Advertisement

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 15, Issue 5, pp 1945–1963 | Cite as

Soil amplification in low-to-moderate seismic regions

  • Ryan D. HoultEmail author
  • Elisa Lumantarna
  • Helen M. Goldsworthy
Original Research Paper

Abstract

The results of a study that investigates potential revisions of the spectral shape factors used in standards in regions of low-to-moderate seismicity are presented here. Using an equivalent linear analysis, the investigation particularly focuses on the effects of seismic intensity associated with rare and very rare intraplate earthquake events on site response. The Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center ground motion database (PEER) is used in selecting appropriate acceleration-time histories for the intraplate region. The results are normalised for comparison with the current spectral shape factors given in the Australian Standards for Earthquake Actions AS 1170.4:2007, with some differences being observed. The dependency of site amplification on seismic intensity was only observed for soil classes Ce, De and Ee. The rock site of class Be had considerably higher response in the short period range relative to class Ee. The records from the PEER ground motion database were also used for comparison with the results from this study, using a modified normalisation approach. The results from this study correlate well with the records from PEER.

Keywords

Low-to-moderate Intraplate Soil Response Amplification Spectral SHAKE2000 PEER Australia Seismic 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The support of the Commonwealth of Australia through the Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre program is acknowledged.

References

  1. Anbazhagan P, Sheikh M, Parihar A (2013) Influence of rock depth on seismic site classification for shallow bedrock regions. Nat Hazards Rev 14(2):108–121. doi: 10.1061/(asce)nh.1527-6996.0000088 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asten M, Lam N, Venkatesan S, Rutter HK, Wilson CJN (2005) The importance of shear wave velocity information of a soil site. Paper presented at the Australian Earthquake Engineering Society 2005 Conference, Albury, NSWGoogle Scholar
  3. Beresnev IA, Wen K-L (1996) Nonlinear soil response—a reality? Bull Seismol Soc Am 86(6):1964–1978Google Scholar
  4. Bolisetti C, Whittaker AS, Mason HB, Almufti I, Willford M (2014) Equivalent linear and nonlinear site response analysis for design and risk assessment of safety-related nuclear structures. Nucl Eng Des 275:107–121. doi: 10.1016/j.nucengdes.2014.04.033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borcherdt RD (1994) Estimates of site-dependent response spectra for design (methodology and justification). Earthq Spectra 10(4):617–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bradley BA, Cubrinovski M (2011) Near-source strong ground motions observed in the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Seismol Res Lett 82(6):853–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown A, Gibson G (2004) A multi-tiered earthquake hazard model for Australia. Tectonophysics 390(1–4):25–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Building Seismic Safety Council (2009) National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) recommended seismic provisions for new buildings and other structures (FEMA P-750) 2009 edition. In N. I. o. B. S. Building Seismic Safety Council (Ed.). Washington D.CGoogle Scholar
  9. Chandler A, Pappin J, Coburn A (1991) Vulnerability and seismic risk assessment of buildings following the 1989 Newcastle, Australia earthquake. Bull N Z Natl Soc Earthq Eng 24(2):116–138Google Scholar
  10. Chatterjee K, Choudhury D, Poulos HG (2015) Seismic analysis of laterally loaded pile under influence of vertical loading using finite element method. Comput Geotechn 67:172–186. doi: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2015.03.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Choudhury D and Savoikar P (2009) Equivalent-linear seismic analyses of MSW landfills using DEEPSOIL. Eng Geol 107(3–4):98–108. doi: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2009.05.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crouse CB, McGuire JW (1996) Site response studies for purpose of revising NEHRP seismic provisions. Earthq Spectra 12(3):407–439. doi: 10.1193/1.1585891 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dhakal RP, Lin SL, Loye AK, Evans SJ (2013) Seismic design spectra for different soil classes. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 46(2):79–87Google Scholar
  14. Eurocode 8 (2004) Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. In E. S. E. 1998-1:2004 (Ed.). Comiťe Européen de Normalisation, Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  15. Goldsworthy HM (2012) Lessons on building design from the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Aust J Struct Eng 13(2):159Google Scholar
  16. Groholski DR, Hashash YMA, Kim B, Musgrove M, Harmon J, Stewart JP (2016) Simplified model for small-strain nonlinearity and strength in 1D seismic site response analysis. J Geotechn Geoenviron Eng 142(9):04016042. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001496 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hashash YMA, Dashti S, Romero MI, Ghayoomi M, Musgrove M (2015) Evaluation of 1-D seismic site response modeling of sand using centrifuge experiments. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 78:19–31. doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2015.07.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hashash YMA, Musgrove MI, Harmon JA, Groholski DR, Phillips CA, Park D (2016) DEEPSOIL 6.1, user manual. University of Illinois, UrbanaGoogle Scholar
  19. Hoult RD, Lumantarna E, Goldsworthy HM (2013) Ground motion modelling and response spectra for Australian earthquakes. Paper presented at the Australian Earthquake Engineering Society 2013 Conference, Hobart, TasmaniaGoogle Scholar
  20. Hoult RD, Amirsardari A, Sandiford D, Lumantarna E, Goldsworthy HM, Gibson G, Asten M (2014) The 2012 Moe earthquake and earthquake attenuation in south eastern Australia. Paper presented at the Australian Earthquake Engineering Society 2014 Conference, Lorne, VictoriaGoogle Scholar
