NON-LINEAR GROUND RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR LIQUEFACTION ASSESMENT OF SOIL DEPOSITS

NON-LINEAR GROUND RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR LIQUEFACTION

ASSESMENT OF SOIL DEPOSITS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The very basic problem to be solved by geotechnical engi

neers in regions where earthquake hazards exist is to esti-
mate the site-specific dynamic response of a layered soil deposit. The problem is
commonly referred to as a site-specific response analysis or soil
amplification study (although ground motions may be de-amplified). This is generally the
beginning point for most aseismic studies and a solution to this problem allows the
geotechnical engineer to:

 Calculate site natural periods.

 Assess ground motion amplification.
 Provide structural engineers with various parameters, primarily response spectra,
for design and safety evaluation of structures.
 Evaluate the potential for liquefaction.
 Conduct first analytical phase of seismic stability
evaluations for slopes and embankments.

Soil conditions and local geological features affecting the ground response are
numerous. Some of the more important features are horizontal extent and depth of
the soil deposits overlying bedrock, slopes of the bedding planes of the soils overlying
bedrock, changes of soil types horizontally, topography of both bedrock and deposited
soils and faults crossing the soil deposits.
A complete ground response analysis

Ideally, a complete ground response analysis should take into account the following
factors:
 Rupture mechanism at source of an earthquake (source).
 Propagation of stress waves through the crust to the top of bedrock beneath
the site of interest (path).
 How ground surface motion is influenced by the soils that lie above the
bedrock (site amplification).

In reality, several difficulties arise and uncertainties exist in taking account the above
listed factors:

 Mechanism of fault rupture is very complicated and difficult to predict in

advance.
 Crustal velocity and damping characteristics are generally poorly known.
 Nature of energy transmission between the source and site is uncertain.

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING, UVCE, B’lore Page 1

 NON-LINEAR GROUND RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR LIQUEFACTION ASSESMENT OF SOIL DEPOSITS

In professional practice, the following procedures are usually adopted to make the
process tractable and overcome the above difficulties:
 Seismic hazard analyses (probabilistic or deterministic) are used to predict
bedrock motions at the location of the site.
 Seismic hazard analyses rely on empirical attenuation
relationships to predict bedrock motion parameters.
 Ground response problem becomes one of determining
responses of soil deposit to the motion of the underlying
bedrock.

Steps in site-specific ground response analysis

The following are the sequence of steps (Figure 1) to be followed to modify the
earthquake motions in the bedrock to account for the effects of soil profile at a site.

Characterization of the site

Based on the results of the geophysical as well as geotechnical investigations and

laboratory testing, one or more idealized soil profiles must be selected for the site of
interest. In this context, complete dynamic site characterization includes the following:
 Shear wave velocity profile with depth (through geophysical testing method
such as Spectral Analysis of Surface Wave (SASW) method).
 Variation of shear modulus with strain (or modulus reduction curve).
 Variation of damping with strain (or damping ratio curve).

Ground response analysis and design spectra

Figure 1. Site-specific ground response analysis.

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING, UVCE, B’lore Page 2

 NON-LINEAR GROUND RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR LIQUEFACTION ASSESMENT OF SOIL DEPOSITS

Ground response analysis, usually in the form of one-dimen

sional analysis (linear, equivalent linear or nonlinear) are performed for the site specific
profiles using the rock motions as input motion, to compute the time histories at the
ground surface. Response spectra of calculated ground sur-
face motions are statically analysed or interpreted in some
manner to develop ‘design spectrum’ for the site.The
time histories from the ground response analysis can be
used directly to represent the ground surface motions or arti-
ficial time histories can be developed to match the design
spectrum.
Wave propagation analysis/site amplification

