slide1
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Meeting Overview

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 51

Benchmarking of Nonlinear Geotechnical Ground Response Analysis ... - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 65 Views
  • Uploaded on

Benchmarking of Nonlinear Geotechnical Ground Response Analysis Procedures PEER Lifelines Project 2G02 http://cee.ea.ucla.edu/faculty/jstewart/groundmotions/PEER2G02/. Meeting Overview. Review results of code usage exercise Discuss verification plan Other business. Other Business.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Benchmarking of Nonlinear Geotechnical Ground Response Analysis ...' - liam


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

Benchmarking of Nonlinear Geotechnical Ground Response Analysis ProceduresPEER Lifelines Project 2G02http://cee.ea.ucla.edu/faculty/jstewart/groundmotions/PEER2G02/

meeting overview
Meeting Overview
  • Review results of code usage exercise
  • Discuss verification plan
  • Other business
other business
Other Business
  • Subcontracts
    • Request for contract revision: Dec. 3 2004
    • Current status:

Davinder Gabhi (2-11-05):

The contract between PEER and PEA has been sent to our Sponsored Projects Office for formal paperwork and final signatures.  This has been approved by the Lifelines Program Manager.

other business1
Other Business
  • Turkey Flat project
    • PI is Charles Real of CGS
    • Workshop Fall 2005
    • http://www.quake.ca.gov/turkeyflat.htm
  • Web posting of code reports
  • Reimbursements
project overview
Project Overview

Two-year project July 2004 – June 2006

Three general tasks:

Develop parameter selection protocols

Verification studies

Parametric studies

Effects of parametric variability

Benefits of NL relative to EL and application in PSHA

today s agenda
Today’s Agenda
  • Review of code usage exercise (Stewart)
    • Objective and plan for work
    • Reporting/response protocols
    • Common issues for all codes
    • Code specific issues
  • Developer presentations
    • 10-15 min each
    • Selection of model parameters and input motions
    • Analysis results and comparison to UCLA results
    • Reasons for differences
  • Verification plan (Stewart)
objective of code usage exercise
Objective of Code Usage Exercise

From September meeting minutes:

“One of the urgent needs is to establish protocols for evaluating input parameters and checking that the results provided are “reasonable.” This gets to the issue of how usable the codes are to users other than the code developers. The establishment of those protocols, and demonstrating that they can be used by novice users, is a key first objective of the project.”

plan for code usage exercise
Plan for Code Usage Exercise
  • Described in “white paper” dated 9/29/04
  • Developers provide parameter selection and code use protocols
    • Information for all codes forwarded to UCLA team by mid-October, although some codes unusable in initial form
    • Parameter values in sand given Vs, r, N, s’
    • Parameter values in clay given Vs, r, PI, Su, s’
    • Parameter uncertainty
    • List of common errors and unreasonable results associated with those errors

Difficult for fitting parameters

plan for code usage exercise1
Plan for Code Usage Exercise
  • Novice user (AK, JS) runs codes for example sites
  • Developers run codes in parallel
  • Based on outcome of above: Refine parameter selection and use protocols, as needed
code usage exercise
Code Usage Exercise

Reporting and response protocols:

  • UCLA team completes initial report, sends to developer
  • Developer provides feedback, factual errors in initial reports are corrected
  • Final report prepared and returned to developers with comments for code and/or user manual improvement
  • Developer response:
    • Agree with comment and will make change
    • Agree with comment but insufficient time and resources to make change
    • Disagree with comment and change will not be made

Would like to post (3) and (4) to project web page – agree?

code usage exercise2
Code Usage Exercise

Common issues for all codes:

  • Use of reference strain (gr) in lieu of shear strength (tmo) to describe G/Gmax and b curves
  • Input motion specification (outcropping versus within)
  • Layer thickness criteria
code usage exercise common issues
Code Usage Exercise – Common Issues

Reference strain issue

  • Typical existing parameters to describe backbone curve:
    • Gmax
    • tmo
    • Various fitting parameters
  • Ref. strain definition gr=tmo/Gmax
  • Problem:
    • Parameter tmo is unknown, especially at depth, for most sites
    • No guidelines in users manuals
code usage exercise common issues1
Code Usage Exercise – Common Issues

Reference strain issue

  • Possible solution when data on tmo unavailable:
    • Estimate gr using guidelines from Darendeli and Stokoe or from material specific G/Gmax curve (gr where G/Gmax = 0.5)
    • Calculate tmo as gr Gmax
    • Then use fitting parameters
  • Provides excellent fit (in all codes) to G/Gmax curve
  • How does gr Gmax compare to tmo (when known)

gr = f(PI, OCR, s’), defined uncertainty

a = 0.92

code usage exercise common issues2
Code Usage Exercise – Common Issues

Input motion issue

  • Two general formulations
    • Lumped mass (DMOD, DEEPSOIL)
    • Continuum (OpenSees, SUMDES, TESS)
  • Extensive email discussion on correct form of input motion when recording is from outcropping site:
    • Modify recorded outcropping motion to within (using SHAKE)
    • Original outcropping motion
code usage exercise common issues3
Code Usage Exercise – Common Issues

