Factors influencing soil surface seismic hazard curves

Pehlivan, Menzer; Rathje, Ellen M.; Gilbert, Robert B.

doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.01.009

Cited by 22 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The effects of variability in VS is to smooth 1 across periods, as a result of each VS profile randomization having a resonant period different from the resonant period of the median profile. Other authors (e.g., Pehlivan et al [21]) obtained similar results. Fig.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 66%

Mapping the uncertainty in modulus reduction and damping curves onto the uncertainty of site amplification functions

Bahrampouri

Rodríguez-Marek

Bommer

2019

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 66%

Mapping the uncertainty in modulus reduction and damping curves onto the uncertainty of site amplification functions

Bahrampouri

Rodríguez-Marek

Bommer

2019

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The main sources of variabilities and uncertainties in seismic ground response studies are as follows (Rathje et al 2010, Stewart et al 2014): (1) V S profile (Toro 1995, Rathje et al 2010, Teague and Cox 2016, Griffiths et al 2016a, 2016b, Teague et al 2018), (2) nonlinear dynamic soil properties (Darendeli 2001, Zhang et al 2008), (3) input motion (IM) selection (Baturay and Stewart 2003, Boore 2003, 2004, Bazzurro and Cornell 2004a, 2004b, Rathje et al 2010, Pehlivan et al 2016), and (4) analysis method (Assimaki et al 2008, Kwok et al 2008, Stewart and Kwok 2008, Li and Assimaki 2010, Assimaki and Li 2012, Papaspiliou et al 2012, Kaklamanos et al 2013, 2015, Kim et al 2016, Régnier et al 2016, Régnier et al 2018). In this paper, we focus only on the variabilities and uncertainties related to the V S profile.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Epistemic Uncertainty in Shear Wave Velocity on Seismic Ground Response Analyses

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to evaluate the influence of epistemic uncertainties in shear wave velocity ( VS) on seismic ground response analyses (GRAs). A number of alternative VS profiles obtained from both invasive (i.e., borehole) and noninvasive (i.e., surface waves) testing methods are available for two blind study sites. These profiles are used to estimate epistemic uncertainties in VS, which are then propagated through equivalent linear-elastic GRAs, allowing for the quantification of intramethod uncertainty and intermethod variability in terms of spectral accelerations, amplification functions, and damage parameters (i.e., Arias and Housner intensities). This study demonstrates that nonlinearity of soil response plays a fundamental role in increasing the propagated uncertainty in GRA. Additionally, GRAs were also performed by means of VS upper/lower-range profiles developed from assumptions commonly used to account for epistemic uncertainties. These VS profiles were found to yield unrealistic site response estimates for both low strain (i.e., linear-elastic) and high strain (i.e., nonlinear) levels.

show abstract

“…Although these densely instrumented downhole arrays are usually well-documented, numerical modeling of these arrays still shows some deviation from the recordings. There are several sources of uncertainty, such as shear-wave velocity ( V s ) profile (Boushehri et al, 2020; Griffiths et al, 2016; Park et al, 2016; Passeri, 2019; Passeri et al, 2019; Teague et al, 2018), NL dynamic soil properties (Bahrampouri et al, 2019; Darendeli, 2001; Rathje et al, 2010; Tran et al, 2018), input motion selection (Baturay and Stewart, 2003; Pehlivan et al, 2016), analysis method (Assimaki et al, 2008; Assimaki and Li, 2012; Kaklamanos et al, 2013, 2015), and soil shear strength (for problems involving large-strain responses), which may cause predictions in deterministic approaches to deviate from actual site responses (recordings). Therefore, performing SRA within a probabilistic reliability framework, complementary to a deterministic analysis, can be of great importance, especially when working with safety-critical structures, such as nuclear facilities, skyscrapers, and bridges (Abrahamson and Bommer, 2005; Mulargia et al, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating epistemic uncertainty in soil parameters for nonlinear site response analyses: Introducing the Latin Hypercube Sampling technique

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study quantifies the effects of epistemic uncertainty in soil parameters on nonlinear (NL) site response analysis (SRA) results, validated against the data recorded at a well-instrumented geotechnical downhole array located in Japan. To this end, a one-dimensional soil column model of the Service Hall Array (SHA) near the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant (KKNPP) is developed using the finite element (FE) program LS-DYNA. The dynamic stress–strain relationship is characterized by a modified two-stage hyperbolic (MTH) NL backbone curve formulation capable of capturing soil behavior at both small- and large-shear strains. The model is then validated against the ground motion recordings to capture the model bias. The uncertainties associated with the shear-wave velocity profile (a small-strain soil property) and soil shear strength (a large-strain soil property) are incorporated in NL SRA to quantify their separate and joint randomization effects on the results. This study proposes using the Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS) method as an efficient alternative to commonly used methods, such as Standard Monte Carlo (SMC), to account for uncertainty propagation in such reliability analysis. Both low-intensity and design-level records from the recordings at the SHA are applied to study the contribution of the small- and large-strain NL dynamic soil properties. Results from 46,200 NL FE analyses (23,100 per input motion) are presented. Measured and predicted site response, using recorded ground motions at this downhole array, is compared to assess the significance of soil parameter uncertainty on the observed ground motion dispersions. It is demonstrated that increasing the number of soft realizations and implementing higher level earthquake intensity lead to higher ground motion dispersion. Unlike past studies in randomization of Vs profiles with the SMC method, the LHS method is shown to have no significant effect on the predicted median surface response spectra and amplification factors (AFs) for this case study.

show abstract

Factors influencing soil surface seismic hazard curves

Cited by 22 publications

References 14 publications

Mapping the uncertainty in modulus reduction and damping curves onto the uncertainty of site amplification functions

Mapping the uncertainty in modulus reduction and damping curves onto the uncertainty of site amplification functions

Influence of Epistemic Uncertainty in Shear Wave Velocity on Seismic Ground Response Analyses

Estimating epistemic uncertainty in soil parameters for nonlinear site response analyses: Introducing the Latin Hypercube Sampling technique

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About