During earthquakes, the ground motion parameters such as

amplitude of motion, frequency content and duration of
the ground motion change as the seismic waves propagate
through overlying soil and reach the ground surface. The
phenomenon, wherein the local soils act as a filter and
modify the ground motion characteristics, is known as
‘soil amplification problem’. Physically, the problem is to
predict the characteristics of the seismic motions that can
be expected at the surface (or at any depth) of a soil stratum.
Mathematically, the problem is one of the wave propaga-
tion in a continuous medium.
Excitation of a compliant medium (for example, a soil
deposit or an earth dam) is not instantly felt at other
points within the medium. It takes time for the effects of
the excitation to be felt at distant/different points. The effects
are felt in the form of waves that travel through the medium.
The manner in which these waves travel is a function of
the stiffness and attenuation characteristics of the medium
and will control the effects they produce. Usually, the
geological materials are treated as continua and the dyna-
mic response of these materials to dynamic/transient load-
ing such as earthquakes, blasts, traffic-induced vibrations,
etc. are evaluated in the context of one or two or three-dimen-
sional wave propagations depending on the geometry and
loading conditions.

One-dimensional wave propagation analyses

These are widely used for ‘ground response analysis’ or ‘soil amplification studies’ as:

 They are believed to provide conservative results.

 A large number of commercial programs with different soil models are available for

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING, UVCE, B’lore Page 3

 NON-LINEAR GROUND RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR LIQUEFACTION ASSESMENT OF SOIL DEPOSITS

use on personal computers.

 They are time tested, i.e. most design projects in the past
designed using this methodology survived the earthquakes.

Assumptions in one-dimensional ground response analysis

 The soil layers are horizontal and extend to infinity.
 The ground surface is level.
 The incident earthquakes motions are spatially-uniform, horizontally-polarized shear
waves, and propagate vertically.

Methods of analysis

A number of techniques are available for ‘ground response

analysis’. The methods differ in the simplifying assump-
tions that are made, in the representation of stress-strain
relations of soil and in the methods used to integrate the
equation of motion. The development of existing methods
of dynamic response analysis has been a gradual evolu-
tionary process stimulated by changing needs of practice
and the increasing knowledge about the fundamental be-
haviour of soils under cyclic loading derived from field
observations and laboratory testing. The method can be
broadly grouped into the following three categories:

 Linear analysis.
 Equivalent linear analysis.
 Nonlinear analysis.

1. Linear analysis: Because of its simplicity, has been extensively used to

study analytically the dynamic response of soil deposits. Closed form
analytical solutions have been derived for idealized geometries and soil
properties e.g. by assuming that the deposit consists of one Uniform layer with
soil stiffness either constant or varying with depth in a way which can be
expressed by simple mathematical functions. In general, however, soil does not
behave elastically and its material properties can change in space. In such
situations, no analytical solutions are possible and numerical techniques such as
finite element or finite difference method are used.

2. Equivalent linear analysis: Schnabelet al. addressed nonlinear hysteretic stress-

strain properties of sand by using an equivalent linear method of analysis. The
method was originally based on the lumped mass model of sand
deposits resting on rigid base to which the seismic motions
were applied. Later, this method was generalized to wave

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING, UVCE, B’lore Page 4

 NON-LINEAR GROUND RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR LIQUEFACTION ASSESMENT OF SOIL DEPOSITS

propagation model with an energy-transmitting boundary.

The seismic excitation could be applied at any level in the
new model.

3. Nonlinear analysis: A nonlinear analysis is usually performed by using a

discrete model such as finite element and lumped mass models, and
performing time domain Step-by-step integration of equations of motion. For
nonlinear analysis to give meaningful results, the stress-
strain characteristics of the particular soil must be realis-
tically modeled.

