Transmitting Boundaries and Seismic Response
Publication: Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 111, Issue 2
Abstract
A parametric study of the seismic response of a chosen site was conducted to demonstrate the obvious inconsistencies in computed ground response as a result of different assumptions made on the transmitting boundary for the site. The cause of these inconsistencies in computed response is the departure from the ideal assumption that the soil deposit below the transmitting boundary is a linear elastic and homogeneous half‐space. It is shown that under low‐intensity shaking, multiple reflections from the discontinuities below the boundary can be significant, and under strong shaking, nonlinear soil response can alter the wave form, as well as reduce the intensity of the motion. Either situation makes correlation between the input motion at the boundary and the control outcrop motion uncertain. For seismic response analyses of sites underlain by very thick soil deposits, it is suggested that consideration also be given to the shear strength profile at the site when deciding on the location of a transmitting boundary.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Chen, A. T. F., “MULAP3: A Multi‐Linear Analysis Program for Ground Motion Studies of Horizontally Layered Systems,” Report No. PB82 160 425, National Technical Information Service,” Springfield, Va., Nov., 1981.
2.
Chen, A. T. F., “A Study of Seismic Response at Stations 6 and 7, El Centro Strong Motion Array, Imperial Valley, California,” Report No. PB84 119 924, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., Aug., 1983.
3.
Chen, A. T. F., and Bennett, M. J., “Site Characterization for Stations 6 & 7, El Centro Strong Motion Array, Imperial Valley, California,” U.S. Geological Survey Open‐File Report 82‐1040, Aug., 1982.
4.
Hardin, B. O., and Drnevich, V. P., “Shear Modulus and Damping: Design Equations and Curves,” Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, Vol. 98, No. SM7, Proc. Paper 9006, July, 1972, pp. 667–692.
5.
Iwan, W. D., “On a Class of Models for the Yielding Behavior of Continuous and Composite Systems,” Journal of Applied Mechanics, ASME, Vol. 34, No. 3, Sept., 1967, pp. 612–617.
6.
Joyner, W. B., and Chen, A. T. F., “Calculation of Nonlinear Ground Responses in Earthquakes,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 65, No. 5, Oct., 1975, pp. 1315–1336.
7.
Lysmer, J., “Analytical Procedures in Soil Dynamics,” Proceedings, ASCE, Geotechnical Engineering Division Specialty Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, Vol. 3, Pasadena, Calif., 1978, pp. 1267–1316.
8.
Lysmer, J., and Kuhlemeyer, R. L., “Finite Dynamic Model for Infinite Media,” Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, Vol. 95, No. EM4, Proc. Paper 6719, Aug., 1969, pp. 859–877.
9.
Tsai, C. F., Lam, I., and Martin, G. R., “Seismic Response of Cohesive Marine Soils,” Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 106, No. GT9, Proc. Paper 15708, Sept., 1980, pp. 997–1012.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 111 • Issue 2 • February 1985
Pages: 174 - 180
Copyright
Copyright © 1985 ASCE.
History
Published online: Feb 1, 1985
Published in print: Feb 1985
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.