1 / 18

NGA Site Response Study

NGA Site Response Study. Joseph Sun, Tom Shantz, Zhi-Liang Wang. 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

eithne
Download Presentation

NGA Site Response Study

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NGA Site Response Study Joseph Sun, Tom Shantz, Zhi-Liang Wang

  2. 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)

  3. 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

  4. Target Spectrum (A&S strike-slip, rock) Mw=7.5 r=5 km Mw=6.5 r=15 km

  5. Shear Wave Velocity ProfileLa Clenega Site – Simplified CJR Model

  6. Non-Linear Properties Clay • 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 Sand Sand & Clay 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1

  7. Deep Profile – 500 ft M7.5 Ground Surface Response

  8. Deep Profile – 500 ftM6.5 Ground Surface Response

  9. Deep Profile – 500 ftGround Surface Response

  10. Med. Deep Profile – 300 ftGround Surface Response

  11. Shallow Profile – 100 ftGround Surface Response

  12. Deep Profile – 500 ftAverage Spectral Ratio

  13. Med. Deep Profile – 300 ftAverage Spectral Ratio

  14. Shallow Profile – 100 ftAverage Spectral Ratio

More Related