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING, UVCE, B’lore Page 5

 NON-LINEAR GROUND RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR LIQUEFACTION ASSESMENT OF SOIL DEPOSITS

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

L. Govindaraju and S. Bhattacharya (2011) conducted study on “Site-specific

earthquake response study for hazard assessment in Kolkata city, India”. They focuses
on the seismic response studies of the various soil strata (i.e. for local
subsurface conditions) obtained from various construction sites in the city for predicted
earthquake. It is very well recognized that site response studies (a part of seismic
microhazard zonation for urban areas) are the first step towards performance-based
foundation design or seismic risk analysis and mitigation strategy. One of the problems for
carrying out site-specific study in Kolkata is the lack of recorded strong motion data in the
city. Hence, this paper outlines a methodology to carry out site-specific study, where no
strong motion data or seismic data are available. The methodology uses wavelet-based
spectrum compatibility approach to generate synthetic earthquake motions and equivalent
linear method for seismic site response analysis. The Mega City of Kolkata has been
considered to explain the methodology. Seismic hazard zonation map by the Bureau of
Indian Standards classifies the City of Kolkata as moderate seismic zone (Zone III) with a
zone factor 0.16. On the other hand, GSHAP(Global Seismic Hazard Assessment
Program) map which is based on 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years specifies a
maximum peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 1.6 m/s2 (0.163 g) for this region. In the
present study, the seismic response has been carried out based on GSHAP. The results of
the analysis indicate the amplification of ground motion in the range of 4.46-4.82 with the
fundamental period ranging from 0.81 to 1.17 s. Furthermore, the maximum spectral
accelerations vary in the range of 0.78-0.95 g.

Kayen and Mitchell (1997) studied the ground failure following the 1989 Loma
Prieta earthquake. They note that the peak horizontal accelerations on sites underlain by
rock and stiff alluvium in the east bay of San Francisco generally ranged between 0.08 and
0.12g. On the other hand, the amplification due to the presence of soft and deep
cohesive soil deposits underlying artificial fills produced peak accelerations from 0.11 to
0.29 g. Further, the peak horizontal accelerations on Bay Shore fills in the vicinity of
Oakland International Airport, and Bay Farm Island were apparently about 0.27 g, and
at the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge toll plaza and Port of Oakland’s container
terminal at Seventh Street were about 0.28-0.29 g.
During the 1985 Michoacan earthquake, though the epicenter was located more than
350 km from Mexico City, the earthquake caused extensive damage in areas underlain by
soft deposits (Zeevaert 1991). As reported by Seed et al. (1988), Mexico City is underlain
partly by an ancient lake bed and partly by stiffer material. The shear wave velocities of
deposits in the lake bed are ranging from 40 to 90 m/s. But the bedrock below these
sediments has a shear wave velocity greater than 500 m/s. The high impedance contrast
between the two layers amplified shaking at the ground surface by factors ranging from 3
to 20 and caused extensive damage (Dobry et al. 2000). Seed et al. (1988) evaluated and
compared the ground motions from the main shock and after shock for a site. Ground

