Influence of site conditions on seismic design parameters for foundations as determined via nonlinear site response analysis

Abstract

Site conditions, including geotechnical properties and the geological setting, influence the near-surface response of strata subjected to seismic excitation. The geotechnical parameters required for the design of foundations include mass density (ρ), damping ratio (β_s), shear wave velocity (V_s), and soil shear modulus (G_s). The values of the last three parameters are sensitive to the level of nonlinear strain induced in the strata due to seismic ground motion. In this study, the effect of variations in soil properties, such as plasticity index (PI), effective stress (σ′), over consolidation ratio (OCR), impedance contrast ratio (ICR) between the bedrock and the overlying strata, and depth of soil strata over bedrock (H), on seismic design parameters (β_s, V_s, and G_s) was investigated for National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) site classes C and D, through 1D nonlinear seismic site response analysis. The Morris one-at-a-time (OAT) sensitivity analysis indicated that β_s, V_s, and G_s were significantly influenced by variations in PI, while ICR affected β_s more than it affected V_s and G_s. However, the influence of H on these parameters was less significant. It was also found that variations in soil properties influenced seismic design parameters in soil type D more significantly than in soil type C. Predictive relationships for β_s, V_s, and G_s were derived based on the 1D seismic site response analysis and sensitivity analysis results. The β_s, V_s, and G_s values obtained from the analysis were compared with the corresponding values in NEHRP to determine the similarities and differences between the two sets of values. The need to incorporate PI and ICR in the metrics for determining β_s, V_s, and G_s for the seismic design of foundations was highlighted.

Keywords

site effects / 1D seismic site response analysis / sensitivity analysis / foundations / shear wave velocity / soil shear modulus

References

[1] Pender M J. Earthquake resistant design of foundations. Bulletin-New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, 1996, 29(3): 155–171

[2] Romo M P, Mendoza M J, Garcia S R. Geotechnical factors in seismic design of foundations- state-of-the-art report. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 2000, 33(3): 347–370

[3] Pitilakis K D, Raptakis D G, Makra K A. Site effects: Recent considerations and design provisions. In: Proceedings 2nd International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering. Lisbon: A. A. Balkema, 1999: 901–912

[4] Trifunac M D. Site conditions and earthquake ground motion—A review. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2016, 90: 88–100

[5] NEHRP. Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures, FEMA P-1050–1, Part 1 (Provisions) and Part 2 (Commentary). Washington, D.C.: Building Seismic Safety Council, 2015

[6] CEN. European Committee for Standardization TC250/SC8/, Eurocode 8: Design Provisions for Earthquake Resistance of Structures, Part 1.1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings, PrEN1998–1. Brussels: CEN, 2003

[7] JRA. Design Specifications for Highway Bridges, Part V: Seismic Design. Tokyo: Japan Road Association, 2012

[8] AS/NZS. AS/NZS 1170.0: Structural Design Actions, Part 0: General Principles. Wellington: Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand, 2002

[9] Mylonakis G, Nikolaou S, Gazetas G. Footings under seismic loading: Analysis and design issues with emphasis on bridge foundations. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2006, 26(9): 824–853

[10] Hwang H H M, Lee C S. Parametric study of site response analysis. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 1991, 10(6): 282–290

[11] Makra K, Raptakis D, Chávez-García F J, Pitilakis K. Site effects and design provisions: the case of Euroseistest. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 2002, 158: 2349–2367

[12] Pitilakis K. Site effects. In: Ansal A, ed. Recent Advances in Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering and Microzonation. Dordrecht: Springer, 2004

[13] Gallipoli M R, Chiauzzi L, Stabile T A, Mucciarelli M, Masi A, Lizza C, Vignola L. The role of site effects in the comparison between code provisions and the near field strong motion of the Emilia 2012 earthquakes. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2014, 12(5): 2211–2230

[14] Adhikary S, Singh Y, Paul D K. Effect of soil depth on inelastic seismic response of structures. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2014, 61–62: 13–28

