Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
1
Aim
Research oriented?
Codes?
Risk assessment?
2
Aim
Reduce uncertainties
at least the epistemic ones!
3
More data or better data
Good and sufficient records in various rock conditions are still very few
worldwide!
4
5
Objectives
6
Miscellaneous
• Most of our ideas and ways of tackling the problem of ground motion
evaluation are stemming from 1D wave propagation theory
7
Miscellaneous
8
Other issues
We should also keep in mind that in engineering practice soil-site classification
and the parameters describing this classification are also used for other design
purposes like:
• Earthquake induced settlements
• Seismic bearing capacity of shallow and deep foundations
• Seismic design of foundations to ground motions and permanent ground
displacements
• Seismic design of retaining walls
• Seismic design of underground structures and pipelines
• Soil-foundation-structure interaction effects
Moreover the soil classification in EC8 and the proposed parameters should be
conforming with EC7 soil parameters
9
Outline
• Introduction- General comments
10
Site – soil classification
• For the seismic design of structures using the current seismic codes the site
of interest must be classified into one of the soil categories adopted by the
code. Based on the soil class the appropriate site-dependent design
spectrum can be defined.
11
Site – soil classification (U.S. seismic codes)
• U.S. seismic codes prior to 1994 (e.g. 1978 ATC provisions) proposed four
soil types characterized by both qualitative and quantitative criteria,
including type, thickness and shear wave velocity.
• In post 1994 U.S. seismic codes (e.g. the 1994 and 1997 editions of NEHR
and the 2000 International Building Code) a new soil categorization scheme
was introduced, which uses Vs,30 as the main categorization parameter.
Standard penetration blow count NSPT and undrained shear strength Su may
also be used to characterize the top 30m of the soil.
Soil
Description Vs,30 (m/s) NSPT Su (kPa)
class
A Hard rock >1500 - -
B Rock 760-1500 - -
C Very dense soil and soft rock 360-760 >50 >100
D Stiff soil 180-360 15-50 50-100
E Soft soil <180 <15 <50
Soils requiring site-specific - -
F -
evaluations
12
Site – Soil Classification in Seismic Codes
Qualitative Additionally
Code Categories Soil Stratigraphy Vs
Criteria Criteria
ATC3 4 Vs -
7
EC8-EN Vs,30 NSPT, Su
(5+2*)
Vs,T1, T2,
Japan 2001 3 Descr.
H
5 NSPT, Su
France 1990 Vs, Vp
(4+1*) Dr, Cc, etc.
www.iaee.or.jp/worldlist.html
13
Site – soil classification (EC8)
• The first version of Eurocode 8
(CEN, 1994) proposed the use of
site-dependent elastic response
spectra for three soil classes A, B
and C, which roughly correspond to
hard, intermediate and soft soils.
14
Site – soil classification (EC8)
• For the definition of ground type, in situ data from the same or close by areas
with similar geological characteristics (?) may be integrated.
• “More detailed consideration of site effects to account for deep geology may be
specified in the National Annexes. Unfortunately, this refinement rarely takes
place” (Trifunac, 2012).
• “While the EC8 code uses the term ground types, it can be seen from the above
that in fact they represent only five ranges of soil stiffness near surface, without
any reference to the thickness of the soil layers or the geological deposits
bellow.“(Trifunac, 2012)
15
Site-dependent elastic response spectra (EC8)
16
Site-dependent elastic response spectra (EC8)
maximum S
17
Site-dependent elastic response spectra (EC8)
Validation of EC8 normalized response spectra
A, M ≤ 5.5
A, M ≤ 5.5 A, M > 5.5
Soil class A
only 230 rather
reliable records!
Soil class D
Soil class E
20
Site-dependent elastic response spectra (EC8)
Validation of EC8 S factors
Approach 1 (Choi & Stewart, 2005)
Main problem:
Results depend on the
reliability of the GMPEs
prediction for rock
3500
3000
R*SA (km*cm/s2)
2500
C, M=5-5.5, N=127
2000 A, M=5-5.5, N=36
C, M=4.5-5, N=126
1500 A, M=4.5-5, N=36
C, M=4-4.5, N=100
1000 A, M=4-4.5, N=33
500
0.01 0.1 1
Period (s)
(b) 20000
18000
A, M=7-7.5, N=5
12000 C, M=6.5-7, N=207
rock sites
A, M=6.5-7, N=39
10000
C, M=6-6.5, N=520
8000 A, M=6-6.5, N=47
C, M=5.5-6, N=176
6000 A, M=5.5-6, N=28
4000
2000
0.01 0.1
Period (s)
1
Pitilakis et al. (2012) 22
Site-dependent elastic response spectra (EC8)
Validation of EC8 S factors
Type 2 (Ms≤5.5)
Soil Class SHARE-DS1 SHARE-DS2 SHARE-DS3 EC8 Proposed
Ap.1 Ap.2 W.A. Ap.1 Ap.2 W.A. Ap.1 Ap.2 W.A.
