Accounting for the uncertainties in the estimation of average shear wave velocity using V _S– N correlations

Abstract

Site-specific seismic hazard analysis is crucial for designing earthquake resistance structures, particularly in seismically active regions. Shear wave velocity ( V _S) is a key parameter in such analysis, although the economy and other factors restrict its direct field measurement in many cases. Various V _S–SPT– N correlations are routinely incorporated in seismic hazard analysis to estimate the value of V _S. However, many uncertainties question the reliability of these estimated V _S values. This paper comes up with a statistical approach to take care of such uncertainties involved in V _S calculations. The measured SPT– N values from all the critical boreholes were converted into statistical parameters and passed through various correlations to estimate V _S at different depths. The effect of different soil layers in the boreholes on the Vs estimation was also taken into account. Further, the average shear wave velocity of the top 30 m soil cover ( V _S30) is estimated after accounting for various epistemic and aleatoric uncertainties. The scattering nature of the V _S values estimated using different V _S– N correlations was reduced significantly with the application of the methodology. Study results further clearly demonstrated the potential of the approach to eliminate various uncertainties involved in the estimation of V _S30 using general and soil-specific correlations.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

uncertainties / V _S– N correlations / V _S30 / SPT data / statistical methodology

References

[1] Kanlı A I, Tildy P, Prónay Z, Pınar A, Hermann L. V _S30 mapping and soil classification for seismic site effect evaluation in Dinar region, SW Turkey. Geophysical Journal International, 2006, 165( 1): 223– 235

[2] Wang Z. A technical note on seismic microzonation in the central United States. Journal of Earth System Science, 2008, 117( S2): 749– 756

[3] Ansal A, Kurtuluş A, Tönük G. Seismic microzonation and earthquake damage scenarios for urban areas. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2010, 30( 11): 1319– 1328

[4] Scott J B, Rasmussen T, Luke B, Taylor W J, Wagoner J L, Smith S B, Louie N. Shallow shear velocity and seismic microzonation of the urban Las Vegas, Nevada, basin. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 2006, 96( 3): 1068– 1077

[5] Tuladhar R, Yamazaki F, Warnitchai P, Saita J. Seismic microzonation of the greater Bangkok area using microtremor observations. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2004, 33( 2): 211– 225

[6] Thitimakorn T. Seismic microzonation maps of Phrae city, Northern Thailand. Geomatics, Natural Hazards & Risk, 2019, 10( 1): 2276– 2290

[7] Rosa-Cintas S, Clavero D, Delgado J, López-Casado C, Galiana-Merino J J, Garrido J. Characterization of the shear wave velocity in the metropolitan area of Málaga (S Spain) using the H/V technique. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2017, 92 : 433– 442

[8] Anbazhagan P, Sitharam T G. Seismic microzonation of Bangalore, India. Journal of Earth System Science, 2008, 117( S2): 833– 852

[9] Kumar S S, Krishna A M, Dey A. Nonlinear site-specific ground response analysis: case study of Amingaon, Guwahati. In: 15th symposium on earthquake engineering. Department of Earthquake Engineering, India: IIT Roorkee, 2014

[10] Bashir A, Basu D. Revisiting probabilistic seismic hazard analysis of Gujarat: An assessment of Indian design spectra. Natural Hazards, 2018, 91( 3): 1127– 1164

[11] Kramer S L. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Prentice-Hall International Series in Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics. Hoboken: Prentice Hall, 1996

[12] Seed H B, Idriss I M, Arango I. Evaluation of liquefaction potential using field performance data. Manager, 1983, 109( 3): 458– 482

[13] Singh M, Duggal S K, Pallav K, Sharma K K. Correlation of shear wave velocity with standard penetration resistance value for Allahabad city. In: Advances in Computer Methods and Geomechanics: IACMAG Symposium 2019. Gandhinagar: Springer, 2020

[14] Seed H B, Idriss I M. Evaluation of liquefaction potential sand deposits based on observation of performance in previous earthquakes. In: ASCE national convention (MO). St Louis: American Society of Civil Engineers, 1981, 81–544

[15] Hanumantharao C, Ramana G V. Dynamic soil properties for microzonation of Delhi, India. Journal of Earth System Science, 2008, 117( S2): 719– 730

[16] Imai T, Yoshimura M. The Relation of Mechanical Properties of Soils to P and S Wave Velocities for Soil Ground in Japan. Tokyo: Urana Research Institute, OYO Corporation, 1976

[17] Lee C T, Tsai B R. Mapping V _S30 in Taiwan, China. Journal of Terrestrial, Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, 2008, 19( 6): 671– 682

[18] Seed H B, Idriss I M, Arango I. Evaluation of liquefaction potential using field performance data. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1983, 109( 3): 458– 482

[19] Pitilakis K D, Anastassiadis D, Raptakis D. Field and laboratory determination of dynamic properties of natural soil deposits. In: Proceedings of the Tenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Madrid: CRC Press, 1992, 1275–1280

