December 1st, 2016

University of Wyoming
College of Engineering and Applied Science
Department of Civil & Architectural Engineering

Attn: Shawn Griffiths, Ph.D.

Dept. 3295
1000 E. University Avenue
Laramie, WY 82071

Re: Assignment # 6

Dr. Griffiths,

I have completed the Assignment # 7 and included the answers with it. I can send
you the soft copy of excel and Matlab files with my answers per your request.

If you have any questions, please feel free to email me at rlu@uyyo.edu

Sincerely,

Renxiang Lu
1.
a.

In this question, plots are made for and damping () against shear strain ( ).

The modulus of reduction and damping ratio curves were determined by using the Stokoe and
Derendeli (2001) procedure with some simplifications given in class.

Equations for the modulus of reduction:

= 1/(1 + ( )
= 0.92
(%) = (0.0352 + 0.001 )

= 23 with v in atm

For the modulus of reduction we can notice that, since sands typically have an PI of 0, the
equation for simply reduces into (%) = 0.0352 . For clays, the plot varies with
different values of , and . of each layer was calculated by multiplying the unit
weight of the layers above to the respective unit weight. It was assumed the at the bottom
of each layer.

Figure1: Modulus of reduction curves for sand (layers 1, 3 and 7).

 Figure2: Modulus of reduction curves for clay (layers 2, 4, 5, 6 and 8).

Figure3: Modulus of reduction curves for all the layers (1-8).

It can be clearly seen that in either sand or clay, the increase of leads to an increase of the
modulus of reduction curves. This is consistent with the handout given in class. For clays, the
effects of increasing PI and OCR cannot be seen because the increase of has a more
relevant effect on the curves.
Equations for damping ratio:
0.1
D(%) = + ( ( ) )

0.2889
= (0.8 + 0.00129 0.1069 ) (1 + 0.2919 ln()
with in atm and f = 1
= 0.6329 0.0057 () with N = 10
+
( ln (
))
= 100 (4 2)
2
( + )

For the damping ratio we can notice that, since sands typically have an PI of 0, the equation for
0.2889
simply reduces into = 0.8 . For clays, the plot varies with different

values of , and . and were calculated before for the modulus

reduction curves.

Figure4: Damping ratio curves for sand (layers 1, 3 and 7).

 Figure5: Damping ratio curves for clay (layers 2, 4, 5, 6 and 8).

Figure6: Damping ratio curves for all the layers (1-8).

It can be clearly seen that in either sand or clay, the increase of leads to a decrease of the
damping ratio curves. This is consistent with the handout given in class. However, if we analyze
individually the plots of sand or clay, we cannot see any crossover point for lower shear strains
when PI changes. This is not consistent with the handout because the effect of the increase of
lessens the effect of other parameters (PI and OCR).
In the plot with all layers, there are some crossover points but still it is hard to compare only one
parameter since , PI and OCR varies from soil to soil.
Nevertheless, the crossover effects can be shown in another hypothetical example. Now, we
compare the original layer 2 with the same layer but considering PI = 0.

Figure7: Damping ratio curves for original layer 2 and hypothetical layer 2 with PI=0.

In this plot, it can be seen that the curves decrease in height for higher strain levels with the
increase of PI but, around 0.0005%, there is a crossover point. In this case, with one variable
compared at a time, it becomes consistent with the procedure of Stokoe and Derandeli (2001).
b.
In this question, the shear modulus against shear strain for all layers is plotted. The
following equations are needed to develop the plotting:

= max with obtained before

max = 2

=

Figure8: Shear modulus curves for sand (layers 1, 3 and 7).

Figure9: Shear modulus curves for clay (layers 2, 4, 5, 6 and 8).

 Figure10: Shear modulus curves for all the layers (1-8).

It can be seen that in either sand or clay, the increase of leads to an increase of the shear
modulus curves. This relationship can be even clearly seen in sand which all the layers have
similar unit weights but different velocities.
For clays, besides the variation of , we can also notice the discrepancies of the shear modulus
for layers with the same max (layers 4, 5 and 6). While they all start at the same ,
their differences become more noticeable when the shear strain is about 0.01%. The curve with
lower (layer 4) decreases faster than the others with higher .
It is hard to evaluate the effects of PI or OCR since there are other more influent parameters in
the equations that also change from soil to soil ( and ). However, the crossings among
curves in the plot with all layers can be explained by the interaction of all these factors.
The general shape of the curves is consistent with the ones given in the class handout.
2.
The target response spectrum (bedrock) was defined using Abrahamson and Silva (1997)
attenuation relationship. The data were collected from USGS tool using a PSH Deaggregation on
the site.

The input parameters are in the table below:

Parameter Input Definition

T - = Period (sec)
M 7.04 = Moment magnitude
C 0 = Component: 1 for vertical, 0 for horizontal
F 0.0 = Fault Type: 1 for reverse, 0.5 for reverse/oblique, 0 otherwise
FHW 0 = 1 for site over hanging wall, 0 otherwise
Rrup 13.6 = Closest distance to rupture plane (km)
S 0 = Soil Type: 0 for rock or shallow soil, 1 for deep soil
n 0.0 = Number of standard deviations from the median ( ln Y)
Figure11: Input parameters of attenuation relationship Abrahamson and Silva (1997).