  21. ICBO (1994) International Council of Building Officials, Uniform Building Code 1994. WhittierGoogle Scholar
  22. ICBO (1997) International Council of Building Officials, Uniform Building Code 1997. Whittier, CAGoogle Scholar
  23. ICC (2000) Intenation Building Code (IBC). IBC, Birmingham, ALGoogle Scholar
  24. ICC (2009) Intenation Building Code (IBC). IBC, BirminghamGoogle Scholar
  25. Jakka RS, Roy N, Wason HR (2014) Implications of surface wave data measurement uncertainty on seismic ground response analysis. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 61–62:239–245. doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.02.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jones TD, Neville MJ, Scott G, Sinadinovski C (1996) Earthquake microzonation and the development of the australian earthquake loading standard. Paper presented at the Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 1996 Australian earthquake Engineering Society Conference, AdelaideGoogle Scholar
  27. Kamatchi P, Rajasankar J, Iyer NR, Lakshmanan N, Ramana GV, Nagpal AK (2010) Effect of depth of soil stratum on performance of buildings for site-specific earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30(8):647–661. doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.02.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lam N, Wilson J (1999) Estimation of the site natural period from a borehole record. Aust J Struct Eng 1(3):179–200Google Scholar
  29. Lam NTK, Wilson JL (2008) The new response spectrum model for Australia. Special issue: earthquake engineering in the low and moderate seismic regions of Southeast Asia and Australia, pp 6–24Google Scholar
  30. Leonard M (2008) One hundred years of earthquake recording in Australia. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98(3):1458–1470. doi: 10.1785/0120050193 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lumantarna E, Wilson JL, Lam NTK (2012) Bi-linear displacement response spectrum model for engineering applications in low and moderate seismicity regions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 43:85–96. doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2012.07.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Martin GR, Dobry R (1994) Earthquake site response and seismic code provisions. NCEER Bull 8(4):1–6Google Scholar
  33. Matasovic N (1993) Seismic response of composite horizontally-layered soil deposits. University of California, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  34. McPherson A, Hall L (2013) Site classification for earthquake hazard and risk assessment in Australia. Bull Seismol Soc Am 103(2A):1085–1102. doi: 10.1785/0120120142 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ordonez GA (2013) SHAKE2000 (Version 9.99.2–July 2013). Retrieved from http://www.geomotions.com
  36. Papaspiliou M, Kontoe S, Bommer JJ (2012) An exploration of incorporating site response into PSHA-part II: sensitivity of hazard estimates to site response approaches. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng. doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2012.05.001 Google Scholar
  37. PEER (2010) User manual for the PEER ground motion database web application (Version Beta Version–October 1, 2010)Google Scholar
  38. PEER (2013) Pacific earthquake engineering research (PEER) Center Ground Motion Database. http://peer.berkeley.edu/peer_ground_motion_database/
  39. Schnabel PB (1973) Effects of local geology and distance from source on earthquake ground motions. (Ph.D.), University of California, Berkeley, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  40. Schnabel PB, Lysmer J, Seed HB (1972) SHAKE: A computer program for earthquake response analysis of horizontally layered sites, EERC 72-12. College of Eng. University of California Berkeley, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  41. Seed HB, Idriss IM (1970) Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analyses (Vol. Report No. EERC 70-10): University of California, BerkekleyGoogle Scholar
  42. Seed HB, Idriss IM (1982) Ground motions and soil liquefaction during earthquakes, vol 5. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, OaklandGoogle Scholar
  43. So M, Thompson T, Mote T (2015) Site-specific response analysis in Australia and comparison with AS1170. 4 and geoscience Australia 2012 seismic hazard maps. Paper presented at the 6th international conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering, Christchurch, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  44. Standards Association NZ (2004) NZS 1170.5:2004. Structural design actions and commentary, Part 5, Earthquake Actions. Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  45. Standards Australia (1993) AS 1170.4-1993: Minimum design loads on structure (known as the SAA Loading Code)-Earthquake loadsGoogle Scholar
  46. Standards Australia (2007) AS 1170.4-2007: Structural design actions, Part 4: Earthquake actions in AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  47. Vucetic M, Dobry R (1991) Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response. J Geotechn Eng 117(1):89–107. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1991)117:1(89) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Walker G (2011) Comparison of the impacts of cyclone tracy and the newcastle earthquake on the australian building and insurance industriesGoogle Scholar
  49. Walling M, Silva W, Abrahamson N (2008) Nonlinear site amplification factors for constraining the NGA models. Earthq Spectra 24(1):243–255. doi: 10.1193/1.2934350 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wilson J, Lam N, Pham L (2008) Development of the new Australian earthquake loading standard: EJSE International Ltd 2008Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ryan D. Hoult
    • 1
    Email author
  • Elisa Lumantarna
    • 1
  • Helen M. Goldsworthy
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Infrastructure EngineeringUniversity of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations