Advertisement

A time-domain nonlinear effective-stress non-Masing approach of ground response analysis of Guwahati city, India

  • Devdeep Basu
  • Madhulatha Boga
  • Arindam DeyEmail author
Article
  • 27 Downloads

Abstract

The response of subsoil strata subjected to seismic excitations plays an important role in governing the response of the overlying superstructures at any site. Ground response analysis (GRA) helps to assess the influence of soil characteristics on the propagating seismic stress waves from the bedrock level to the ground surface during an earthquake. For the northeastern region of India, located in the highest seismic zone in the country, conducting an extensive GRA study is of prime importance. Conventionally, most of the GRA studies are carried out using the equivalent linear method, which, being a simplistic approach, cannot capture the nonlinear behavior of soil during seismic shaking. This paper presents the outcomes of a one-dimensional effective stress based nonlinear GRA conducted for Guwahati city (located in northeast India) incorporating the non-Masing load/unload/reload characteristics. The various ground response parameters evaluated from this study help in assessing the ground shaking, soil amplification, and site responses expected in this region. 2D contour maps, which are representative of the distribution of some of these parameters throughout Guwahati city, are also developed. The results presented herein can serve as guidelines for the design of foundations and superstructures in this region.

Keywords

ground response analysis nonlinear effective stress approach non-masing criteria ground response parameters soil amplification 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Afshari K and Stewart JP (2015), “Uncertainty of Site Amplification Derived from Ground Response Analysis,” Proceedings of the 6th International Conference in Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Christchurch, New Zealand, 1–9.Google Scholar
  2. Ashford SA, Jakrapyanun W and Lukkanaprasit P (2000), “Amplification of Earthquake Ground Motions in Bangkok,” Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, 1–7.Google Scholar
  3. Bapat A (2010), “Disaster Management Plans in View of Recent Earthquake,” Current Science, 98(10): 1287–1288.Google Scholar
  4. Bazzurro P and Cornell CA (2004), “Ground Motion Amplification in Nonlinear Soil Sites with Uncertain Properties,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 94(6): 2090–2109.Google Scholar
  5. Bielak J, Hisada Y, Bao H, Xu J and Ghattas O (2000), “One-vs Two-or Three-Dimensional Effects in Sedimentary Valleys,” Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  6. Castelli F, Cavallaro A, Grasso S and Lentini V (2016), “Seismic Microzoning from Synthetic Ground Motion Earthquake Scenarios Parameters: The Case Study of the City of Catania (Italy),” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 88: 307–327.Google Scholar
  7. Cavallaro A, Ferraro A, Grasso S and Maugeri M (2012), “Topographic Effects on the Monte Po Hill in Catania (Italy),” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 43: 97–113.Google Scholar
  8. Chiou BSJ and Youngs RR (2008), “An NGA Model for the Average Horizontal Component of Peak Ground Motion and Response Spectra,” Earthquake Spectra, 24(1): 173–215.Google Scholar
  9. Ferraro A, Grasso S, Maugeri M and Totani F (2016), “Seismic Response Analysis in the Southern Part of the Historic Centre of the City of L’Aquila (Italy),” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 88: 256–264.Google Scholar
  10. Grasso S and Maugeri M (2012), “The Seismic Microzonation of the City of Catania (Italy) for the Etna Scenario Earthquake (M=6.2) of 20 February 1818,” Earthquake Spectra, 28(2): 573–594.Google Scholar
  11. Grasso S and Maugeri M (2014), “Seismic Microzonation Studies for the City of Ragusa (Italy),” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 56: 86–97.Google Scholar
  12. GSI (2000), “Seismotectonic Atlas of India and Its Environs,” Geological Survey of India, Calcutta, India.Google Scholar
  13. Hardin BO and Drnevich VP (1972), “Shear Modulus and Damping Soils: Design Equations and Curves,” Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 98: 289–324.Google Scholar
  14. Hasancebi N and Ulusay R (2007) “Empirical Correlations Between Shear Wave Velocity and Penetration Resistance for Ground Shaking Assessments,” Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 66: 203–213.Google Scholar