[15] Tropeano G, Soccodato F M, Silvestri F. Re-evaluation of code-specified stratigraphic amplification factors based on Italian experimental records and numerical seismic response analyses. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2018, 110: 262–275

[16] Chaudhary M T A. A study on sensitivity of seismic site amplification factors to site conditions for bridges. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 2018, 51(4): 197–211

[17] Viti S, Tanganelli M, D’intinosante V, Baglione M. Effects of soil characterization on the seismic input. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2019, 23(3): 487–511

[18] Boaga J, Renzi S, Deiana R, Cassiani G. Soil damping influence on seismic ground response: A parametric analysis for weak to moderate ground motion. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2015, 79: 71–79

[19] Hamidpour S, Soltani M. Probabilistic assessment of ground motions intensity considering soil properties uncertainty. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2016, 90: 158–168

[20] Tsang H H, Chandler A M, Lam N T. Simple models for estimating period-shift and damping in soil. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2006, 35(15): 1925–1947

[21] Fatahi B, Tabatabaiefar S H R. Effects of soil plasticity on seismic performance of mid-rise building frames resting on soft soils. Advances in Structural Engineering, 2014, 17(10): 1387–1402

[22] Bieniawski Z T. Geomechanics classification of rock masses and its application in tunneling. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Congress on Rock Mechanics. Denver: ISRM, 1974, 2(2): 27–32

[23] Carmichael R S. Practical Handbook of Physical Properties of Rocks and Minerals. Boca Raton, FL: CRC press, 1989

[24] Jaeger J C, Cook N G, Zimmerman R. Fundamentals of Rock Mechanics. 4th ed. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2007

[25] Touloukian Y S, Judd W R, Roy R F. Physical Properties of Rocks and Minerals. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1989

[26] Serafim J L, Pereira J P. Considerations of the Geomechanics classification of Bieniawski. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium of Engineering Geology and Underground Construction. Lisbon: Portuguese Geotechnical Society, 1983, 1133–1144

[27] Wald L A, Mori J. Evaluation of methods for estimating linear site-response amplifications in the Los Angeles region. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 2000, 90(6B): S32–S42

[28] Boore D M. Can site response be predicted? Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2004, 8(sup001 SI1): 1–41

[29] Santamarina J C, Klein K A, Fam M A. Soils and Waves. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 2001

[30] Corigliano M, Lai C G, Rota M, Penna A. Automatic definition of hazard-compatible accelerograms at non-rocky sites. In: Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Lisbon: Portuguese Society for Earthquake Engineering, 2012

[31] Gibson R E. Some results concerning displacements and stresses in a non-homogeneous elastic half-space. Geotechnique, 1967, 17(1): 58–67

[32] Awojobi A O. The settlement of a foundation of Gibson soil of the second kind. Geotechnique, 1975, 25(2): 221–228

[33] Douglas J, Gehl P, Bonilla L F, Scotti O, Régnier J, Duval A M, Bertrand E. Making the most of available site information for empirical ground-motion prediction. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 2009, 99(3): 1502–1520

[34] Toro G R. Probabilistic Models of Site Velocity Profiles for Generic and Site-Specific Ground-Motion Amplification Studies. New York: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, 1995

[35] Chaudhary M T A. Implication of Soil and Seismic Ground Motion Variability on Dynamic Pile Group Impedance for Bridges. Research Project Report # EV01/15. Kuwait University Research Sector, 2016

[36] Guerreiro P, Kontoe S, Taborda D. Comparative study of stiffness reduction and damping curves. In: The 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Lisbon: Portuguese Society for Earthquake Engineering, 2012

[37] Vucetic M, Dobry R. Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1991, 117(1): 89–107

[38] Darendeli M B. Development of a new family of normalized modulus reduction and material damping curves. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Austin: University of Texas, Austin, 2001

[39] Ishibashi I, Zhang X. Unified dynamic shear moduli and damping ratios of sand and clay. Soil and Foundation, 1993, 33(1): 182–191