The mean values of moment magnitude and the closest distance to rupture plane obtained from
the deaggregation were used as inputs.
Without other additional information, it was considered that the site is not over a hanging wall
and fault type otherwise.

The plot of the target response spectrum is shown below:

1
Spectral Acceleration (g)

0.1

0.01
0.01 0.1 1 10
Period (s)

Figure12: Target response spectrum (bedrock) using Abrahamson and Silva (1997) attenuation
relationship 5% damping.
The next step is to obtain 5 different ground motion records from PEER strong motions database.
The data was collected by introducing parameters that are as close as possible to the ones
introduced for the target spectrum M = 7.04 and R = 13.6km (considered as R_JB distance). The
fault type should correspond to what was assumed in the attenuation relationship before (the
most suitable option is SS/normal). Also, the shear velocity to the bedrock can be calculated
according to the given soil profile:
=1 98
= = = 245.72/
29 67 29 91 67 98 91
=1 + + +
150 290 370 730

However, an interval was assumed to each of the parameters in order to get enough data for the
problem. Since the magnitude significantly effects on ground motions, this parameter was
changed as little as possible so that more accurate data can be collected. For the distance and
shear velocity to the bedrock, more tolerance was given. In terms of the fault type, due to the
fact that this parameter does not influence much on the results, all types was considered.

According to the prioritization mentioned before and using engineering judgement, the values for
the inputs parameters are:

Figure13: Range of values for each input parameter using PEER strong motions database.

Ten ground motions spectra were obtained so that five can be selected from different stations for
the final analysis.
 The ground motion spectra selected are:

Event name Year Station name Magnitude Mechanism Rjb (km) Vs30 (m/sec)

Gilroy Array #4,

Loma Prieta 1989 6.93 Reverse Oblique 13.81 221.78
RSN-768 Horizontal-1
Amagasaki,
Kobe, Japan 1995 6.9 strike slip 11.34 256
RSN-1101 Horizontal-1

Mitsuke Kazuiti Arita Town,

Chuetsu-oki, Japan 2007 6.8 Reverse 11.35 274.23
RSN-4859 Horizontal-1

EJIDO SALTILLO,
El Mayor-Cucapah, Mexico 2010 7.2 strike slip 14.8 242.05
RSN-5831 Horizontal-1

Canterbury Aero Club,

Darfield, New Zealand 2010 7.0 strike slip 14.48 280.26
RSN-6886 Horizontal-1

Figure14: Five selected earthquake information using PEER strong motions database.

The plot of the five unscaled ground motion spectra with the target spectrum is shown below (it
was only considered to T=0.5 sec/cycle because the target spectrum obtained only goes to this
value):

Figure15: Plot of the five ground motion spectra with the target spectrum (unscaled).

In this plot, it can be seen that for lower periods (around 0.5 sec/cycle), the spectrum obtained in
Loma Prieta, Kobe, Japan and Darfield, New Zealand have a higher spectral acceleration than the
target spectrum. On the other hand, the spectral accelerations obtained from Chuetsu-oki, Japan
and El Mayor-Cucapah, Mexico are lower than the target spectrum.
 For higher periods (T>1.5 sec/cycle), the spectral acceleration obtained from all ground motions
are higher than the values of the target spectrum.
The general shape of the records obtained from Chuetsu-oki, Japan, El Mayor-Cucapah and
Darfield, New Zealand assimilate more with the shape of the target spectrum.

The second part of the problem consists on scaling all the ground motion spectral accelerations
at the PGA of the target spectrum. This step is important for design purposes so that all the
ground motion spectra can be compared at the same reference.

The scaling factor that each point of the original ground spectra should be multiplied to is the
ratio of the PGA of the target spectra to the PGA of each unscaled spectra.
In this particular case, since no values were given for T=0 sec/cycle, the PGA was assumed for
T=0.01 sec/cycle.

Event name Target spectrum PGA Ground motion spectrum PGA Ratio
Loma Prieta 0.2900g 0.4190g 0.6921
Kobe, Japan 0.2900g 0.2761g 1.0504
Chuetsu-oki, Japan 0.2900g 0.1093g 2.6535
El Mayor-Cucapah, Mexico 0.2900g 0.1533g 1.8918
Darfield, New Zealand 0.2900g 0.1872g 1.5488
Figure16: Scaling factors for each event.

The plot of the five scaled ground motion spectra with the target spectrum is shown below for a
maximum period of 5 sec/cycle:

Figure17: Plot of the five ground motion spectra with the target spectrum (scaled to the PGA of
target spectrum).
According to the factor ratios and plot shown above, it can be clearly seen that only event that
has a bigger PGA than the target spectra is the one recorded in Loma Prieta. As a result, the
scaling factor is less than 1 and all the values decreased in the same proportion. On the contrary,
all the other four ground motions have a lower PGA in comparison to the target spectrums.
Therefore, their ratio factors are higher than one and all the other values increased.
Before scaling, the values for these last four earthquakes were already slightly higher than the
target spectrums, now they become even higher.
Now, the shape of the records obtained from Loma Prieta and still Darfield, New Zealand
assimilate more to the shape of the target spectrum.
It is also important to mention that the shape of all the scaling plots kept the same because all
the values were increased or decreased by the same proportion.