H max = V s / (4 * f c )

Similar documents
Part 4: Seismic hazard assessment

PROHITECH WP3 (Leader A. IBEN BRAHIM) A short Note on the Seismic Hazard in Israel

Determination of source parameters from seismic spectra

Intermediate Seismic Hazard (May 2011) Evaluation of an intermediate seismic hazard for the existing Swiss nuclear power plants

GROUND RESPONSE OF KATHMANDU VALLEY ON THE BASIS OF MICROTREMORS

Class Notes from: Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering By Steven Kramer, Prentice-Hall. Ground motion parameters

Ingeniería y Georiesgos Ingeniería Geotécnica Car 19 a Nº of 204 ; TEL : igr@ingeoriesgos.com

Period #16: Soil Compressibility and Consolidation (II)

ENCE 4610 Foundation Analysis and Design

Chapter 7 Analysis of Soil Borings for Liquefaction Resistance

APPENDIX A PRESSUREMETER TEST INTERPRETATION

CyberShake Simulations for Path Effects near SONGS

WEATHERING, EROSION, AND DEPOSITION PRACTICE TEST. Which graph best shows the relative stream velocities across the stream from A to B?

COMPARISON OF ONE AND TWO DIMENSIONAL SITE RESPONSE ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR KUCUKCEKMECE REGION IN ISTANBUL

Local Seismic Hazard in Alpine Environment From Site Effects to Induced Phenomena Donat Fäh Swiss Seismological Service, ETH Zürich

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING FORMULAS. A handy reference for use in geotechnical analysis and design

TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE INTRODUCTION

SEISMIC DAMAGE ESTIMATION PROCEDURE FOR WATER SUPPLY PIPELINES

Seismic Risk Assessment Procedures for a System consisting of Distributed Facilities -Part three- Insurance Portfolio Analysis

Drained and Undrained Conditions. Undrained and Drained Shear Strength

7.2.4 Seismic velocity, attenuation and rock properties

KWANG SING ENGINEERING PTE LTD

ASSESSMENT OF SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY FROM INDIRECT INSITU TESTS

CONE PENETRATION TESTING AND SITE EXPLORATION IN EVALUATING THE LIQUEFACTION RESISTANCE OF SANDS AND SILTY SANDS ABSTRACT

The earthquake source

Important Points: Timing: Timing Evaluation Methodology Example Immediate First announcement of building damage

Module 1 : Site Exploration and Geotechnical Investigation. Lecture 5 : Geophysical Exploration [ Section 5.1 : Methods of Geophysical Exploration ]

DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS FOR HIGHWAY BRIDGES PART V SEISMIC DESIGN

Section 5.0 : Horn Physics. By Martin J. King, 6/29/08 Copyright 2008 by Martin J. King. All Rights Reserved.

FOUNDATION DESIGN. Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA 451, Design Examples

CHAPTER 9 FEM MODELING OF SOIL-SHEET PILE WALL INTERACTION

2009 Japan-Russia Energy and Environment Dialogue in Niigata S2-6 TANAKA ERINA

Measuring the Condition of Prestressed Concrete Cylinder Pipe

Scalar versus Vector Quantities. Speed. Speed: Example Two. Scalar Quantities. Average Speed = distance (in meters) time (in seconds) v =

PACIFIC EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTER

Development of Seismic-induced Fire Risk Assessment Method for a Building

WILLOCHRA BASIN GROUNDWATER STATUS REPORT

Seismic Waves Practice

Practice Test SHM with Answers

NUMERICAL ANALYSIS OF SEEPAGE THROUGH EMBANKMENT DAMS (CASE STUDY: KOCHARY DAM, GOLPAYEGAN)

VERTICAL STRESS INCREASES IN SOIL TYPES OF LOADING. Point Loads (P) Line Loads (q/unit length) Examples: - Posts. Examples: - Railroad track

4.3 Results Drained Conditions Undrained Conditions References Data Files Undrained Analysis of

6.0 Results of Risk Analyses

Estimation of Compression Properties of Clayey Soils Salt Lake Valley, Utah

Design Example 1 Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters 11.4

Satish Pullammanappallil and Bill Honjas. Optim LLC, Reno, Nevada, USA. John N. Louie. J. Andrew Siemens. Siemens & Associates, Bend, Oregon, USA

Ohio Department of Transportation Division of Production Management Office of Geotechnical Engineering. Geotechnical Bulletin PLAN SUBGRADES