  15. Hashash YMA and Park D (2001), “Nonlinear One-Dimensional Seismic Ground Motion Propagation in the Mississippi Embayment,” Engineering Geology, 62(1–2): 185–206.Google Scholar
  16. Hongshuai L, Jingshan B, Ping L, Wenhao Q and Yudong Z (2016), “Site Amplification Effects as an Explanation for the Intensity Anomaly in the Hanyuan Town During the Wenchuan Mw 7.9 Earthquake,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 15(3): 435–444.Google Scholar
  17. Housner GW and Jennings PC (1972), “The San Fernando California Earthquake,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 1(1): 5–31.Google Scholar
  18. IBC (2000), International Building Code, International Code Council.Google Scholar
  19. Imai T and Tonouchi K (1982), “Correlation of N Value with S-Wave Velocity and Shear Modulus,” Proceedings of 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Amsterdam, 67–72.Google Scholar
  20. IS: 1893-Part 1 (2002), “Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures,” Bureau of Indian Standards.Google Scholar
  21. Ishibashi I and Zhang X (1993), “Unified Dynamic Shear Moduli and Damping Ratios of Sand and Clay,” Soils and Foundations, 33(1): 182–191.Google Scholar
  22. Iyisan R (1996), “Correlations Between Shear Wave Velocity and in Situ Penetration Test Results,” Chamber of Civil Engineers of Turkey, Teknik Dergi, 7(2): 1187–1199.Google Scholar
  23. Kaklamanos J, Bradley BA, Thompson EM and Baise LG (2013), “Critical Parameters Affecting Bias and Variability in Site-Response Analyses Using KiK-Net Downhole Array Data,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 103(3): 1733–1749.Google Scholar
  24. Kanai K, Tanaka T and Yoshizawa S (1959), “Comparative Studies of Earthquake Motions on the Ground and Underground (Multiple Reflection Problem),” Bulletin of the Earthquake Research Institute, 37: 53–87.Google Scholar
  25. Kondner RL and Zelasko JS (1963), “A Hyperbolic Stress-Strain Formulation of Sands,” Proceedings of the 2nd Pan American Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Sao Paulo, Brasil, 289–324.Google Scholar
  26. Kramer SL (1996), Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  27. Kumar A, Harinarayan NH and Baro O (2015), “High Amplification Factor for Low Amplitude Ground Motion: Assessment for Delhi,” Disaster Advances, 8(12): 1–11.Google Scholar
  28. Kumar SS and Murali Krishna A (2013), “Seismic Ground Response Analysis of Some Typical Sites of Guwahati City,” International Journal of Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, 4(1): 83–101.Google Scholar
  29. Kwok AOL, Stewart JP and Hashash YMA (2008), “Nonlinear Ground Response Analysis of Turkey Flat Shallow Stiff-Soil Site to Strong Ground Motions,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 98(1): 331–343.Google Scholar
  30. Laird JP and Stokoe KH (1993), “Dynamic Properties of Remolded and Undisturbed Soil Samples Tested at High Confining Pressure,” Geotechnical Engineering Report GR93-6, Electrical Power Research Institute.Google Scholar
  31. Li W and Assimaki D (2010), “Quantifying Nonlinearity Susceptibility via Site-Response Modeling Uncertainty at Three Sites in the Los Angeles Basin,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 100(3): 954–968.Google Scholar
  32. Lin PS, Chiou B, Abrahamson N, Walling M, Lee CT and Cheng CT (2011), “Repeatable Source, Site and Path Effects on the Standard Deviation for Empirical Ground Motion Prediction Models,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 101(5): 2281–2295.Google Scholar
  33. Masing G (1926), “Eignespannungen und Verfestigung Beim Messing,” In: 2nd International Congress on Applied Mechanics, Zurich, Switzerland, 332–335.Google Scholar
  34. Matasovic N and Vucetic M (1993), “Cyclic Characterization of Liquefiable Sands,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 119(11): 1805–1822.Google Scholar
  35. NEHRP Part 1: Provisions (2003), “NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA 450),” Building Seismic Safety Council, National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, 338.Google Scholar
  36. Newmark NM (1959), “A Method of Computation for Structural Dynamics,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics Division, 85: 67–94.Google Scholar
