Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TOPICSofLECTURESinSOILDYNAMICS(SD)
1. OverviewofSD.TheElastic1DoFSystem
2. TheInelasticSystems:Sliding,Overturning.
RetainingWallsandSlopes
i i
ll
d l
3. Review:SoilBehavior,WavePropagation,
Liquefaction ExamplesfromRecentEQs
4. SoilAmplification.AnalysisofCaseHistories
5. StiffnessandDampingofFoundations
6. SoilFoundationStructureInteraction
7. NewTrends.AnalysisofCaseHistory
SoilAmplification:AnalysisofCaseHistories
1)MEXICOCITY:1985MichoacanEarthquake
2)Hokkaido(2003), TreasureIsland(1989),
KobePortIsland(1995), etc.
07/05/2012
(before
b f
they
h
can be
b established
bli h d)
must be VALIDATED by
COMPARISONS against the
REALITY that these theories
describe
07/05/2012
saturation
MS
MW
Fault
Rupture:the
SOURCE
P
Propagation
i
throughSoil
FOCUS
07/05/2012
S
(g)
S
(g)
C
t
DEPTH
0.1 km
Soil
Amplification
10 km
Wave
Propagation
Fault Rupture
H
C
07/05/2012
B
A
H
C
B
A
H
C
07/05/2012
B
A
H
C
B
A
H
C
07/05/2012
B
A
H
C
B
A
H
C
07/05/2012
B
A
H
C
B
A
H
C
07/05/2012
B
A
H
C
B
VS = G/
Rock Outcrop
C
Base Rock
07/05/2012
A =
2 /
uA
uC
5%
10 %
f1
(2 / ) /3
f2
f3
f ( Hz)
f 1 = VS / 4H.2
10
Slide 19
.2
gazetas; 06/12/2009
07/05/2012
SOILAMPLIFICATION
HarmonicExcitation
2 /
a
Asurf
(T)
arock
x
H
, V
( I1, I2 )
1
T1
5
Period T
4H
T1
3
T1 = V
s
0.0
50
0
40
0
30
0
20
0
-0.5
0
10
15
20
t :s
0.5
z:m
BASE
a:g
10
0
VS : m / s
0
a:g
0.5
12
16
0.0
20
-0.5
0
10
15
20
24
t :s
11
07/05/2012
50
0
40
0
30
0
20
0
outcropping
Base
bedrock
10
0
1.5
SA : g
VS : m / s
Surface
surface
0.5
0
0
0.5
1.5
z:m
T:s
Dynamic
amplification
16
12
2
20
1
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
24
T:s
RESPONSEACCELERATIONSPECTRA
=?
1,5
Sa ( g )
0,5
0
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
T ( sec )
12
07/05/2012
TheMEXICOCITY1985Disaster:
InstrumentalObservation,Analysis
300 km
MEXICO
Gulf of
Mexico
Pacific
Ocean
13
07/05/2012
Mexico
City
380 km
surprisingly
enormous damage,
small
damage
14
07/05/2012
G l i zones
Geologic
of
Mexico City
15
07/05/2012
(0.10 g,
UNAM
(0.04 g, 10 cm/s)
40 cm/s)
SCT
0.20 Zone
0.1
0.06 Hilly
0.04 Zone
[g]
0.01
MS = 8
Empirical
E
i i l
Attenuation
Relations
0.01
0.005
Mexico
City
Statistically
y
expected
0.001
Distanse [km]
16
07/05/2012
CDAO
UNAM
(0.04 g, 10 cm/s)
(0.10 g,
40 cm/s)
Epicentral
Region
UNAM
VIV
CDAO
(H60m)
SCT
(H40m)
17
07/05/2012
Spectral
Acceleration :
ZoneC (SCT)
Sa /g
ZoneA
Period
T : sec
Sa
g
T : sec
18
07/05/2012
Depth
(m)
wn 200%
600%
IP 200 +
W%
undisturbed
max Su 80kPa
disturbed
l
log
Sensitivity :
Su undisturbed
Su disturbed
10
19
07/05/2012
G
1
G ()
max
Monotonic
20
07/05/2012
21
07/05/2012
SCT ??
H 40m
UNAM
SCT
H 40
40 m
Ts =
Amplification : (Resonance) A1
4H
Vs
4 40
80
2
0.05
= 2 sec
= 12.7
22
07/05/2012
Spectral
Acceleration :
Epicentral
Region
A
LakeZone
(SCT)
SA /g
A1
uA
uC
0.08 g
Hills
Period
T : sec
SCT
H 40m
23
07/05/2012
1.0 g
SCT
SA
g
CDAO
T : sec
2
UNAM
SCT
CDAO
G ()
()
24
07/05/2012
RESPONSEACCELERATIONSPECTRA
=?
1,5
Sa ( g )
0,5
0
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
T ( sec )
SIMPLE
Analysis
Detailed
Analyses
Average of Recorded
2 Components
DESIGN
25
07/05/2012
DOUBLE RESONANCE
But, to be successful,
a theory must
explain NOT ONE but
ALL aspects of reality.
26
07/05/2012
The Records
CDAO
Sa
??
??
T : sec
Soil Period :
Ts =
4H
Vs
Amplification at Resonance:
A1
4 60
70
3.4 sec
CDAO
Average
12.7
Records
Analysis
0.05
0 05
UNAM
SoWHYdontwehaveasharppeak
similartothatofSCTatT =3.4sec ??