B 0.90 1.55 1.23 1.51 1.37 1.44 - - - 1.35 1.40
C 1.93 2.54 2.23 2.19 2.12 2.16 - - - 1.50 2.10
D 3.36 3.07 3.22 2.92 2.00 2.46 - - - 1.80 1.80a
E 0.98 1.79 1.39 1.30 1.96 1.63 - - - 1.60 1.60a
Type 1 (Ms>5.5)
Soil Class SHARE-DS1 SHARE-DS2 SHARE-DS3 EC8 Proposed
Ap.1 Ap.2 W.A. Ap.1 Ap.2 W.A. Ap.1 Ap.2 W.A.
B 1.47 1.34 1.41 1.53 1.08 1.31 1.49 0.94 1.22 1.20 1.30
C 2.09 2.24 2.16 2.06 1.46 1.76 1.82 1.15 1.48 1.15 1.70
D 1.74 1.42 1.58 1.56 0.92 1.24 - - 1.35 1.35a
E 0.91 1.07 0.99 0.97 0.83 0.90 0.93 0.78 0.85 1.40 1.40a
Comparison of EC8 Type 1and 2 normalized response spectra for ground types
A and C with UBC spectra and the standard spectral shape by Biot 1941 (from
Trifunac, 2012)
Site-dependent elastic response spectra (EC8)
Reference rock motion
SHARE project:
www.share-eu.org
http://www.efehr.org 25
Site-dependent elastic response spectra (EC8)
Reference rock motion
40
35
35 379
Number of sites
30 29 29 242 184
30
138 83 57
38 15
26 26 26
25 22
20 20
A B C D E
20 19
16 15 17 18 EC8 soil class
15 14 13
12 11
9 10 10
10 7 8 8 99
6
5 43 453 53 4
11 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 22 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1
0
1100
1140
1180
100
140
180
220
260
300
340
380
420
460
500
540
580
620
660
700
740
780
820
860
900
940
980
1020
1060
1220
1260
1300
1340
1380
1420
1460
1500
1540
1580
20
60
Vs,30 (m/sec)
Acceleration (cm/s2)
Acceleration (cm/s2)
Acceleration (cm/s2)
Acceleration (cm/s2)
Acceleration (cm/s2)
200 20 40 40 200
0 0 0 0 0
Acceleration (cm/s2)
Acceleration (cm/s2)
Acceleration (cm/s2)
Acceleration (cm/s2)
Acceleration (cm/s2)
20 40 20 40
50
0 0 0 0 0
-50
-20 -40 -20 -40
-100
Acceleration (cm/s2)
Acceleration (cm/s2)
Acceleration (cm/s2)
Acceleration (cm/s2)
Loma Prieta EQ, 1989 Irpinia EQ, 1980 Northridge EQ, 1994
40 40
200 40
0
0 0 0 0
-200 -40
-40 -40 -400
-400 -80
28
Records on soil class A sites (SHARE-AUTH database)
EC8-Class A-Type 1
5 EC8-Class A-Type 2
4
PSA/PGA
Bisaccia station ,
Irpinia EQ and aftershock, 1980
1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
T (s)
29
Records on soil class A sites (SHARE-AUTH database)
4 4
A1&A2, M<=5.5 A1&A2, M>5.5
MEDIAN MEDIAN
PROPOSED PROPOSED
PSA/PGA
PSA/PGA
2 2
1 1
0 0
8 8
A1&A2, M<=5.5 A1&A2, M>5.5
MEDIAN MEDIAN
16th-84th percentiles 16th-84th percentiles
PROPOSED PROPOSED
6 6
N=11 N=18
PSA/PGA
PSA/PGA
4 4
2 2
0 0
• Disadvantages of Vs,30:
• It is not a fundamental (geotechnical) parameter
• Could mislead grossly in different cases like: deep low stiffness deposits
lying on much harder rock; sites with a shallow velocity inversion; sites with
velocity profiles which are not monotonically increasing with depth or do
not exhibit a strong impedance contrast in the first dozen meters or in
basin type structures.
