Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
An Evaluation of Current Site Response Analysis Methods
Chandrakanth Bolisetti Graduate Student Researcher
Dr. Andrew Whittaker Professor and Chair
Department of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering
University at Buffalo, SUNY
The City Block Project
Acknowledgments
• National Science Foundation, CMMI 0830331
• Dr. Amjad Aref, University at Buffalo
• Ibrahim Almufti and Dr. Michael Willford, ARUP San Francisco
• Dr. Boris Jeremic, UC Davis
• Dr. Ben Mason, Oregon State University
Overview
• Soil-structure interaction analysis for performance assessment of buildings and nuclear power plants
– Detailed 3D analyses
– Nonlinear analyses for high intensity ground motions
• Evaluation of existing industry-standard numerical tools
– Site response analysis (pre-requisite for SSI analysis)
– SSI analysis
• SSSI analysis
Overview
• Soil-structure interaction analysis for performance assessment of buildings and nuclear power plants
– Detailed 3D analyses
– Nonlinear analyses for high intensity ground motions
• Evaluation of existing industry-standard numerical tools
– Site response analysis (pre-requisite for SSI analysis)
– SSI analysis
• SSSI analysis
Outline
• Introduction
• Numerical Tools
• Numerical Analysis
• Sample Results
• Conclusions and future research
• Purposes
– Site effects for seismic hazard analysis
– Soil-structure interaction analysis
Introduction Site Response Analysis
1D site response analysis
• State-of-the-art
– Frequency domain equivalent linear analysis • SHAKE, DEEPSOIL
– Time domain nonlinear analysis • DEEPSOIL nonlinear, LS-DYNA
– Mostly 1D
• Limitations – Mostly developed for characterizing site effects
– The 1D assumption
• Horizontal ground motion components are usually not uncorrelated
• Not sufficient for high fidelity SSI analyses required for performance assessment of NPPs (Jeremic, 2011)
Introduction Site Response Analysis
Numerical Tools Frequency Domain
• The equivalent linear approach: SHAKE and DEEPSOIL – Seed and Idriss (1969)
– Iterative procedure
– Modulus reduction and damping curves
• Effective shear strain ratio
– An empirical value of 0.65 is recommended
Hashash et al, 2010
1
10
MR
Numerical Tools Time Domain
• DEEPSOIL nonlinear – MKZ model (Matasovic, 1993)
– Extended Masing rules define the stress-strain hysteresis
– Outcrop input using the Joyner and Chen (1975) method
0
1
s
r
G
Hashash and Park (2001)
Numerical Tools Time Domain
• LS DYNA nonlinear – General finite element analysis
– Column of solid elements constrained to move in shear
– MAT_HYSTERETIC model (MAT_079)
– Outcrop input using the Joyner and Chen (1975) approach
– ARUP, San Francisco
Numerical Analyses Site Selection
Site E1 Site E2 Site W1 Site W2
2500m/s
300m/s
2500m/s
1000m/s 300m/s
Bed Rock 2500m/s
Bed Rock 2500m/s
Bed Rock 1000m/s
Bed Rock 1000m/s
100m
Numerical Analyses WUS Ordinary motions
0.01 0.1 1 100
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
GM-1
GM-2
GM-3
Site-W1
Site-W2
WUS ordinary ground motions
Period (sec)
Acc
eler
atio
n (
g)
Event Station PGA (g)
Northridge, 1994 Vasquez Rocks Park 0.15
Northridge, 1994 Wonderland Ave 0.17
San Fernando, 1971 Lake Hughes #4 0.19
Numerical Analyses WUS Pulse motions
Event Station PGA (g) Tp (sec)
Landers, 1992 Lucerne 0.73 5.1
Northridge, 1994 Rinaldi Receiving Stn. 0.83 1.5
Chi Chi, Taiwan, 1999 TCU 128 0.19 9.0
0.01 0.1 1 100
1
2
3
LCN260 Tp = 5.12 sec
RRS228 Tp = 1.51 sec
TCU128 Tp = 9.00 sec
Site-W1
Site-W2
Acceleration response spectra for selected pulse motions
Period (sec)
Acc
eler
atio
n (
g)
Numerical Analyses CEUS motions
Event Station PGA (g)
Virginia, 2011 Charlottesville 0.10
New Hampshire, 1982 Franklin Falls Dam 0.31
Saguenay, CA, 1988 Dickey 0.09
0.01 0.1 1 100
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
CVA090
FFD315
SNY090
Site-E1
Site-E2
CEUS ordinary ground motions
Period (sec)
Acc
eler
atio
n (
g)
Sample Results Site E1, Charlottsville
0.01 0.1 1 100
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Shake
Mat Hysteretic
Deepsoil
Comparison of acceleration response spectra at the surface
Period (sec)
Acc
eler
atio
n (
g)
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1100
75
50
25
0
Shake
Mat Hysteretic
Deep soil
Peak acceleration profiles
Peak acceleration (g)
Dep
th b
elow
surf
ace
(m)
0 1 104
2 104
3 104
4 104
100
75
50
25
0
Shake
Mat Hysteretic
Ramberg Osgood
Deepsoil
Peak strain profiles
Peak strain (%)
Dep
th b
elow
surf
ace
(m)
Sample Results Site W1, Vasquez Park
0.01 0.1 1 100
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Shake
Mat Hysteretic
Deepsoil
Comparison of acceleration response spectra at the surface
Period (sec)
Acc
eler
atio
n (
g)
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2100
75
50
25
0
Shake
Mat Hysteretic
Deepsoil
Peak acceleration profiles
Peak acceleration (g)
Dep
th b
elo
w s
urf
ace
(m)
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04100
75
50
25
0
Shake
Mat Hysteretic
Deepsoil
Peak strain profiles
Peak strain (%)
Dep
th b
elo
w s
urf
ace
(m)
Sample Results Site W1, Rinaldi
0.01 0.1 1 100
0.5
1
1.5
2
Shake
Mat Hysteretic
Deepsoil
Comparison of acceleration response spectra at the surface
Period (sec)
Acc
eler
atio
n (
g)
0 0.375 0.75 1.125 1.5100
75
50
25
0
Shake
Mat Hysteretic
Deepsoil
Peak acceleration profiles
Peak acceleration (g)
Dep
th b
elo
w s
urf
ace
(m)
0 0.5 1 1.5100
75
50
25
0
Shake
Mat Hysteretic
Deepsoil
Peak strain profiles
Peak strain (%)
Dep
th b
elo
w s
urf
ace
(m)
Conclusions
• Good match for low soil strains but large differences at high soil strains (close to 1%)
• Peak strain values are underestimated in SHAKE, especially for intense motions – Effective shear strain ratio?
• Accelerations are underestimated in SHAKE – Large values of damping ratio?
• Implications for SSI analysis – Need to be cautious when large strains are expected
– 1D analysis insufficient (Jeremic, 2011)
– Materials not suitable for full SSI analyses
Conclusions
• High frequency ‘noise’ in time-domain analysis results – Piecewise nonlinearity (LS DYNA only)
– Internal wave reflections due to impedance changes
– Joyner and Chen (1974)
– Cautious site layering, or filtering of the response
• SHAKE response for pulse motions – Convergence issues
– Smaller value of effective shear strain ratio needs to be used
Contacts
Chandu Bolisetti: [email protected] Dr. Andrew Whittaker: [email protected]