Input motion issue

Walt Silva’s thoughts (2-7-05):

“I still feel an essential issue is outcrop verses total (in layer) motions. It is simply not acceptable to have a nonlinear code that does not treat control motions as outcrop, there is no good reason for this restriction. To treat control motion as total motion, a nonlinear code can treat the control point as a rigid half space. This is exact for this case. To treat the control motion as outcrop, the control point can be taken as a flexible half-space. I hope this gets clarified at the meeting.”

code usage exercise common issues4
Code Usage Exercise – Common Issues

Input motion issue (lumped mass)

  • Similar to dynamic response of structure
  • Requires total motion at base as input
  • From Oct. 2004 correspondence, recommendation was to use SHAKE within motion
  • Use of outcropping motion may be preferred (following slides…)

Graphic: Y. Hashash

test i
Test I
  • Treasure Island soil profile
  • Linear soil properties
  • Input motion: outcrop motion
  • Frequency domain analysis
    • Input at bedrock+ elastic base
    • Input at bedrock+ rigid base
    • Input at outcrop+ elastic base
    • Input at outcrop+ rigid base

Y. Hashash

result of test i
Result of Test I

1

2

3

4

Y. Hashash

  • Case 2 is correct case
  • In SHAKE, there are two options to input motion. If inputting at outcrop,
  • then rock base is treated as elastic. If inputting at bedrock, then rock base
  • is treated as rigid. Therefore, if choosing bedrock as input, no matter using
  • rigid base or elastic base, the result is the same
test ii
Test II
  • Treasure Island profile
  • Linear soil properties
  • Input at bedrock
  • Time domain analysis
    • Input motion: outcrop motion
      • Input at bedrock+ rigid base
      • Input at bedrock+ elastic base
    • Input motion: within motion (I convert it from outcrop motion)
      • Input at bedrock+ rigid base
      • Input at bedrock+ elastic base
  • Two red case should have identical result

Y. Hashash

result of test ii
Result of Test II

(outcrop motion + elastic base) is equal to (within motion + rigid base)

Y. Hashash

compare time domain and frequency domain analysis
Compare time domain and frequency domain analysis

1

2

3

4

Y. Hashash

1. Case 2 is correct one

2. If we follow rules of “outcrop motion + elastic base” and “within motion + rigid base”

doing time domain analysis, we can get almost identical result as frequency domain analysis

code usage exercise common issues5
Code Usage Exercise – Common Issues

Input motion issue (continuum)

  • Motion transformed to shear stress time history applied to base of soil column
  • Wave equation solution implies:
    • Input could be specified as incident (1/2 of outcropping)
    • Reflected calculated as part of solution
    • Total motion taken as incident + reflected
  • Recommendations from Oct. 2004 correspondence
    • OpenSees: input is ½ of outcrop (??)
    • SUMDES: input is full outcrop motion
    • TESS: user specifies full outcrop, code has ½ modifier built in (??)
code usage exercise common issues6
Code Usage Exercise – Common Issues

Layer thickness issue

  • Soil layers cannot propagate waves with f > fmax = Vs/4H.
  • Results sensitive to layer thickness, especially at high frequencies
  • User’s manuals need to make note of this issue
code usage exercise code specific issues
Code Usage Exercise – Code Specific Issues
  • DMOD_2
  • DEEPSOIL, v2.5
  • SUMDES
  • TESS
  • OPENSEES
code usage exercise code specific issues1
Code Usage Exercise – Code Specific Issues

Treasure Island Site

Source: Darragh and Idriss, 1997

code usage exercise code specific issues2
Code Usage Exercise – Code Specific Issues

Treasure Island Site: SHAKE results

code usage exercise code specific issues3
Code Usage Exercise – Code Specific Issues

Gilroy II Site

Source: Darragh and Idriss, 1997

code usage exercise code specific issues5
Code Usage Exercise – Code Specific Issues

DMOD_2

  • MKZ model overestimates the damping at large strain
  • How to trade off between fitting MR vs. damping curves?
  • Clearer guidelines for more advanced parameters (gray literature references)
code usage exercise code specific issues6
Code Usage Exercise – Code Specific Issues

DMOD_2: Results

Treasure Island

Gilroy II

Underprediction at high frequency:

Possibly due to simplified Raleigh damping?

code usage exercise code specific issues7
Code Usage Exercise – Code Specific Issues

DEEPSOIL

  • Utilizes modified MKZ model – so similar issues with fit of MR and damping curves as with DMOD:
    • Damping at large strain is overestimated
    • How to trade off between good fits of MR and damping curves?
  • Modified MKZ model includes pressure-dependent coefficients
    • When use coefficients vs. specifying depth-dependent curves?
    • Need recommendations for selecting coefficients
code usage exercise code specific issues8
Code Usage Exercise – Code Specific Issues