  37. Newmark NM and Hall WJ (1982), “Earthquake Spectra and Design,” EERI Monograph, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, California, 103.Google Scholar
  38. Ohsaki Y and Iwasaki R (1973) “On Dynamic Shear Moduli and Poisson’s Ratio for Soil Deposits,” Soils and Foundations, 13(4): 61–73.Google Scholar
  39. Ohta Y and Goto N (1978), “Empirical Shear Wave Velocity Equations in Terms of Characteristic Soil Indexes,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 6: 167–187.Google Scholar
  40. Oldham RD (1899), “Report of the Great Earthquake of 12 June 1897,” Memoirs of the Geological Survey of India, 29: 1–379.Google Scholar
  41. Oldham T (1882), “The Cachar Earthquake of 10 January 1869,” In: Oldham RD (ed), Memoirs of the Geological Survey of India, 19(1): 1–88.Google Scholar
  42. Phillips C and Hashash YMA (2009), “Damping Formulation for Non-Linear 1D Site Response Analyses,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 29: 1143–1158.Google Scholar
  43. Poddar MC (1950), “The Assam Earthquake of 15th August 1950,” Indian Mineralogy, 4: 167–176.Google Scholar
  44. Poovarodom N and Jirasakjamroonsri A (2014), “Evaluation of Seismic Site Effects for Bangkok Deep Basin,” Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Istanbul, 1–10.Google Scholar
  45. Raghukanth STG, Sreelatha S and Dash SK (2008), “Ground Motion Estimation at Guwahati City for an Mw 8.1 Earthquake in the Shillong Plateau,” Tectonophysics, 448: 98–114.Google Scholar
  46. Rathje EM, Kottke AR and Trent WL (2010), “Influence of Input Motion and Site Property Variabilities on Seismic Site Response Analysis,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 136(4): 607–619.Google Scholar
  47. Rodriguez-Marek A, Montalva GA, Cotton F and Bonilla F (2011), “Analysis of Single Station Standard Deviation Using the KiK-Net Data,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 101(3): 1242–1258.Google Scholar
  48. Seed HB, Ugas C and Lysmer J (1976), ”Site-Dependent Spectra for Earthquake-Resistant Design,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 66(4):1323–1342.Google Scholar
  49. Semblat JF, Dangla P and Kham M (2002), “Seismic Site Effects for Shallow and Deep Alluvial Basins: In-Depth Motion and Focusing Effect,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 22(9–12): 849–854.Google Scholar
  50. Seyhan E and Stewart JP (2014), “Semi-Empirical Nonlinear Site Amplification from NGA-West2 Data and Simulations,” Earthquake Spectra, 30(3):1241–1256.Google Scholar
  51. Shibata T and Soelarno DS (1975), “Stress-Strain Characteristics of Sand under Cyclic Loading,” Proceedings of the Japan Society of Civil Engineers, 239: 57–65.Google Scholar
  52. Stewart JP and Liu AH (2000), “Ground Motion Amplification as a Function of Surface Geology,” Proceedings of SMIP2000 Seminar on Utilization of Strong-Motion Data, California.Google Scholar
  53. Stewart JP, Afshari K and Hashash YMA (2014a), “Guidelines for Performing Hazard-Consistent One-Dimensional Ground Response Analysis for Ground Motion Prediction,” PEER Report 2014/16, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  54. Stewart JP, Klimis N, Savvaidis A, Theodoulidis N, Zargli E, Athanosopoulos G, Pelekis P, Mylonakis G and Margaris B (2014b), “Compilation of a Local Vs Profile Database and Its Application for Inference of Vs30 from Geologic-and Terrain-Based Proxies,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 104(6): 2827–2841.Google Scholar
  55. Stewart JP, Kwok AO, Hashash YMA, Matasovic N, Pyke R, Wang Z (2008), “Benchmarking of Nonlinear Geotechnical Ground Response Analysis Procedures,” PEER Report 2008/04, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  56. Terzaghi K (1925), “Principles of Soil Mechanics. IV. Settlement and Consolidation of Clay,” Engineering News-Record, 95: 874–878.Google Scholar
  57. Wair BR, DeJong JT and Shantz T (2012), “Guidelines for Estimation of Shear Wave Velocity,” PEER Report, 1–68.Google Scholar
  58. Warnitchai P and Lisantono A (1996), “Probabilistic Seismic Risk Mapping for Thailand,” Proceedings of the 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico.Google Scholar
  59. Xie Q, Gaohu L, Chen H, Xu C and Feng B (2017), “Seismic Damage to Road Networks Subjected to Earthquakes in Nepal, 2015,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 16(3): 649–670.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology GuwahatiGuwahatiIndia

Personalised recommendations