We present a new empirical ground motion model for PGA, PGV, PGD and 5% damped linear elastic response spectra for periods ranging from 0.01– 10 s. The model was developed as part of the PEER Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) project. We used a subset of the PEER NGA database for which we excluded recordings and earthquakes that were believed to be inappropriate for estimating free-field ground motions from shallow earthquake mainshocks in active tectonic regimes. We developed relations for both the median and standard deviation of the geometric mean horizontal component of ground motion that we consider to be valid for magnitudes ranging from 4.0 up to 7.5–8.5 (depending on fault mechanism) and distances ranging from 0 – 200 km. The model explicitly includes the effects of magnitude saturation, magnitude-dependent attenuation, style of faulting, rupture depth, hanging-wall geometry, linear and nonlinear site response, 3-D basin response, and inter-event and intra-event variability. Soil nonlinearity causes the intra-event standard deviation to depend on the amplitude of PGA on reference rock rather than on magnitude, which leads to a decrease in aleatory uncertainty at high levels of ground shaking for sites located on soil. DOI: 10.1193/1.2857546

/pdf/nga-ground-motion-model-for-the-geometric-mean-horizontal-1yqfspz2c2.pdf

NGA Ground Motion Model for the Geometric Mean Horizontal Component of PGA, PGV, PGD and 5% Damped Linear Elastic Response Spectra for Periods Ranging from 0.01 to 10 s

Observations from recent earthquakes and the results of cyclic tests indicate that the Chinese criteria are not reliable for determining the liquefaction susceptibility of fine-grained soils. Fine-grained soils that liquefied during the 1994 Northridge, 1999 Kocaeli, and 1999 Chi-Chi earthquakes often did not meet the clay-size criterion of the Chinese criteria. Cyclic testing of a wide range of soils found to liquefy in Adapazari during the Kocaeli earthquake confirmed that these fine-grained soils were susceptible to liquefaction. It is not the amount of “clay-size” particles in the soil; rather, it is the amount and type of clay minerals in the soil that best indicate liquefaction susceptibility. Thus plasticity index (PI) is a better indicator of liquefaction susceptibility. Loose soils with PI 0.85 were susceptible to liquefaction, and loose soils with 12 0.8 were systematically more resistant to liquefaction. Soils with PI>18 tested at low effective confining stresses ...

Assessment of the Liquefaction Susceptibility of Fine-Grained Soils

Predictive equations for estimating normalized shear modulus and material damping ratio of Quaternary, Tertiary and older, and residual/saprolite soils are presented in this paper. The equations are based on a modified hyperbolic model and a statistical analysis of existing Resonant Column and Torsional Shear test results for 122 specimens obtained from South Carolina, North Carolina, and Alabama. Variables used in the equations for normalized shear modulus are: shear-strain amplitude, confining stress, and plasticity index (PI). The equations for damping ratio are expressed in terms of a polynomial function of normalized shear modulus plus a minimum damping ratio. It is found that the Quaternary soils exhibit more linearity than soils of the other two groups. Also, it is found that the effect of PI on dynamic soil behavior is not as significant as previously thought. Data from all three groups exhibit significant variations with confining stress, similar to the variations determined by Stokoe et al. The uncertainties associated with the equations for PI of 0 and mean effective confining stress of 100 kPa are quantified using the point estimate method. A case study from Charleston, S.C. is provided to illustrate an application of the equations to seismic response analysis and the importance of considering confining stress and geologic age.

Normalized shear modulus and material damping ratio relationships

Damping formulation for nonlinear 1D site response analyses

One-dimensional nonlinear ground response analyses provide a more accurate characterization of the true nonlinear soil behavior than equivalent-linear procedures, but the application of nonlinear codes in practice has been limited, which results in part from poorly documented and unclear parameter selection and code usage protocols. In this article, exact (linear frequency-domain) solutions for body wave propagation through an elastic medium are used to establish guidelines for two issues that have long been a source of confusion for users of nonlinear codes. The first issue concerns the specification of input motion as “outcropping” (i.e., equivalent free-surface motions) versus “within” (i.e., motions occurring at depth within a site profile). When the input motion is recorded at the ground surface (e.g., at a rock site), the full outcropping (rock) motion should be used along with an elastic base having a stiffness appropriate for the underlying rock. The second issue concerns the specification of viscous damping (used in most nonlinear codes) or small-strain hysteretic damping (used by one code considered herein), either of which is needed for a stable solution at small strains. For a viscous damping formulation, critical issues include the target value of the viscous damping ratio and the frequencies for which the viscous damping produced by the model matches the target. For codes that allow the use of “full” Rayleigh damping (which has two target frequencies), the target damping ratio should be the small-strain material damping, and the target frequencies should be established through a process by which linear time domain and frequency domain solutions are matched. As a first approximation, the first-mode site frequency and five times that frequency can be used. For codes with different damping models, alternative recommendations are developed.

/pdf/use-of-exact-solutions-of-wave-propagation-problems-to-guide-4gehx8qhj8.pdf

Mehmet Baris Darendeli

Papers

Development of a new family of normalized modulus reduction and material damping curves