[20] Okamoto T, Kokusho T, Yoshida Y, Kusuonoki K. Comparison of surface versus subsurface wave source for P–S logging in sand layer. In: Proceedings of the 44th Annual Conference. Japan Society of Civil Engineers, 1989

[21] Lee S H H. Analysis of the multicollinearity of regression equations of shear wave velocities. Soil and Foundation, 1992, 32( 1): 205– 214

[22] Pitilakis K, Raptakis D, Lontzetidis K, Tika-Vassilikou T H, Jongmans D. Geotechnical and geophysical description of euro-seistest, using field, laboratory tests and moderate strong motion recordings. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 1999, 3( 3): 381– 409

[23] Anbazhagan P, Kumar A, Sitharam T G. Seismic site classification and correlation between standard penetration test N value and shear wave velocity for Lucknow City in Indo-Gangetic Basin. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 2013, 170( 3): 299– 318

[24] Ohsaki Y, Iwasaki R. On dynamic shear moduli and Poisson’s ratios of soil deposits. Soil and Foundation, 1973, 13( 4): 61– 73

[25] Ohta Y, Goto N. Empirical shear wave velocity equations in terms of characteristic soil indexes. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 1978, 6( 2): 167– 187

[26] Imai T, Tonouchi K. Correlation of N value with S-wave velocity and shear modulus. In: Proceedings of the Second European Symposium on Penetration Testing. Amsterdam: CRC Press, 1982, 67–72

[27] Lee S H H. Regression models of shear wave velocities in Taipei (China) basin. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, 1990, 13( 5): 519– 532

[28] Athanasopoulos G A. Empirical correlations Vso-NSPT for soils of Greece: A comparative study of reliability. In: Seventh International Conference on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering (SDEE 95). Crete: Computational Mechanics Publications, 1995, 19–26

[29] Sykora D W, Stokoe K. Correlations of in situ measurements in sands of shear wave velocity, soil characteristics, and site conditions. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 1983, 20 : 125– 136

[30] Yokota K, Imai T, Konno M. Dynamic deformation characteristics of soils determined by laboratory tests. OYO Tec Rep, 1981, 3 : 13– 37

[31] Uma Maheswari R, Boominathan A, Dodagoudar G R. Use of surface waves in statistical correlations of shear wave velocity and penetration resistance of Chennai soils. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 2010, 28( 2): 119– 137

[32] Kirar B, Maheshwari B K, Muley P. Correlation between shear wave velocity ( V _S) and SPT resistance ( N) for Roorkee region. International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering, 2016, 2( 1): 9–

[33] Roy N, Shiuly A, Sahu R B, Jakka R S. Effect of uncertainty in V _S− N correlations on seismic site response analysis. Journal of Earth System Science, 2018, 127( 7): 103–

[34] Anbazhagan P, Sitharam T G. Mapping of average shear wave velocity for Bangalore region: A case study. Journal of Environmental & Engineering Geophysics, 2008, 13( 2): 69– 84

[35] Sil A, Sitharam T G. Dynamic site characterization and correlation of shear wave velocity with standard penetration test ‘ N’ values for the city of Agartala, Tripura state, India. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 2014, 171( 8): 1859– 1876

[36] Vu-Bac N, Lahmer T, Keitel H, Zhao J, Zhuang X, Rabczuk T. Stochastic predictions of bulk properties of amorphous polyethylene based on molecular dynamics simulations. Mechanics of Materials, 2014, 68 : 70– 84

[37] Liu B, Vu-Bac N, Zhuang X, Rabczuk T. Stochastic multiscale modeling of heat conductivity of Polymeric clay nanocomposites. Mechanics of Materials, 2020, 142 : 103280–

[38] Vu-Bac N, Silani M, Lahmer T, Zhuang X, Rabczuk T. A unified framework for stochastic predictions of mechanical properties of polymeric nanocomposites. Computational Materials Science, 2015, 96 : 520– 535

[39] Vu-Bac N, Lahmer T, Zhuang X, Nguyen-Thoi T, Rabczuk T. A software framework for probabilistic sensitivity analysis for computationally expensive models. Advances in Engineering Software, 2016, 100 : 19– 31

[40] Vu-Bac N, Rafiee R, Zhuang X, Lahmer T, Rabczuk T. Uncertainty quantification for multiscale modeling of polymer nanocomposites with correlated parameters. Composites. Part B, Engineering, 2015, 68 : 446– 464

[41] Grafarend EW. Linear and Nonlinear Models: Fixed Effects, Random Effects, and Mixed Models. Boulder: Netlibrary, 2007

[42] FEMA. NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions. Fema, 2009, P-750: 406

[43] IS. (Part 1) (2002) 7.11 Deformations. Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures, 1893, 1893: 27

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2021 Higher Education Press 2021.