31
Is Vs,30 appropriate for site – soil classification?
Vs(m/ s) Vs(m/ s) Vs (m /s)
0 4 0 0 8 0 0 1 2 0 0 16 0 0 0 40 0 800 1200 1600 0 400 800 1200
0 0 0
-3.6 0 -2.50 CL
SM - SC 38 CL
SC 34 3
80 1/5
100/10 C L- M L
SM 24,60/10
65
Representative SC 60/10 SM
strong-motion
SM --SC
18,60/15 8
CL
station sites in 47 ML
> 100
Greece classified
ML 102
24,60/15 t rav. R*
-19 .30 SM
as soil class B 20
sch 60/5
20
100/10
20
according to EC8 SM 81 CL
trav. R
sch C L- M L
100/10
30 30 30
CH
' 100/15
sch
CL
40 40 40
0 40 80 120 160 40 80 120 0 20 40 60 32
80 100
N30--S..P ..T.. N3 0--S..P ..T.. N3 0--S..P..T..
Is Vs,30 appropriate for site – soil classification?
Vs(m/ s) Vs(m/ s) Vs( m/ s)
0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800
0 0 0
-2.00
CL
3
CL
--5..70 SM 11 --5..70 SM 11
5
28 28 CH
Representative
ML ML
10
12 12 SC
station sites in
53
C L- M L C L- M L CL
16 16 54
Greece classified
ML ML
54 54 72
CL
as soil class C 20
SM 78
20
SM 78
20
CL 84
according to EC8 CL CL 79
50/15 50/15
106
50/15 50/15
89
50/5 50/5
30 CL 30 CL 30 CL 86
50/12 50/12
CL 105
30
Serp.
30 36 30 30
40 40 40
0 20 40 60 80 100 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
N30-S.P.T. N30-S.P.T. RQD
Sites with identical Vs,30, but different layering, can have significantly
different response
Idriss (2011)
Is Vs,30 appropriate for site – soil classification?
• Bucharest, Mexico City, other deep basin sites like the basin of Po in North
Italy or even cities with archeological layers of considerable thickness like
Rome or Thessaloniki, are among the most characteristic cases of not
appropriateness of Vs,30
36
Is Vs,30 appropriate for site – soil classification?
Gradient shear wave velocity
a
z
V (z) = V + (V −V )⋅
s s, top s,bot s, top h
1
a=0.69
0.8
Fit Results
Equation Y = pow(x,a)
[Vs(z)-Vs top]/(Vs bot-Vs top)
a = 0.69
0.6
,
Average X = 0.446144
Average Y = 0.516936
,
• Main parameters:
• Fundamental period of soil deposit T0
• Average shear wave velocity of the entire soil deposit Vs,av
• Thickness of soil deposit H
• N-SPT, PI, Su
• More detailed geotechnical soil description and categorization
38
New site – soil classification scheme (Pitilakis et al., 2013)
Description Τ0 Remarks
Α1 Rock formations Vs ≥ 1500 m/s
Surface weathered
Slightly weathered / segmented rock formations layer: Vs,av ≥ 200 m/s
(thickness of weathered layer <5.0m ) Rock Formations:
≤ 0.2s Vs ≥ 800 m/s
Α2
Geologic formations resembling rock formations in their
mechanical properties and their composition (e.g. Vs ≥ 800 m/s
conglomerates)
Highly weathered rock formations whose weathered Weathered layer,
layer has a considerable thickness (> 5.0m - 30.0m) Vs,av ≥ 300 m/s
Soft rock formations of great thickness or formations Vs: 400-800 m/s
which resemble these in their mechanical properties N-SPT > 50
Β1 (e.g. stiff marls) ≤ 0.5s Su> 200 KPa
Soil formations of very dense sand – sand gravel and/or Vs,av: 400-800 m/s
very stiff/ to hard clay, of homogenous nature and small N-SPT > 50
thickness (up to 30.0m) Su > 200 KPa
Soil formations of very dense sand – sand gravel and/or Vs,av: 400-800 m/s
very stiff/ to hard clay, of homogenous nature and
Β2 ≤ 0.8s N-SPT > 50
medium thickness (30.0 - 60.0m), whose mechanical
properties increase with depth Su > 200 KPa
39
New site – soil classification scheme (Pitilakis et al., 2013)
Description Τ0 Remarks
40
New site – soil classification scheme (Pitilakis et al., 2013)
Description Τ0 Remarks
41
New site – soil classification scheme (Pitilakis et al., 2013)
Description Τ0 Remarks
Surface soil formations of small thickness (5 - 20m),
small strength and stiffness, likely to be classified as Surface soil layers,
Ε category C and D according to its geotechnical ≤ 0.7s
properties, which overlie category Α formations (Vs ≥ Vs,av ≤ 400 m/s
800 m/sec)
Loose fine sandy-silty soils beneath the water table, susceptible to liquefaction (unless a
special study proves no such danger, or if the soil’s mechanical properties are improved)
Soils near obvious tectonic faults
Steep slopes covered with loose lateral deposits
ΕX Loose granular or soft silty-clayey soils, provided they have been proven to be hazardous in
terms of dynamic compaction or loss of strength.