DEEPSOIL

  • Viscous damping formulation:
    • 3 possible formulations
    • Select matching frequencies that provide good match of the linear time domain and frequency domain solutions
    • Examples of good and poor matches needed to assist users
  • Issues with equivalent linear model

Figure from Hashash

code usage exercise code specific issues9
Code Usage Exercise – Code Specific Issues

DEEPSOIL: results

Treasure Island

Gilroy II

code usage exercise code specific issues10
Code Usage Exercise – Code Specific Issues

SUMDES

  • Used Model 6 for simplified total stress analysis
  • Problems matching large strain damping
  • Hr fixed at 0.7726 due to gr definition
  • Viscous damping contribution not included in code-generated damping plot
code usage exercise code specific issues11
Code Usage Exercise – Code Specific Issues

SUMDES: results

Treasure Island

Gilroy II

Same viscous damping formulation as DMOD (except match frequency specified as 1 Hz): why results so different?

code usage exercise code specific issues12
Code Usage Exercise – Code Specific Issues

TESS

  • Need to synthesize and update code documentation
  • Five possible levels of analysis: we use Level 1
  • Guidelines needed for selection of higher-level parameters (which are also required for Level 1 analysis)
  • Good match of MR and damping curves
code usage exercise code specific issues13
Code Usage Exercise – Code Specific Issues

TESS: results

Treasure Island

Gilroy II

code usage exercise code specific issues14
Code Usage Exercise – Code Specific Issues

OpenSees

  • Nonlinear soil curves:
    • Can specify MR, damping calculated automatically per Masing
    • Can adjust MRiteratively to reduce damping error
    • Issues of trade off between fitting MR vs. damping curves
    • Pressure-dependent coefficients option – see DEEPSOIL comments
  • Viscous damping contribution not included in code-generated damping plot
code usage exercise code specific issues15
Code Usage Exercise – Code Specific Issues

OpenSees

  • Viscous damping formulations:
    • 2 options for Raleigh damping
    • Simplified + Full
    • Guidelines needed regarding frequencies where damping specified
  • Clearer guidelines for parameters of more advanced models
  • Documentation needed for new GUI version of code

Figure from Hashash

code usage exercise code specific issues16
Code Usage Exercise – Code Specific Issues

OpenSees: results

Treasure Island

Gilroy II

code usage exercise3
Code Usage Exercise

Synthesis of results

  • Consistently lower PGA
  • Amplification at site period relative to SHAKE:
    • Less for TI
    • Similar for Gilroy 2
  • Mixed results at mid-periods (between site period and PGA)

Tdegraded = 1.04s

Tdegraded = 1.40s

verification plan
Verification Plan
  • Verification of element behavior
  • Verification at different strain conditions
    • Very small strain (visco-elastic)
    • Small to medium strain
    • Large strain
  • Goodness of fit
verification of element behavior
Verification of Element Behavior
  • Suggested by Kramer
  • Apply cyclic load to single element at various rates
  • Plot g vs. t
  • Look for spurious features at zero crossing, upon unloading, etc.
  • Is this possible with the codes?

Graphic: Hashash

verification at very small strain
Verification at Very Small Strain
  • Why?
    • Verify wave propagation part of the codes
    • Check effects of viscous damping formulations
    • Check input specification procedure
  • Take linear frequency domain elastic solution as exact
  • Compare to time domain elastic solution
  • Specified: Vs, Dmin, layer thicknesses
  • Vary:
    • Profile depth
    • Layering of Vs
    • Depth variation of Dmin
  • Pulse and broadband inputs
verification at small to medium strains

Vs

Verification at Small to Medium Strains
  • Site selection criteria:
    • Should be vertical arrays or nearby rock/soil pairs
    • Deep characterization
    • Range of input motions
    • Soft and stiff sites
    • Reasonably well known dynamic properties
  • Silva recommended sites:
    • Lotung
    • Port Island (liq.)
    • Gilroy I, II
    • Kik Net (inquery made regarding data resolution)
  • Others:
    • Frasier River, BC
    • Garner Valley
    • La Cienega
    • Turkey Flat
verification at large strain
Verification at Large Strain
  • Vertical array data - ?
  • Centrifuge data
    • UC Davis (http://cgm.engineering.ucdavis.edu)
    • RPI ?
verification at large strain1
Verification at Large Strain

Available data

  • UCD Experiment series DKS02, DKS03
    • dense unsaturated sand
    • Input motions: sine sweeps and scaled Santa Cruz LP eqk.
  • UCD clay experiments
    • Performed in early 1990s
    • Refs: Idriss et al. (1994); Fiegel et al. (1998)
    • Data available?

Ref: Stevens et al. 1999

goodness of fit
Goodness of Fit

Anderson (2004) criterion

  • Based on quality of fit for 10 ground motion parameters
  • Scores range from 0 to 10 (perfect agreement) for each parameter
  • Overall score = average of 10 scores from each parameter
ad