27
07/05/2012
Epicentral
Region
A
Spectral
Acceleration
l
i
:
LakeZone
(SCT)
SA /g
0.08 g
0.03 g!
uA
A1
uC
Period
T : sec
12 7
12.7
28
07/05/2012
CDAO
Average
Records
Analysis
UNAM
AnotherRecordatStationCAF
CAF
UNAM
29
07/05/2012
30
07/05/2012
actual
31
07/05/2012
PORTISLAND:Kobe1995
accelerographs
32
07/05/2012
KOBE1995:RECORDS
uA
uC
I
uA
uB
Amax
rockVR
soilVS
Amax
1
I
-1
( /2)
33
07/05/2012
2003 /09/26
34
07/05/2012
50 m
HighSchool
0.35 g
60 90
190
Vs [ m/s ]
0m
Peat
6m
Clay
Shear wave
velocity
20 m
Sandy
Silt
30 m
0.05 g
400 m/s
153 m
Sandstone
35
07/05/2012
ACCELEROGRAMS
0.35 g
Recorded at
Ground Surface
cm / s2
Recorded at -153 m
(Input Motion)
cm / s2
0.05 g
50
sec
100
150
0m
0.35 g
153 m
0.05 g
[DrawtheanalogywiththeMexicoCity1985
spectraofthemotionsrecordedat
SCT(soilsurface)versusUNAM(rockoutcrop)!!]
36
07/05/2012
Vs (m/s)
Peat
60
6
Clay
20
90
m
190
SiltySand
30
Gravel
40
320
LomaPrieta
1989
SA : g
ACC. : cm/s 2
Yerba Buena
Island
Time : s
Period : s
Infrastructure Group Lecture, May 25, 2011
37
07/05/2012
PGA:ROCKversus SOIL
0.6
PGA
on Soil
(g)
0.4
0.2
1985MexicoCity
0
0
0.2
PGA on
0.4
0.6
Rock (g)
2 D Valley
2-D
V ll
(B
(Basin)
i ) Eff
Effects
t
38
07/05/2012
1-D
B
2-D
A
C
2 D Aggravation
gg
Factor :
AF
= UA / UB
2D,3Dwaveeffects areevident:
in records (mostlyofweakmotions
mostly of weak motions),
),
inrecords
linearanalyses ,
distribution+extentofobserveddamage
39
07/05/2012
AF > 1
15o
75o
60o
60o
300
60o
SanchezSesma (1985)
(b)
Surface Waves
AF > 1
Surface Waves
SH waves
SV waves
Aggravationatthecentre:
constructiveinterferenceofLove orRayleigh waves
40
07/05/2012
Scope
ThisStudyexplorestheSensitivity ofValley
Effectsand2DAggravationphenomenato:
excitation frequency
soil nonlinearity
Cross section
of Ohba Valley
L = 520 m
80 m
360 m
80 m
H= 24 m
Simplified geometry
41
07/05/2012
360 m
24 m
m/s
36 m
80 m
VS = 60
VR= 400 m/s
Absorbing boundary
1-D
B
2-D
A
C
2 D Aggravation
gg
Factor :
AF
= UA / UB
42
07/05/2012
Excitation Pulses
Time histories
Fourier Spectra
1.0
3.0
Ricker 3
0.5
0
2.0
1.0
a [ m / s2 ]
- 0.5
0
1.0
Ricker 0.5
0.5
10
10
10
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
- 0.5
05
0
1.0
8.0
Ricker 1
0.5
6.0
4.0
2.0
- 0.5
0
t [sec]
f [sec-1]
43
07/05/2012
Input: Ricker 3
largest Aggravation: 2
2.5
AF
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-300
-200
-100
100
200
300
AF
1
0
-300
-100
100
300
44
07/05/2012
Input: Ricker 1
largest Aggravation: 1.7
2
1,6
AF
1,2
0,8
30 m
0,4
0
-300
-200
-100
100
200
300
Ca
R2 R1
70 m/s
200
100
200 m/s
X(m
)
-100
110 m/s
-200
t (s)
45
07/05/2012
Soil Elasticity
Excitation
Ricker 3:
Ricker 0.5:
PGA =
0.30 g ,
PI = 50
PGA =
0.30 g ,
PI = 50
AF
Elastic
2.0
Nonlinear
1.5
1.0
0.5
- 200
- 100
100
200
X[m]
Ricker 3
46
07/05/2012
Elastic
Aggravation
vs
AF
2.0
16
1.6
1.2
0.8
- 200
- 100
0.4
200
X[m]
Ricker 0.5
Elastic
X[m]
Elastic
t[s]
Non-linear
t[s]
47
07/05/2012
Conclusions
However :
soil non-linearity
HE END
48
07/05/2012
AF > 1
15o
75o
60o
60o
300
60o
SanchezSesma (1985)
(b)
Surface Waves
AF > 1
Surface Waves
SH waves
SV waves
Aggravation at the centre:
constructive interference of Love or Rayleigh waves
49
07/05/2012
G / GO
PI
PI
X (m)
Ca
R2
Ca
R1
R1
R2
200 m/s
60 m/s
85 m/s
t (s)
50
07/05/2012
R1
R1
200
230 m/s
X
(m
)
100
-100
-200
2
R1
t (s)
t (s)
Basic Conclusions
Regardlessofexcitationfrequency:absolutely
LARGEST
LARGESTaggravationinPGA:
ti i PGA
AF
Spatialdistributionofaggravation: SENSITIVEto
FREQUENCYofexcitation:
( ) Low frequency input : significant aggravation
(a)
51