Advertisement

Equivalent Linear and Nonlinear Site-Specific Ground Response Analysis of Pashto Cultural Museum Peshawar, Pakistan

  • Khalid MahmoodEmail author
  • Sher Afzal Khan
  • Qaiser Iqbal
  • Fazli Karim
  • Shahid Iqbal
Research Paper
  • 3 Downloads

Abstract

Site-specific ground response analysis is needed for seismic hazard estimation, and its mitigation is required for seismically active regions of Pakistan. The work presented in the following includes response analysis of a specific site at Peshawar Khyber Pakhtunkhwa using equivalent linear (EL) and also nonlinear (NL) analyses. The site model was developed using the geotechnical investigation data from field investigation and subsequent laboratory tests on representative soil samples. The earthquake records compatible to the seismic activities in the target area are selected and matched to the target response spectra in order to obtain input excitation force for the base ground model. Several issues that are related to site-specific ground response analysis, i.e., shear strain, mobilized shear strength and ground acceleration along depth of soil model, are studied and compared for both EL and NL analyses. The analysis results are also further studied and compared for ground response spectra and amplification factor using both EL and NL analyses.

Keywords

Site-specific ground response analysis Equivalent linear (EL) analysis Nonlinear (NL) analysis Shear strain Ground acceleration Response spectra Amplification factor (AF) 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable insightful comments that helped us to improve the quality of this paper.