[40] Seed H B, Idriss I M. Soil Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic Response Analyses. Technical Report EERRC-70–10. University of California, Berkeley, 1970

[41] Bazzurro P, Cornell C A. Ground-motion amplification in nonlinear soil sites with uncertain properties. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 2004, 94(6): 2090–2109

[42] Bahrampouri M, Rodriguez-Marek A, Bommer J J. Mapping the uncertainty in modulus reduction and damping curves onto the uncertainty of site amplification functions. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2019, 126: 105091

[43] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). ATC-63: Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors, ATC-63 project report prepared by the Applied Technology Council for FEMA. Washington, D.C.: FEMA, 2008

[44] Yenier E, Sandikkaya M A, Akkar S. Fundamental Features of the Extended Strong-Motion Databank prepared for the SHARE Project, Deliverable D4.1. Ankara: Middle East Technical University, 2010

[45] Pitilakis K, Riga E, Anastasiadis A, Fotopoulou S, Karafagka S. Towards the revision of EC8: Proposal for an alternative site classification scheme and associated intensity dependent spectral amplification factors. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2019, 126: 105137

[46] PEER NGA-West2. PEER ground Motion Database. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, 2019

[47] Hashash Y M A, Musgrove M I, Harmon J A, Groholski D R, Phillips C A, Park D. DEEPSOIL 6.1, User Manual. Urbana, IL: Board of Trustees of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2016

[48] Newmark N M. A method of computation for structural dynamics. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, 1959, 85(3): 67–94

[49] Kondner R L, Zelasko J S A. A hyperbolic stress–strain formulation for sands. In: Proceedings of 2nd Pan-American conference on soil mechanics and foundations engineering. São Paulo: Brazilian Association of Soil Mechanics, 1963, 289–324

[50] Matasović N, Vucetic M. Cyclic characterization of liquefiable sands. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1993, 119(11): 1805–1822

[51] Masing G. Eigenspannumyen und Verfeshungung beim Messing (Self-stretching and hardening for brass). In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Congress for Applied Mechanics. Zurich: O. Füssli, 1926, 332–335 (in German)

[52] Pyke R M. Nonlinear soil models for irregular cyclic loadings. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1979, 105(GT6): 715–726

[53] Wang Z L, Han Q Y, Zhou G S. Wave propagation method of site seismic response by visco-elastoplastic model. In: Proceedings of the Seventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Istanbul: Turkish National Committee on Earthquake Engineering, 1980, 379–386

[54] Phillips C, Hashash Y M. Damping formulation for nonlinear 1D site response analyses. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2009, 29(7): 1143–1158

[55] Ishihara K. Evaluation of soil properties for use in earthquake response analysis. In: Dungar R, Studer J A, eds, Geomechanical Modeling in Engineering Practice. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema, 1986, 241–275

[56] Rayleigh J W S, Lindsay R B. The Theory of Sound. New York: Dover Publications, 1945

[57] Kramer S L. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. 1st ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 1996

[58] Morris M D. Factorial sampling plans for preliminary computational experiments. Technometrics, 1991, 33(2): 161–174

[59] Saltelli A, Tarantola S, Campolongo F, Ratto M. Sensitivity Analysis in Practice: A Guide to Assessing Scientific Models. Chichester: Wiley, 2004

[60] Hamdia K M, Ghasemi H, Zhuang X, Alajlan N, Rabczuk T. Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis for flexoelectric nanostructures. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2018, 337: 95–109

[61] Mohanty S, Codell R. Sensitivity analysis methods for identifying influential parameters in a problem with a large number of random variables. WIT Transactions on Modelling and Simulation, 2002, 31: 363–374

[62] Şafak E. Local site effects and dynamic soil behavior. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2001, 21(5): 453–458

[63] Kottegoda N T, Rosso R. Applied Statistics for Civil and Environmental Engineers. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2008

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Kuwait University, Research Grant No. EV01/15.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2021 Higher Education Press