Transmission Line and Back Loaded Horn Physics

Basic Soil Erosion and Types

Introduction to Seismology Spring 2008

Spatial variation of seismic ground motions: An overview

Vibration mitigation for metro line on soft clay

A STUDY ON THE EFFECTS OF SURFACE WAVES GENERATED

Earthquake Magnitude

vulcanhammer.net This document downloaded from

Geotechnical Measurements and Explorations Prof. Nihar Ranjan Patra Department of Civil Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur

SMIP2000 Seminar Proceedings COSMOS VIRTUAL STRONG MOTION DATA CENTER. Ralph Archuleta

Seismic Isolation Retrofitting of Japanese Wooden Buildings

Instrumented Becker Penetration Test for Liquefaction Assessment in Gravelly Soils

Physics Kinematics Model

Chincha and Cañete, Peru, Based

How To Prepare A Geotechnical Study For A Trunk Sewer Project In Lincoln, Nebraska

Comparative Study on Frequency and Time Domain Analyses for Seismic Site Response

Anirudhan I.V. Geotechnical Solutions, Chennai

SOFTWARE FOR GENERATION OF SPECTRUM COMPATIBLE TIME HISTORY

SEISMIC SETTLEMENT OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

ON THE INTERPRETATION OF SEISMIC CONE PENETRATION TEST (SCPT) RESULTS

Evaluation of Post-liquefaction Reconsolidation Settlement based on Standard Penetration Tests (SPT)

LABORATORY CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES

Fluid structure interaction of a vibrating circular plate in a bounded fluid volume: simulation and experiment

Comprehensive Design Example 2: Foundations for Bulk Storage Facility

SPECIFICATION FOR DYNAMIC CONSOLIDATION / DYNAMIC REPLACEMENT

AP1 Oscillations. 1. Which of the following statements about a spring-block oscillator in simple harmonic motion about its equilibrium point is false?

Caltrans Geotechnical Manual

Seismic Risk Prioritization of RC Public Buildings

REPORT. Earthquake Commission. Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Geotechnical Factual Report Merivale

LABORATORY II. PLASTICITY - Atterberg limits. w L - Cone test, Cassagrande test

Rapid Changes in Earth s Surface

INSITU TESTS! Shear Vanes! Shear Vanes! Shear Vane Test! Sensitive Soils! Insitu testing is used for two reasons:!

Hydraulics Laboratory Experiment Report

Acceleration levels of dropped objects

CPTic_CSM8. A spreadsheet tool for identifying soil types and layering from CPTU data using the I c method. USER S MANUAL. J. A.

c. Borehole Shear Test (BST): BST is performed according to the instructions published by Handy Geotechnical Instruments, Inc.

Rational Method Hydrologic Calculations with Excel. Rational Method Hydrologic Calculations with Excel, Course #508. Presented by:

Micropiles Reduce Costs and Schedule for Merchant RR Bridge Rehabilitation

STABILITY ANALYSIS OF AN EARTH DAM FOUNDATION IN TUNISIA

Torsion Tests. Subjects of interest

CONTRIBUTION TO THE IAEA SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION KARISMA BENCHMARK

Chapter 3.8 & 6 Solutions

THE REPORT ON THE INVESTIGATION OF THE REACTORS AT FUKUSHIMA DAIICHI NUCLEAR POWER STATION (NO. 1)

Bending, Forming and Flexing Printed Circuits

CH. 2 LOADS ON BUILDINGS

INTRODUCTION TO SOIL MODULI. Jean-Louis BRIAUD 1

Case Studies on Paper Machine Vibration Problems

Performance-based Evaluation of the Seismic Response of Bridges with Foundations Designed to Uplift

AN INVESTIGATION INTO WHY LIQUEFACTION CHARTS WORK: A NECESSARY STEP TOWARD INTEGRATING THE STATES OF ART AND PRACTICE

Waves disturbances caused by the movement of energy from a source through some medium.

Transcription:

CVEEN 5330 Homework Assignment 7 1. Use DEEPSOIL to perform a soil response analysis the 600 South at I-15 soil profile which is attached to this assignment. The design earthquake is a M w = 7.0 earthquake with r rup equal to 5 km. Develop a design target response spectrum for Site CLASS B (soft rock) using the Abrahamson and Silva Next Generation attenuation relation. To determine the Z 1.0 and Z 2.5 depths use Deep Profile 1 in the attached figures. Assume that these depths do not vary as a function of distance from the fault. Also assume that the average dip angle of the fault (i.e., rupture plane) is 45 degrees. Make a plot of the design target response spectrum for M = 7.0 and r rup = 5 km and label this as the design target spectrum. 2. DEEPSOIL has several possible time histories that can be used for analysis that are included with the program. The Kobe record provides a reasonable candidate for a M = 7.0 earthquake. Use DEEPSOIL to scale the pga (peak ground acceleration) of the Kobe record to match the pga value of the design target spectrum. Plot the scaled response spectrum of the Kobe record and overlay it on the design target spectrum determined in problem 1. The overlay plot of the two spectra will most likely need to be done in Excel, or some other plotting program. Using this overlay plot, comment regarding how well the scaled Kobe record matches the design target spectrum as a function of period. 3. Input the site-specifi soil profile for the 600 South site using the attached borehole information. a. Enter the V s and total unit weight data into EduShake. b. Assume the water-table to be at the ground surface. c. Calculate the maximum sublayer thickness using the following instructions: The accuracy of the high frequency response of EduShake is affected by thickness of the V s layers that you use in the model. Use the following formula to calculate the maximum thickness of any sublayer that should be used: H max = V s / (4 * f c ) where: H max is the maximum layer thickness, V s is the shear wave velocity for the layer and f c is the cutoff frequency. (The cutoff frequency is that frequency above which we do not need to accurately predict the surface response. For most geotechnical analysis, a cutoff frequency of about 20 Hertz is appropriate.) If a layer is too thick, using the above equation, then subdivide it into sublayers, each with the same material and V s properties. Make an EXCEL spreadsheet that does this calculation, so that I can check the sublayer thicknesses that you have used in the model. Include the sublayer number, thickness, unit weight and shear wave velocity. Also use the print screen command to make a plot of the soil profile as shown in step 2 of the DEEPSOIL user interface.

4. For each soil sublayer developed in 3, select the appropriate modulus and damping curve to represent the soil dynamic properties. It is recommended that you use Sand (Seed and Idriss) average value for sandy soils and the Vucetic and Dobry curves for clayey soils. Note that to use the Vucetic and Dobry curves, you must also provide the corresponding plastic index (PI) value in the input screen that is given on the soil log. Verify that the shear modulus and damping reduction curves you have selected are consistent for each sublayer. For nonplastic silts (i.e., PI = 0), you may use the Vucetic and Dobry curves and assign a PI equal to zero. Include this information in the EXCEL spreadsheet developed in 3. In this spreadsheet, use S&I to indicate sublayers that use the Seed and Idriss curves and V&D for sublayers that use the Vucetic and Dobry curves. For the latter curves include a column in the spreadsheet that includes the value of the PI assigned to each clay layer. 5. Assume that the bottom of soil profile is at a depth = 200 feet. Use STEP 2b in DEEPSOIL to assign the rock properties below this depth. you must assign an elastic rock halfspace. You can create this by doing the following a. Vs = 1200 ft/s b. Unit weight = 140 pcf c. Damping ratio = 2% (Note that assigning the infinite half space at a depth of 200 feet and treating this layer as a rock layer is not actually correct for this site. The actual depth to bedrock may be several hundreds of feet in the middle of the Salt Lake Valley. We have ended the soil profile at a depth of 200 feet so that you can complete this assignment and not spend several hours inputting shear wave velocity values to great depths.) 6. From the DEEP analysis, plot the calculated response spectrum for layer 1 (i.e., surface soil layer) against the input response spectrum (i.e., input response spectrum at the base of the model). Comment about how the site-specific soil column has changed the input rock motion as a function of period using the response spectrum plots. Make sure you comment how the spectral acceleration has been changed for both the long and short period motion.

TOP PORTION OF DEEP PROFILE: 0-1000m 0 100 Vs (m/s) 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 End, Wong et al. 2002, published (152m) depth (m) 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Unconsolidated Semi-consolidated SLC Airport East, Wong & Silva (1993) Lacustrine-alluvial silt and clay (Northern CA Bay Mud), Wong et al. (2002, published) Interpreted cross section, distance = 15.5km, Hill et al. (1990) Generic U.S. Rock, Boore & Joyner (1997) Deep Profile I, this study Deep Profile II, Wong et al. (2002, unpublished)

1000 BOTTOM PORTION OF DEEP PROFILE: 1000-7000m Vs (m/s) 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 1500 2000 Consolidated 2500 Bedrock End, Wong and Silva 1993 (>2600m) depth (m) 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 SLC Airport East, Wong & Silva (1993) Lacustrine-alluvial silt and clay (Northern CA Bay Mud), Wong et al. (2002, published) Interpreted cross section, distance = 15.5km, Hill et al. (1990) Generic U.S. Rock, Boore & Joyner (1997) Deep Profile I, this study Deep Profile II, Wong et al. (2002, unpublished) Matchpoint (6000m) 6500 7000 Infinite Half-Space