References

  1. Ahmad M, Iqbal Q, Khan FA (2013) Profiling and zoning of geotechnical sub-soil data using geographic information system. Sci Int 25(3):15–20Google Scholar
  2. Akhila M, Ghosh C, Satyam DN (2012) Detailed ground response analysis at park hotel in Kolkata City, India. In: 15 world conference on earthquake engineering (Lisbon)Google Scholar
  3. Ancheta TD, Darragh RB, Stewart JP, Seyhan E, Silva WJ, Chiou BSJ, Kishida T (2014) NGA-West2 database. Earthq Spectra 30(3):989–1005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aslam M, Hussain A, Ashraf M, Afridi AGK (2006) Geological map of north west Frontier Province, Geological Survey of Pakistan 68Google Scholar
  5. Baise LG, Kaklamanos J, Berry BM, Thompson EM (2016) Soil amplification with a strong impedance contrast: Boston, Massachusetts. Eng Geol 202:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. BCP (2007) Building codes of Pakistan seismic provisions: government of Islamic Republic of Pakistan ministry of housing and works. PEC (Pakistan Engineering Council), IslamabadGoogle Scholar
  7. Bhatti AQ, Hassan SZU, Rafi Z, Khatoon Z, Ali Q (2011) Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis of Islamabad. Pakistan. J Asian Earth Sci 42(3):468–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bonaccorso R, Grasso S, Giudice EL, Maugeri M (2005) Cavities and hypogeal structures of the historical part of the City of Catania. WIT Trans State Art Sci Eng 1:197–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boore DM, Atkinson GM (2008) Ground-motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA at spectral periods between 0.01 s and 10.0 s. Earthq Spectra 24(1):99–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cavallaro A, Ferraro A, Grasso S, Maugeri M (2012a) Topographic effects on the Monte Po hill in Catania (Italy). Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 43:97–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cavallaro A, Grasso S, Maugeri M, Motta E (2012b) Site characterisation by in situ and laboratory tests of the sea bed in the Genova Harbour, Italy. Geotechnical and geophysical site characterization. Taylor and Francis Group, London, pp 415–422Google Scholar
  12. Cavallaro A, Grasso S, Maugeri M, Motta E (2013) An innovative low-cost SDMT marine investigation for the evaluation of the liquefaction potential in the Genova Harbour, Italy. In: Geotechnical and geophysical site characterization: proceedings of the 4th international conference on site characterization ISC-4, vol 1, pp 637–644. Taylor and Francis Books Ltd., LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Dikmen U (2009) Statistical correlations of shear wave velocity and penetration resistance for soils. J Geophys Eng 6:61–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eskandarinejad A, Jahanandish M, Zafarani H (2017) Divergence between nonlinear and equivalent-linear 1D site response analyses for different V S realizations of typical clay sites. Pure Appl Geophys 174(10):3955–3978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eskandarinejad A, Zafarani H, Jahanandish M (2018) Local site effect of a clay site in Shiraz based on seismic hazard of Shiraz Plain. Nat Hazards 90(3):1115–1135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. GovindaRaju L, Ramana GV, HanumanthaRao C, Sitharam TG (2004) Site-specific ground response analysis. Current Sci 25:1354–1362Google Scholar
  17. Grasso S, Maugeri M (2005) Vulnerability of physical environment of the City of Catania using GIS technique. WIT Trans State Art Sci Eng 8Google Scholar
  18. Grasso S, Maugeri M (2009) The seismic microzonation of the city of Catania (Italy) for the maximum expected scenario earthquake of January 11, 1693. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29(6):953–962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hasancebi N, Ulusay R (2006) Empirical correlations between shear wave velocity and penetration resistance for ground shaking assessments. Bull Eng Geol Environ 66:203–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hashash Y (2012) DEEPSOIL v5. 1–Tutorial and user manual 2002–2012. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, UrbanaGoogle Scholar
  21. Hashash YM, Kottke AR, Stewart JP, Campbell KW, Kim B, Moss C, Silva WJ (2014) Reference rock site condition for central and eastern North America. Bull Seismol Soc Am 104(2):684–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hussain A, Pogue K, Khan SR, Ahmad I (1991) Paleozoic stratigraphy of the Peshawar basin, Pakistan. Geol Bull Univ Peshawar 24:85–97Google Scholar
  23. Idriss IM, Sun JI (1992) SHAKE91: a computer program for conducting equivalent linear seismic response analyses of horizontally layered soil deposits, user’s guide. University of California, Davis, p 13Google Scholar
  24. Imai T, Tonouchi K (1982) Correlation of N-value with S-wave velocity and shear modulus. In: Proceedings 2nd European symposium of penetration testing (Amsterdam), pp 57–72Google Scholar
  25. Jafari MK, Asghari A, Rahmani I (1997) Empirical correlation between shear wave velocity (Vs) and SPT-N value for south of Tehran soils. In: Proceedings 4th international conference on civil engineering (Tehran, Iran). (in Persian)Google Scholar
  26. Jain A, Kumar D, Singh SK, Kumar A (2000) Timing, quantification and tectonic modeling of Pliocene quaternary movements in the NW Himalaya: evidences from fission track dating. Earth Planet Sci Lett 179:437–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kaklamanos J, Baise LG, Thompson EM, Dorfmann L (2015) Comparison of 1D linear, equivalent-linear, and nonlinear site response models at six KiK-net validation sites. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 69:207–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kiku H, Yoshida N, Yasuda S, Irisawa T, Nakazawa H, Shimizu Y, Ansal A, Erkan A (2001) In-situ penetration tests and soil profiling in Adapazari, Turkey. In: Proceedings ICSMGE/TC4 satellite conference on lessons learned from recent strong earthquakes, pp 259–65Google Scholar
  29. Kim B, Hashash YM, Stewart JP, Rathje EM, Harmon JA, Musgrove MI, Silva WJ (2016) Relative differences between nonlinear and equivalent-linear 1-D site response analyses. Earthq Spectra 32(3):1845–1865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kondner RL (1963) A hyperbolic stress-strain formulation for sands. In: Proceedings 2nd Panamerican conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, Brazil, vol 1, pp 289–324Google Scholar
  31. Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  32. Lasley SJ, Green RA, Rodriguez-Marek A (2014) Comparison of equivalent-linear site response analysis software. In: Proceedings, 10th US national conference on earthquake engineeringGoogle Scholar
  33. Mahmood K, Rehman Z, Farooq K, Memon SA (2016) One dimensional equivalent linear ground response analysis—a case study of collapsed tower in Islamabad during 2005, Muzaffarabad earthquake. J Appl Geophys 130:110–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Matasovic N (1993) Seismic response of composite horizontally-layered soil deposits. Ph.D. thesis, 449. University of California, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  35. Maugeri M, Simonelli AL, Ferraro A, Grasso S, Penna A (2011) Recorded ground motion and site effects evaluation for the April 6, 2009 L’Aquila earthquake. Bull Earthq Eng 9(1):157–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Monaco P, Totani G, Totani F, Grasso S, Maugeri M (2011) Site effects and site amplification due to the 2009 Abruzzo earthquake. WIT Trans Built Environ 120:29–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. MonaLiza K, Khwaja AA, Javed M (2004) Seismic hazard assessment of Islamabad, Pakistan, using deterministic approach. Geological Bulletin of the University of Peshawar, Peshawar, pp 199–214Google Scholar
  38. Naik NP, Choudhury D (2014) Comparative study of seismic ground responses using DEEPSOIL, SHAKE, and D-MOD for soils of Goa, India, geo-congress 2014 technical papers geo-characterization and modeling for sustainability. ASCE, pp 1101–1110Google Scholar
  39. Nath RR, Jakka RS (2012) Effect of bedrock depth on site classification. In: 15th world conference on earthquake engineering 15WCEE. Lisbon, Portugal, pp 24–28Google Scholar
  40. Phillips C, Hashash YM (2009) Damping formulation for nonlinear 1D site response analyses. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29:1143–1158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Seed HB, Idriss IM (1970) Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analyses. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, Rep. No. EERC-70/10Google Scholar
  42. Seed HB, Idriss IM (1981) Evaluation of liquefaction potential of sand deposits based on observation of performance in previous earthquakes. In: Proceedings of the ASCE national fall convention, St. Louis 1981, session No. 24Google Scholar
  43. Shukla J, Choudhury D (2012) Seismic hazard and site-specific ground motion for typical ports of Gujarat. Nat Hazards 60(2):541–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shylamoni P, Choudhury D, Ghosh S, Ghosh AK, Basu PC (2014) Seismic ground response analysis of KK-NPP site in the event of NCO earthquake using DEEPSOIL. Geo-Congress 2014 Publication No. GSP 234, pp 840–849Google Scholar
  45. Thaker TP, Rao KS, Gupta KK (2009) One dimensional ground response analysis of coastal soil near Naliya, Kutch, Gujarat. In: Proceedings of Indian geotechnical conference, pp 531–535Google Scholar
  46. Vucetic M, Dobry R (1991) Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response. J Geotech Eng 117:89–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Waseem M, Khan MA, Javed MW, Ali SM (2013) Deterministic seismic hazard analysis for Peshawar, Pakistan. J Himal Earth Sci 46(1):67–72Google Scholar
  48. Wells DL, Coppersmith KJ (1994) New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bull Seismol Soc Am 84:974–1002Google Scholar
  49. Zalachoris G, Rathje EM (2015) Evaluation of one-dimensional site response techniques using borehole arrays. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 141(12):04015053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zaré M, Paridari SK (2008) Balakot, Muzaffarabad Earthquake of 8 October 2005, Mw 7.6; field observations on geological aspects. In: The 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing, ChinaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Shiraz University 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringSarhad University Science and Information TechnologyPeshawarPakistan

Personalised recommendations