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING, UVCE, B’lore Page 6

 NON-LINEAR GROUND RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR LIQUEFACTION ASSESMENT OF SOIL DEPOSITS

motion was similar for both showing that ground shaking was due to the site conditions
rather than the source.
Observations from recent earthquakes have demonstrated that ground-motion amplifi-
cation is more pronounced for weak ground motions than for strong ground motions
because of nonlinear soil behaviour. The largest amplifications in both the Loma Prieta
and the Michoacan earthquakes were recorded at significant distances from the epicentre
where the amplitude of propagating seismic waves is generally considered to be less
due to attenuation (Romero and Rix 2005). During the Kobe earthquake the peak
values of accelerations measured in the heavily damaged areas were in the range of 0.7-0.8
g and in the reclaimed areas, these accelerations were from 0.3-0.6 g. The ground
motions were amplified by a factor of 1.5-2 times in the heavily damaged areas within deep
sedimentary layers.
Zaslavsky et al. (2003) carried out seismic site response studies along the coastal plain
of Israel. They found the loose sediments of sand and alluvium yielded amplification
factors of 2-3 in the frequency range 1.2-3.5 Hz. In the Carmel coast, the complex
calcareous sandstone and loose sediments, with a total thickness of 15-30 m, that covers
the Judea Group carbonates, had amplification factor up to 8 at frequency ranging from 2 to
6 Hz. Luc Chouinard et al. (2004) conducted ground response studies as a part of seismic
microzonation of Montreal Urban area. The results of their studies indicate that the
amplification factor for different seismic scenarios were in excess of 3 in zones with a
10-15 m clay layer. Further unconsolidated river deposits also exhibited amplification
factors of 3.
It was observed that a number of medium-to-high-rise residential reinforced concrete
buildings having four to ten storeys suffered extensive damage and/or collapse in Ah-
medabad city, located 300 km away from the epicentre following the 2001 Bhuj (India)
earthquake. The soil conditions at the site represented deep alluvial deposits. A case study
on seismic response of ground and reinforced concrete buildings carried out by Gov-
indaraju et al. (2004) showed that there was amplification of peak ground acceleration by a
factor 1.66. Further, high degree of damage to multi-storey buildings was essentially due
to the transfer of large accelerations to high-rise buildings by soil amplification.
The site amplification characteristics of the 2003 Bam, Iran, earthquake were investi-
gated by Mohammad Kazem Jafari et al. (2005). Based on their geological studies as well
as geophysical, microtremor and aftershock measurements in the study area a site-effect
microzonation map was prepared classifying the ground conditions of the city into five
distinct categories depending on their stiffness, thickness and frequency characteristics.
The highest percentage of damage was concentrated in sites with stiff shallow and medium
depth soils, which possessed considerable amplification potentials in high frequency ran-
ges. The effect of alluvial deposits in Central Khartoum, Sudan, on the propagation of
seismic motion parameters to the ground surface was investigated by Mohamedzein et al.
(2006). The subsoil conditions at Central Khartoum are characterized by alluvial deposits
underlain by Nubian sandstone at a depth of 25 m. The equivalent-linear earthquake
response analyses (EERA) were carried out to study the effect of local soil conditions on
ground-motion parameters. The results indicated that amplification of ground motion was

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING, UVCE, B’lore Page 7

 NON-LINEAR GROUND RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR LIQUEFACTION ASSESMENT OF SOIL DEPOSITS

up to 4.93.

Jianjing ZHANG and Changwei YANG (2011) conducted study on “Characteristics of

seismic responses at liquefied and non-liquefied sites with same site conditions” and
attempt to investigate mean values using non-liquefied site response instead of
liquefied site response. For the purpose, we choose two sites which are all classified
into Class D in National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), one for
liquefiable site and the other for non-liquefiable site, the distance between the two sites is
about 500 m, and the natural periods are 1.31 s and 1.32 s, respectively. Effective stress
analysis method is used to investigate the change of pore-water pressure, and simplified
bounding surface models are used to model truly nonlinear soil behavior. A suite of
earthquake records on rock sites have been selected from the Next Generation
Attenuation strong motion dataset, and then scaled to the Boore, Joyner and Fumal (BJF)
acceleration spectra in a period range of 0.2T0 to 1.5T0, where T0 is the natural period of
the site, for a magnitude 7.5 earthquake at a distance of 50 km. The reason for selecting
a suite of records is that we attempt to obtain the mean values for various intensity-
measure parameters. These scaled re-cords are then used to excite the two sites. We
have noted that different scaling approaches have been proposed, but we prefer to use
the scale approach, because the scale approach not only captures the effect of the first
mode, but also accounts for soil stiffness softening and possible higher mode effect. The
comparisons of seismic responses at the liquefiable and non-liquefiable sites are
performed from the following aspects: mean site response spectra, Peak Ground
Acceleration (PGA), Peak Ground Displacement (PGD), and permanent displacements
on the ground surface and along the depth.

