Intensity measures for seismic liquefaction hazard evaluation of sloping site

Abstract

This work investigates the correlation between a large number of widely used ground motion intensity measures (IMs) and the corresponding liquefaction potential of a soil deposit during earthquake loading. In order to accomplish this purpose the seismic responses of 32 sloping liquefiable site models consisting of layered cohesionless soil were subjected to 139 earthquake ground motions. Two sets of ground motions, consisting of 80 ordinary records and 59 pulse-like near-fault records are used in the dynamic analyses. The liquefaction potential of the site is expressed in terms of the the mean pore pressure ratio, the maximum ground settlement, the maximum ground horizontal displacement and the maximum ground horizontal acceleration. For each individual accelerogram, the values of the aforementioned liquefaction potential measures are determined. Then, the correlation between the liquefaction potential measures and the IMs is evaluated. The results reveal that the velocity spectrum intensity (VSI) shows the strongest correlation with the liquefaction potential of sloping site. VSI is also proven to be a sufficient intensity measure with respect to earthquake magnitude and source-to-site distance, and has a good predictability, thus making it a prime candidate for the seismic liquefaction hazard evaluation.

Keywords

soil liquefaction / liquefaction potential index / intensity measure (IM) / pore pressure generation / seismic response prediction

References

[1] KhoshnevisanS, JuangH, ZhouY-g, GongW-p. Probabilistic assessment of liquefaction-induced lateral spreads using CPT — Focusing on the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake [J]. Engineering Geology, 2015, 192: 113-128

[2] de Santucci MagistrisF, LanzanoG, ForteG, FabbrocinoG. A database for PGA threshold in liquefaction occurrence [J]. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2013, 54: 17-19

[3] MonkulM M, GÜLtekinC 1, GÜLverM, Akin, Eseller-BayatE. Estimation of liquefaction potential from dry and saturated sandy soils [J]. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2015, 75: 27-36

[4] KokushoT, MimoriY. Liquefaction potential evaluations by energy-based method and stress-based method for various ground motions [J]. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2015, 75: 130-146

[5] YangT YTesfamariamS, GodaK. Assessing seismic risks for new and existing buildings using performance-based earthquake engineering (PBEE) methodology [C]. Handbook of Seismic Risk Analysis and Management of Civil Infrastructure Systems, 2013UKWoodhead Publishing Limited307-333

[6] TubaldiE, BarbatoM, Dall’AstaA. Performance-based seismic risk assessment for buildings equipped with linear and nonlinear viscous dampers [J]. Engineering Structures, 2014, 78: 90-99

[7] MehannyS, SF, AyoubA S. Variability in inelastic displacement demands: uncertainty in system parameters versus randomness in ground records [J]. Engineering Structures, 2008, 30: 1002-2013

[8] Pacific earthquake engineering research (PEER). Next generation attenuation (NGA) project [DB/OL]. [2014-11-10] http://peer.berkeley.edu/nga/.

[9] BakerJ W. Quantitative classification of near-fault ground motions using wavelet analysis [J]. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 2007, 97(5): 1486-1501

[10] Pacific earthquake engineering research center. Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation Version 2.4.4 (OpenSees 2.4.4). [CP/OL]. [2014-11-10] http://opensees.berkeley.edu.

[11] LysmerJ, KuhlemeyerA M. Finite dynamic model for infinite media [J]. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, 1969, 95: 859-877

[12] JoynerW B, ChenA T F. Calculation of nonlinear ground response in earthquakes [J]. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 1975, 65(5): 1315-1336

[13] StevenL K, RobertA. Mitchell ground motion intensity measures for liquefaction hazard evaluation [J]. Earthquake Spectra, 2006, 22(2): 413-438

[14] GarcÍA-DoÑOroD, GarcÍA-CastilloL E, GÓMez-RevueltoI. An interface between an hp-adaptive finite element package and the pre-and post-processor GiD [J]. Finite Elements in Analysis and Design, 2010, 46(4): 328-338

[15] AriasAHansenR J. A measure of earthquake intensity [C]. Seismic Design for Nuclear Power Plants, 1970Cambridge, MAMIT Press438-483

[16] Electrical Power Research Institute (EPRI). A criterion for determining exceedence of the operating basis earthquake [R]. EPRI NP-5930, Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, 1988.

[17] RiddellR, GarciaJ. Hysteretic energy spectrum and damage control [J]. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 2001, 30(12): 1791-1816

[18] ParkY, AngA H S, WenY K. Seismic damage analysis of reinforced concrete buildings [J]. Journal of Structural Engineering, 1985, 111(4): 740-757

[19] FajfarP, VidicT, FischingerM. A measure of earthquake motion capacity to damage medium-period structures [J]. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 1990, 9(5): 236-242

[20] RiddellR, GarciaJ. Hysteretic energy spectrum and damage control [J]. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 2001, 30(12): 1791-1816

[21] MackieK, StojadinovicBSeismic demands for performance-based design of bridges [R], 2003

[22] AndersonJ C, BerteroV V. Uncertainties in establishing design earthquakes [J]. Journal of Structural Engineering, 1987, 113(8): 1709-1724

[23] UangC M, BerteroV V. Evaluation of seismic energy in structures [J]. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 1990, 19(1): 77-90

[24] HousnerG WSpectrum intensities of strong motion earthquakes [C], 195221-36

[25] DecaniniL D, MollaioliF. An energy-based methodology for the assessment of seismic demand [J]. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2001, 21: 133-137

[26] Avsar, ÖZdemirG. Response of seismic-isolated bridges in relation to intensity measures of ordinary and pulselike ground motions [J]. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 2013, 18(3): 250-260