Recent loose landfills
Soils with a very high percentage in organic material
Soils requiring site-specific evaluations
42
New site – soil classification scheme (Pitilakis et al., 2013)
EC8
EC8 t a New
s et aCS 0
800 800
700 700
600 600
B1 B2 C1
Vs,av (m/s)
Vs,30 (m/s)
500 500
A2
400 B 400
C2 C3
300 300
E
200 C 200 D1, D2
A Ε D D3
100 100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
H (m) H (m)
43
New site – soil classification scheme (Pitilakis et al., 2013)
Amplification factors S (at T=0sec)
44
New site – soil classification scheme (Pitilakis et al., 2013)
Elastic acceleration response spectra (5%)
45
Period-dependent amplification factors
2.5 2.5
B B
C C
2 2
S
S
D D
E E
1.5 1.5
1 1
New CS
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
T (sec) T (sec)
New CS - Type 1
5
4 B1
Β2
C1
3 C2
S
C3
D
2 E
1
Pitilakis et al. (2012, 2013)
0 1 2 3 4
T (sec) 46
Site – soil classification - The case of Thessaloniki
47
Demand spectra
• Performance-based design
48
Demand spectra
49
Soil strength parameters and G-γ-D curves (EC8)
• Soil strength parameters:
• Undrained shear strength Su for cohesive soils
• Cyclic undrained shear strength τcy,u for cohesionless soils
• Angle of friction and cohesion (UU or CU conditions)
• Soil stiffness:
• Maximum shear modulus G=ρ Vs2 at very low strains
• Dependence of G (and Vs*) on the soil strains must be taken into account
through proper reduction factors (EC8?) or better selecting appropriate
G/G0-γ- D curves for all soil types
• Soil damping:
• Soil damping should be estimated from laboratory or field tests (?)
• The dependence of damping ratio on the soil strain level must be taken
into account (as for the soil stiffness)
51
Vs and G –γ - D
52
Vs and G-γ-D
53
Vs and G-γ-D values suggested in EC8
For Vs>360m/s?
54
Basin effects
• They can be taken into account through an aggravation factor AGF
Spectral acceleration from 2D analysis
AGF (T ) =
Spectral acceleration from 1D analysis
1.8 1.8
1.6 1.6
1.4 1.4
max AGF
max AGF
1.2 1.2
1 1
0.8 0.8
w=2500m a1=a2=20
w=5000m a1=a2=45
Pitilakis et al. (2015)
0.6 0.6
w=10000m a1=a2=65
0.4 0.4
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
56
x/W x/W
Basin effects
Effect of shear wave velocity gradient
homogenous - viscoelastic
gradient - 0.1g
w=2500m, h=250m, a=45o, Vs,av=250m/s w=2500m, h=250m, a=45o, Vs,av=350m/s w=2500m, h=250m, a=45o, Vs,av=500m/s
2.4 2.4 2.4
2 2 2
max AGF
max AGF
1.4 1.4 1.4
1 1 1
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 0 250 500 750 1000 1250
x x x
Riga (2015)
57
Basin effects
Effect of soil nonlinearity
gradient - 0.1g
gradient - 0.3g
gradient - 0.5g
w=2500m, h=250m, a=45o, Vs,av=250m/s w=2500m, h=250m, a=45o, Vs,av=350m/s w=2500m, h=250m, a=45o, Vs,av=500m/s
2.4 2.4 2.4
2 2 2
max AGF
max AGF
max AGF
1 1 1
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 0 250 500 750 1000 1250
x x x
Riga (2015)
• Consideration of soil nonlinearity for the sediments material does not affect
the estimated aggravation factor significantly (small decrease of AGF far from
the basin edge and minor increase close to the basin edge)
58
Basin effects - Summary
59
Topography effects (EC8)
• Simplified period-independent amplification factors ST are proposed for
slope inclination greater than 15o and height greater than H=30m.
