Mapping Dispersion Misfit and Uncertainty in Profiles to Variability in Site Response Estimates
Publication: Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
Volume 142, Issue 11
Abstract
Uncertainty in site response analyses can be attributed to a number of parameters, including analysis methods, input ground motions, nonlinear dynamic soil properties, and shear-wave velocity profiles. In this paper, several approaches commonly used to account for shear-wave velocity () uncertainty in site response are investigated. Specifically, the profiles considered are categorized into three groups: (1) profiles determined directly from surface-wave inversion, (2) simple statistical profiles derived indirectly from the surface-wave profiles (including bounding-type, median, and other percentile profiles), and (3) statistically based, randomly generated profiles. A companion paper discusses the development of these profiles for two international blind-study sites. In this paper, the effects of using each approach to account for uncertainty in site response are investigated by linking the dispersion misfit values for each profile to variability in equivalent linear site response estimates. Clear trends exist between variability in site response estimates and dispersion misfit values at both sites. Thus, the experimental dispersion data can be used to help select suites of profiles, generated either directly from inversion or through a randomization model, that account for uncertainty in a meaningful way without including unrealistic statistical profiles that result in too much site response variability.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported primarily by U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) grant CMMI-1261775. However, any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF. The authors gratefully acknowledge George Zalachoris for sharing his MATLAB code for equivalent linear and linear elastic site response. The authors would also like to acknowledge and thank the organizing committee of the InterPacific project, which was formed under the Research & Development Program SIGMA, funded by EDF, AEREVA, CEA, ENEL, and the CASHIMA project, funded by CEA, ILL, and IITER Organization.
References
AASHTO. (2011). Guide specifications for LRFD seismic bridge design 2011, 2nd Ed., Washington, DC.
ASCE. (2010). “Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures.” ASCE/SEI 7-10, Reston, VA.
Barani, S., Ferrari, R. D., and Ferretti, G. (2013). “Influence of soil modeling uncertainties on site response.” Earthquake Spectra, 29(3), 705–732.
Bazzurro, P., and Cornell, C. (2004). “Ground-motion amplification in nonlinear soil sites with uncertain properties.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 94(6), 2090–2109.
Boaga, J., Vignoli, G., and Cassiani, G. (2011). “Shear wave profiles from surface inversion: The impact of uncertainty on seismic site response analysis.” J. Geophys. Eng., 8(2), 162–174.
Boaga, J., Vignoli, G., and Cassiani, G. (2012). “Reply to comment on ‘Shear wave profiles from surface inversion: The impact of uncertainty on seismic site response analysis.’” J. Geophys. Eng., 9(2), 244–246.
Boore, D., and Atkinson, G. (2008). “Ground-motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and the 5%-damped PSA at spectral periods between 0.01 s and 10.0 s.” Earthquake Spectra, 24(1), 99–138.
Comina, C., and Foti, S. (2015). “Discussion on ‘Implications of surface save data measurement uncertainty on seismic ground response analysis’ by Jakka et al.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 74, 89–91.
Darendeli, M. B. (2001). “Development of a new family of normalized modulus reduction and material damping curves.” Ph.D. dissertation, School of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
De Luca, F., Iervolino, I., and Cosenza, E. (2009). “Unscaled, scaled, and artificial spectral matching accelerograms: Displacement- and energy-based assessment.” Proc., 13th Conferenza sull'Ingegneria Sismica in Italia, Associazione Nazionale Italiana Di Ingegneria Sismica (ANIDIS), Italian Association of Earthquake Engineering, Rome.
Foti, S., Comina, C., Boiero, D., and Socco, L. V. (2009). “Non-uniqueness in surface-wave inversion and consequences on seismic site response analyses.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 29(6), 982–993.
Garofalo, F., et al. (2016a). “InterPACIFIC project: Comparison of invasive and non-invasive methods for seismic site characterization. Part I: Intra-comparison of surface wave methods.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 82, 222–240.
Garofalo, F., et al. (2016b). “InterPACIFIC project: Comparison of invasive and non-invasive methods for seismic site characterization. Part II: Inter-comparison between surface wave and borehole methods.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 82, 241–254.
Griffiths, S. C., Cox, B. R., Rathje, E. M., and Teague, D. P. (2016). “Surface-wave dispersion approach for evaluating statistical models that account for shear-wave velocity uncertainty.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., in press.
Hashash, Y. M. A., Groholski, D. R., Phillips, C. A., Park, D., and Musgrove, M. (2012). “DEEPSOIL 5.1, user manual and tutorial.” Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL.
Idriss, I. M. (2004). “Evolution of the state of practice.” Int. Workshop on the Uncertainties in Nonlinear Soil Properties and Their Impact on Modeling Dynamic Soil Response, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA.
Jakka, R. S., Roy, N., and Wason, H. R. (2014a). “Implications of surface save data measurement uncertainty on seismic ground response analysis.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 61–62, 239–245.
Jakka, R. S., Roy, N., and Wason, H. R. (2015). “Reply on ‘Implications of surface save data measurement uncertainty on seismic ground re-sponse analysis” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 74, 92–95.
Kottke, A., and Rathje, E. (2008). “A semi-automated procedure for selection and scaling of recorded earthquake motions for dynamic analysis.” Earthquake Spectra, 24(4), 911–932.
Matasovic, N., and Hashash, Y. (2012). “NCHRP synthesis 428: Practices and procedures for site-specific evaluations of earthquake ground motions, a synthesis of highway practice.” National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
MATLAB [Computer software]. MathWorks, Natick, MA.
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. (2011). “Users manual for the PEER ground motions database web application.” Berkeley, CA.
Rathje, E., and Kottke, A. (2013). “SigmaSpectra.” 〈http://nees.org/resources/sigmaspectra〉 (Aug. 2014).
Rathje, E. M., Kottke, A. R., and Trent, W. L. (2010). “Influence of input motion and site property variabilities on seismic site response analysis.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 607–619.
Socco, L. V., Foti, S., and Comina, C. (2012). “Comment on shear wave profiles from surface inversion: The impact of uncertainty on seismic site response analysis.” J. Geophys. Eng., 9(2), 241–243.
Toro, G. (1995). “Probabilistic models of the site velocity profiles for generic and site-specific ground-motion amplification studies.”, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY.
Wathelet, M., Jongmans, D., and Ohrnberger, M. (2004). “Surface-wave inversion using a direct search algorithm and its application to ambient vibration measurements.” Near Surf. Geophys., 2(4), 211–221.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
Volume 142 • Issue 11 • November 2016
Copyright
© 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Aug 14, 2015
Accepted: Apr 5, 2016
Published online: Jun 21, 2016
Published in print: Nov 1, 2016
Discussion open until: Nov 21, 2016
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.