Ground shaking characteristics for “normal” soil-site conditions

 Basin and topographic effects

Seismic codes: Special soil-site conditions (beyond A,B,C,D soil classes of

 Liquefaction, precarious slopes

 Near field conditions

• Importance of geological information and data

• Geometry of geological formations, lateral geological discontinuities,

• Rock basement, depth, characteristics i.e. Vs, Vp

• Water table, saturation, seasonal variations, pore pressure

• Uncertainties in site characterization: How important they really are?

• Geotechnical parameters are practically measured locally. Their

• The correlation of site characterization and soil classification parameters

• Site – soil classification and site-dependent elastic response spectra

• EUROSEISTEST data base and portal

• Site categorization schemes of the seismic codes use different description of

IBC2000 6 (5+1*)   Vs,30 NSPT, Su

Turkey 2007 4   Vs, H NSPT, Su, Dr

Norway 1998 3   Vs Descr.

New Zealand NSPT, Su, To

• In the current version of EC8, Vs,30

• 5 main + 2 special soil classes are

• Vs profile may be estimated by empirical correlations with in-situ penetration

• For important structures in high seismicity regions, site specific in situ

• Elastic response spectra depend on site class through:

B, M > 5.5 C, M > 5.5

Soil classes B-C

Pitilakis et al. (2012) 18

E, M ≤ 5.5 E, M > 5.5

Pitilakis et al. (2012) 19

Logic tree approach

Pitilakis et al. (2012)

Sij (T) = GM ij /(GM r ) ij

= 0.35 ⋅ (GM r ) ij,AB

Pitilakis et al. (2012) 21

16000 C, M=7.5-8, N=200 Main problem:

numerous records for

(a) site specific ground response analysis required

Pitilakis et al. (2012) 23

• Very limited number of records from rock or rock-like sites (Vs,30>800m/s)

SHARE SM database, Yenier et al. (2010) 26

• Very limited number of records from rock or rock-like sites (Vs,30>800m/s)

Number of stations / records

SHARE-AUTH SM database, Pitilakis et al. (2013)

-200 -20 -40 -40 -200

-400 -40 -80 -80 -400

-40 -80 -150 -40 -80

Morgan Hill EQ, 1984

-600 -80 -80 -120 -800

3 16th-84th percentile 3 16th-84th percentile

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5