60
Liquefaction (EC8)
• EC8 calls for an evaluation of liquefaction susceptibility for extended layers of
loose sand with or without silt/clay fines beneath the water table level. For
shallow foundations evaluation of liquefaction susceptibility may be omitted
when the saturated sandy soils are at depths greater than 15m.
61
Liquefaction (EC8)
• Simplified liquefaction analysis
FS = CRR / CSR
cyclic resistance ratio CRR from
empirical charts based on SPT
blowcount, CPT cone resistance
or Vs
cyclic stress ratio:
CSR=0.65 (amax/g) (σv0 /σ΄v0) S
62
Liquefaction (EC8)
Detailed liquefaction analysis needs detailed knowledge of the soil properties
and local geology
63
Seismically precarious slopes
• Displacement-based approaches are preferred.
• The yield acceleration coefficient ky is used to represent the overall
resistance of the slope. (Newmark 1965)
• ky depends primarily on the dynamic strength of the material along the
critical sliding surface and the structure’s geometry and unit weight.
• EC8 does not provide any relationships for ky. In the literature there are
analytical equations, e.g. Bray and Travasarou 2007, Pitilakis et al., 2015
The optimal scalar and vector IM are identified through regression analyses
correlating the numerical seismic slope displacements (D) with various IMs:
The free field ground surface intensity parameters (i.e. PGA, PGV, Ia) could
be used in the equations without any modification with depth
Summary of soil-site classification parameters
67
EUROSEISTEST database (http://euroseisdb.civil.auth.gr)
Station Dedicated webpage
68
EUROSEISTEST database
Available data and metadata
1. General Information
• Station Code
• Network
• Instrumentation
• Power Supply
• Housing
2. Geographical Information / Geomorphology
• Location
• Elevation from sea level
• Station coordinates
• Projection system
• Site morphology
3. Geological Information
• Surface geology
• Reference for geological map
• Existence of boreholes in the proximity of the site (yes/no)
69
EUROSEISTEST database
Available data and metadata
70
EUROSEISTEST database
Example station metadata (TST)
71
EUROSEISTEST database
Example station metadata (TST)
Geotechnical Site Characterization
72
EUROSEISTEST database
Example station metadata (TST)
Geophysical Site Characterization
73
EUROSEISTEST database
Example station metadata (TST)
Site Response
74
EUROSEISTEST database
Station Description Sheets
75
EUROSEISTEST database
Time histories of the 12/9/2005 earthquake (Μ~5, R~8 km)
as recorded in the down-hole accelerographic array at the center of the valley (TST)
Radial component Transversal component
0m 0m
21m 21m
40m 40m
72m 72m
136m 136m
196m 196m
0m
21m
77
EUROSEISTEST database
NNW
PRO Example Waveforms
PRR
PRO_033 GRA
W03W02W01TSTE01 E02 E03
SW NE Down-hole configuration
TST_18 FRM at TST
BUT
TST_40 STC
STE SW-NE direction
TST_73
TST_136 SSE
TST_196
78
EUROSEISTEST database
Ongoing: Processing of the homogenized data set – Azimuthal variation in input
motion
Events:
• Doirani, 2009-05-24
• East of Sithonia, 2008-12-27
79
EUROSEISTEST database
Ongoing: Processing of the homogenized data set – Azimuthal variation in input
motion
Station: KOK
H (m) Vs (m/sec)
10 185
20 260
40 340
50 468
90 625
90 622
100 730
1100
Station: PRR
H (m) Vs (m/sec)
13 300
25 475
35 590
>750
80
Aim
Research oriented?
Codes?
Risk assessment?
81
Thank you for your attention
82