Commenced in January 2007
Frequency: Monthly
Edition: International
Paper Count: 30124
Ground Response Analyses in Budapest Based on Site Investigations and Laboratory Measurements

Authors: Zsolt Szilvágyi, Jakub Panuska, Orsolya Kegyes-Brassai, Ákos Wolf, Péter Tildy, Richard P. Ray

Abstract:

Near-surface loose sediments and local ground conditions in general have a major influence on seismic response of structures. It is a difficult task to model ground behavior in seismic soil-structure-foundation interaction problems, fully account for them in seismic design of structures, or even properly consider them in seismic hazard assessment. In this study, we focused on applying seismic soil investigation methods, used for determining soil stiffness and damping properties, to response analysis used in seismic design. A site in Budapest, Hungary was investigated using Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves, Seismic Cone Penetration Tests, Bender Elements, Resonant Column and Torsional Shear tests. Our aim was to compare the results of the different test methods and use the resulting soil properties for 1D ground response analysis. Often in practice, there are little-to no data available on dynamic soil properties and estimated parameters are used for design. Therefore, a comparison is made between results based on estimated parameters and those based on detailed investigations. Ground response results are also compared to Eurocode 8 design spectra.

Keywords: Bender element, ground response analysis, MASW, resonant column test, SCPT, torsional shear test.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1130023

Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 648

References:


[1] CEN European Committee for Standardization: MSZ EN 1998-1:2008 Design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 1 General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, pp. 1-216.
[2] Kegyes-Brassai, O. 2015. Earthquake Hazard Analysis and Building Vulnerability Assessment to Determine the Seismic Risk of Existing Buildings in an Urban Area, PhD Dissertation. Széchenyi István University, 199 p.
[3] Dorman, J. & Ewing, M., 1962. Numerical inversion of seismic surface wave area, dispersion data and crust-mantle structure in the NewYork-Pennsylvania, J. geophys. Res. 1962, 67, pp. 5227–5241.
[4] Aki, K. and Richards, P.G., Quantitative Seismology. W. H. Freeman & Co., San Francisco. 1980.
[5] Park, C.H., Miller, R.D. and Xia, J., Multichannel analysis of surface waves, 1999, Geophysics, 64, pp. 800–808.
[6] O. Yilmaz., Seismic data processing. Society of Exploration Geophysics, Tulsa, 1987, pp. 62-79.
[7] C.B. Park, J. Xia and R.D. Miller. “Imaging dispersion curves of surface waves on multichannel record” in 68th Annual International Meeting of Society of Exploration Geophysics, Expanded Abstracts, 1998, pp. 1377-1380.
[8] Kanlı, A. I., Tildy, P., Prónay, Z., Pınar, A., and Hermann, L., Vs30 mapping and soil classification for seismic site effect evaluation in Dinar region, SW Turkey: 2006, Geophys. J. Int., 165, pp. 223-235.
[9] Radex Pro Software, Deco Geophysical Inc., www.radexpro.com last access March 10, 2017.
[10] P. Robertson. 2009. Interpretation of cone penetration tests - a unified approach. Canadian Geotechnical Journ., Vol 46., pp. 1337-1355.
[11] R.D. Andrus, N.P. Mohanan, P. Piratheepan B.S. Ellis and T. L. Holzer, “Predicting shear wave velocity from cone penetration resitance”, in Proceedings, 4th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Thessaloniki, Greece, Paper No. 1545, 2007.
[12] Á. Wolf and R.P. Ray, Comparison and Improvement of the Existing Cone Penetration Test Results – Shear Wave Velocity Correlations for Hungarian Soils, Proceedings of ICEES 2017: 19th International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Paris, 2017, submitted for publication.
[13] P.K. Robertson and C.E. Wride, “Evaulating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone penetration test, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 35. pp 442-459.
[14] P. D. Greening, D.F.T. Nash, „Frequency domain determination of G0 using bender elements“, in Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 27, No. 3, West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2004, pp. 288-294.
[15] R. Dyvik, C. Madshus, „Lab measurements of Gmax using bender elements.“ Proceedings of the Conference on the Advances in the Art of Testing Soil under Cyclic Conditions, ASCE Geotechnical Engineering Division, New York, 1985, pp. 186-196.
[16] Z. Szilvágyi, P. Hudacsek, R.P. Ray, 2016. Soil shear modulus from Resonant Column, Torsional Shear and Bender Element Tests. In International Journal of Geomate 10:(2), pp. 1822-1827.
[17] M.L. Lings, P.D. Greening, „A novel bender/extender element for soil testing.“, in Géotechnique, Vol. 51, No. 8, London: Thomas Telford Ltd., 2001, pp. 713-717.
[18] T. Ogino, T. Kawaguchi, S. Yamashita, S. Kawajiri. „Measurement deviations for shear wave velocity of bender element test using time domain, cross-correlation, and frequency domain approaches.“, in Soils and foundations, Vol. 55, No. 2, Amsterdam: Elsevier B.V., 2015, pp. 329-342.
[19] A. Viana da Fonseca, C. Ferreira, M. Fahey, „A framework interpreting bender element tests, combining time-domain and frequency-domain methods”, in Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 32, No. 2, West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2009 pp. 1-17.
[20] V. Jovicic, M.R. Coop, M. Simic, „Objective criteria for determining Gmax from bender elements“, in Géotechnique, Vol. 46, No. 2, London: Thomas Telford Ltd., 1996, pp. 357-362.
[21] G. Viggiani, J.H. Atkinson, „Stiffness of fine grained soils at very small strains.“, in Géotechnique, Vol. 45, No. 2, London: Thomas Telford Ltd., 1995, pp. 249-265.
[22] S. S. Afifi, F.E. Richart, „Stress-history effects on shear modulus of soils“ in Soils and foundations, Vol. 13, No. 1, Amsterdam: Elsevier B.V., 1973, pp. 77-95.
[23] B.O. Hardin, W. Black, Vibration modulus of normally consolidated clay.“, in Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Divison, Vol. 94, No. 2, Reston, VA, ASCE, 1968, pp. 353-369.
[24] K. Stokoe, F. Richart, „Shear moduli of soils, in-situ and from laboratory tests.“ In WCEE, editor, 5th World conference in earthquake engineering, Rome, Italy, 1973, pp. 356–359.
[25] R.P. Ray. 1983. Changes in Shear Modulus and Damping in Cohesionless Soil due to Repeated Loadings, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI., 417 pp.
[26] R. P. Ray, R.D. Woods. 1987. Modulus and Damping Due to Uniform and Variable Cyclic Loading in Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 114, No. 8. ASCE, pp. 861-876.
[27] R. P. Ray, Z. Szilvágyi, 2013. Measuring and modeling the dynamic behavior of Danube Sands. In Proceedings 18th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering: Challenging and Innovations in Geotechnics. Paris, Presses des Ponts pp. 1575-1578.
[28] O. K. Kegyes-Brassai & R. P. Ray, 2015 Comparison of the 1D response analysis results of typical Hungarian soil types and the EC8 spectra based on a case study of seismic risk analysis in Győr. WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 152, pp111-122.
[29] I. Iervolino, C. Galasso, E. Cosenza, 2009 REXEL: computer aided record selection for code-based seismic structural analysis, Bull Earthquake Eng (2010) 8:339–362.
[30] A. Kottke, X. Wang, E. M. Rathje. 2013 NEEShub Resourses: Strata (Online, accessed at 03.19.2017) available at https://nees.org/resources/strata.