nga site response study joseph sun, tom shantz, zhi-liang wang
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: NGA Site Response Study Joseph Sun, Tom Shantz, Zhi-Liang Wang](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062222/56649d135503460f949e796a/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
NGA Site Response Study
Joseph Sun, Tom Shantz, Zhi-Liang Wang
![Page 2: NGA Site Response Study Joseph Sun, Tom Shantz, Zhi-Liang Wang](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062222/56649d135503460f949e796a/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Project Objectives
• Compare RVT based site response response calculation versus time history approach
• Compare RVT based amp factors (RASCALS) with time history based (SHAKE) amp factors
• Compare amp factor differences between equivalent-linear procedure (RASCALS and SHAKE) and non-linear procedures (D-MOD2 and SUMDES)
![Page 3: NGA Site Response Study Joseph Sun, Tom Shantz, Zhi-Liang Wang](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062222/56649d135503460f949e796a/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Basis of Comparison:• Two shaking levels (Mw 6.5 @ 15 km and Mw 7.5@ 5
km)• Three profile depths (100, 300, and 500 ft)• 30 spectrum compatible ground motions were used for
each shaking level. • Results from one RVT run from RASCALS is
compared with the average of 30 SHAKE run • Non-linear analysis scope reduced to two Mw7.5 time
histories analysis for two depths to demonstrate differences in difference non-linear programs
![Page 4: NGA Site Response Study Joseph Sun, Tom Shantz, Zhi-Liang Wang](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062222/56649d135503460f949e796a/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
0.01 0.1 1 10Pe rio d (se c)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Sp
ect
ral P
seu
do
-Acc
ele
ratio
n (
g)
M w 7.5, Input M otion R esponse
A verage
![Page 5: NGA Site Response Study Joseph Sun, Tom Shantz, Zhi-Liang Wang](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062222/56649d135503460f949e796a/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
0 20 40 60 80Timesecs-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
noitareleccAg
0 10 20 30 40Timesecs-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
noitareleccAg
0 10 20 30 40Timesecs
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
noitareleccAg
![Page 6: NGA Site Response Study Joseph Sun, Tom Shantz, Zhi-Liang Wang](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062222/56649d135503460f949e796a/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
0 25 50 75 100 125 150Timesecs-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
noitareleccAg
0 10 20 30 40Timesecs-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
noitareleccAg0 25 50 75 100 125 150
Timesecs-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
noitareleccAg
![Page 7: NGA Site Response Study Joseph Sun, Tom Shantz, Zhi-Liang Wang](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062222/56649d135503460f949e796a/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
0.01 0.1 1 10Pe rio d (se c)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Sp
ect
ral P
seu
do
-Acc
ele
ratio
n (
g)
M w 6.5, Input M otion R esponse A verage
![Page 8: NGA Site Response Study Joseph Sun, Tom Shantz, Zhi-Liang Wang](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062222/56649d135503460f949e796a/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
0.01 0.1 1 10Pe rio d (se c)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Sp
ect
ral P
seu
do
-Acc
ele
ratio
n (
g)
M w 6 .5 , A verage Input M otion R esponse
SH AKE
R ASC AL
0.01 0.1 1 10Pe rio d (se c)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Sp
ectr
al P
seud
o-A
cce
lera
tion
(g)
M w 7 .5 , A verage Input M otion R esponse
SH A KE
R A S C A L
Target Spectrum (A&S strike-slip, rock)
Mw=6.5 r=15 kmMw=7.5 r=5 km
![Page 9: NGA Site Response Study Joseph Sun, Tom Shantz, Zhi-Liang Wang](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062222/56649d135503460f949e796a/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Shear Wave Velocity ProfileLa Clenega Site – Simplified CJR Model
0 1000 2000 3000
Vs (ft/sec)
500
400
300
200
100
0D
ept
h (f
t)
![Page 10: NGA Site Response Study Joseph Sun, Tom Shantz, Zhi-Liang Wang](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062222/56649d135503460f949e796a/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1
Sand
Clay
Sand & Clay
Non-Linear Properties
• Based on SHAKE91• Extend to 10% strain• 2 Curves only – simple• Decoupled modulus and damping• Non-linear models should base on matching modulus reduction curves. Damping may be different
![Page 11: NGA Site Response Study Joseph Sun, Tom Shantz, Zhi-Liang Wang](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062222/56649d135503460f949e796a/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
0.01 0.1 1 10
Pe rio d (se c)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3S
pe
ctra
l Pse
ud
o-A
cce
lera
tion
(g
)
M w 7.5, D eep P rofile - 500 ftSH AKE - G round Surface R esponse
A verage
Deep Profile – 500 ft M7.5 Ground Surface Response
![Page 12: NGA Site Response Study Joseph Sun, Tom Shantz, Zhi-Liang Wang](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062222/56649d135503460f949e796a/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
0.01 0.1 1 10
Pe rio d (se c)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Sp
ect
ral P
seu
do
-Acc
ele
ratio
n (
g)
M w 6.5, D eep P rofile - 500 ftSH AKE - G round Surface R esponse
A verage
Deep Profile – 500 ftM6.5 Ground Surface Response
![Page 13: NGA Site Response Study Joseph Sun, Tom Shantz, Zhi-Liang Wang](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062222/56649d135503460f949e796a/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Deep Profile – 500 ftGround Surface Response
0.01 0.1 1 10Pe rio d (se c)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Sp
ect
ral P
seu
do
-Acc
ele
ratio
n (
g)
M w 6.5, R= 15 kmSH AKE, m eanRASC ALSH AKE, 84th PercentileSH AKE, 16th Percentile
0.01 0.1 1 10Pe rio d (se c)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Sp
ect
ral P
seu
do
-Acc
ele
ratio
n (
g)
M w 7.5, R= 5 kmSH AKE, m eanRASC ALSH AKE, 84th PercentileSH AKE, 16th Percentile
![Page 14: NGA Site Response Study Joseph Sun, Tom Shantz, Zhi-Liang Wang](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062222/56649d135503460f949e796a/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Med. Deep Profile – 300 ftGround Surface Response
0.01 0.1 1 10Pe rio d (se c)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Sp
ect
ral P
seu
do
-Acc
ele
ratio
n (
g)
M w 6.5 , R =15 kmSH AKE, m eanRASC ALSH AKE, 84th PercentileSH AKE, 16th Percentile
0.01 0.1 1 10Pe rio d (se c)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Sp
ect
ral P
seu
do
-Acc
ele
ratio
n (
g)
M w 7.5, R= 5 kmSH AKE, m eanRASC ALSH AKE, 84th PercentileSH AKE, 16th Percentile
![Page 15: NGA Site Response Study Joseph Sun, Tom Shantz, Zhi-Liang Wang](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062222/56649d135503460f949e796a/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Shallow Profile – 100 ftGround Surface Response
0.01 0.1 1 10Pe rio d (se c)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Sp
ect
ral P
seu
do
-Acc
ele
ratio
n (
g)
M w 6.5, R= 15 kmSH AKE, m eanRASC ALSH AKE, 84th PercentileSH AKE, 16th Percentile
0.01 0.1 1 10Pe rio d (se c)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Sp
ect
ral P
seu
do
-Acc
ele
ratio
n (
g)
M w 7.5, R= 5 kmSH AKE, m eanRASC ALSH AKE, 84th PercentileSH AKE, 16th Percentile
![Page 16: NGA Site Response Study Joseph Sun, Tom Shantz, Zhi-Liang Wang](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062222/56649d135503460f949e796a/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Deep Profile – 500 ftAverage Spectral Ratio
0.01 0.1 1 10Pe rio d (se c)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Sp
ect
ral P
seu
do
-Acc
ele
ratio
n R
atio
M w 6.5, R= 15 kmSH AKERASC AL
0.01 0.1 1 10Pe rio d (se c)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Sp
ect
ral P
seu
do
-Acc
ele
ratio
n R
atio
M w 7.5, R= 5 kmSH AKERASC AL
![Page 17: NGA Site Response Study Joseph Sun, Tom Shantz, Zhi-Liang Wang](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062222/56649d135503460f949e796a/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Med. Deep Profile – 300 ftAverage Spectral Ratio
0.01 0.1 1 10Pe rio d (se c)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Sp
ect
ral P
seu
do
-Acc
ele
ratio
n R
atio
M w 6.5, R= 15 kmSH AKERASC AL
0.01 0.1 1 10Pe rio d (se c)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Sp
ect
ral P
seu
do
-Acc
ele
ratio
n R
atio
M w 7.5, R= 5 kmSH AKERASC AL
![Page 18: NGA Site Response Study Joseph Sun, Tom Shantz, Zhi-Liang Wang](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062222/56649d135503460f949e796a/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Shallow Profile – 100 ftAverage Spectral Ratio
0.01 0.1 1 10Pe rio d (se c)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Sp
ect
ral P
seu
do
-Acc
ele
ratio
n R
atio
M w 7.5, R= 5 kmSH AKERASC AL
0.01 0.1 1 10Pe rio d (se c)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Sp
ect
ral P
seu
do
-Acc
ele
ratio
n R
atio
M w 6.5, R= 15 kmSH AKERASC AL