Results show that the mean ground response spectrum at the non-liquefied site
is close to the estimated ground response spectrum from the JBF model, but the mean
ground response spectrum at the liquefied site is much lower than the estimated ground
response spectrum from the JBF model for periods of up to 1.3 s. The mean PGA at the
non-liquefied site is about 1.6-1.7 times as large as that at the liquefied site, but the mean
peak ground displacement (PGD) at the non-liquefied site has a slight difference with that
at the liquefied site. The mean permanent displacements at the liquefied site are larger
than those at the non-liquefied site, particularly at the liquefied layer.

M.J. Arefi, M. Cubrinovski & B.A. Bradley (2013)conducted study on “Site response
analysis of Christchurch soil sites using a non-linear model” on a set of equivalent linear and
nonlinear site response analysis, using the RHSC and CBGS strong motion station soil
profiles were carried out in order to evaluate the influence of the induced hysteretic
damping. The commonly used two-mode Rayleigh damping was employed to separately
simulate the low-strain damping. Furthermore, both Masing and proposed model give a
PGA that is lower than the equivalent approach. However, in the midperiod range (0.04-
1s) they provide responses that are significantly higher than the EQL spectrum.
Interestingly, all the results are similar for long period ranges.

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING, UVCE, B’lore Page 8

 NON-LINEAR GROUND RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR LIQUEFACTION ASSESMENT OF SOIL DEPOSITS

The performance of the nonlinear site response analysis as well as the proposed
formulation can be assessed employing the deconvolved fault-parallel motion
for site response analyses of other strong motion stations such as
CBGS in this case. In terms of PGA, all methods resulted in similar results;
however Masing-type analyses slightly underestimated the PGA at the CBGS stations. In
general, the proposed model predicted higher response values than the Masing-type
formulation except for the period range 0.04-0.1s. It is seen in Figure 1b that
all methods overestimated the spectral acceleration at periods higher 1s.
The overestimation of damping using Masing rules is more pronounced at larger
strain levels and because the maximum shear strains computed in this profile were less than
0.1%, it is not conclusive whether the proposed model can adequately capture the response.
A new simple equation was proposed for modeling of unloading-reloading branches
of cyclic stress-strain hysteresis loops for sandy soils. The proposed model uses the
hyperbolic model as the backbone
curve to represent the modulus reduction curve. It was shown that the model is capable of
capturing any desired level of energy dissipation as a function of shear strain in contrast to
conventional models which tend to overestimate damping. Therefore, both the
modulus reduction and damping curves can
be simulated simultaneously. In a further attempt, the proposed model was employed to
simulate the nonlinear behaviour of two profiles which underlie two strong
motion stations. The equivalent analysis, nonlinear analysis using Masing criteria,
and nonlinear analysis using the proposed model
were compared in order to study the effect of modelling damping in the surface ground
motion.

Youssef M. A. Hashash, Camilo Phillips, David R. Groholski(2010)conducted study on

“RECENT ADVANCES IN NON-LINEAR SITE RESPONSE ANALYSIS”
Measurements from earthquakes over the past 50 years have demonstrated the
inherent non-linear behavior of soil materials subjected to earthquake loading, and thus
the importance of their consideration in site response analysis. Numerous methods and
models have been, and continue to be developed for determining the soil response in the
time domain. While advanced models are available, they require extensive
information in regard to a specific soil's exhibited behavior while in most cases only
the modulus reduction and damping curves are available. The hyperbolic model has
proven to be a simple, yet versatile model which allows for the inclusion of effects of
overburden pressure, small-strain and hysteretic damping, as well as modulus
degradation due to the generation, dissipation, and redistribution of excess pore
pressures.

The paper described many of the important and practical developments designed to
improve the quality of nonlinear site response analysis. This included small and large
strain damping formulations, porewater pressure generation models, inverse analysis for

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING, UVCE, B’lore Page 9

 NON-LINEAR GROUND RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR LIQUEFACTION ASSESMENT OF SOIL DEPOSITS

learning dynamic soil behavior. The paper also discussed other practical issues including
layer thickness and rock base modeling requirements.

A set of curve-fitting procedures is available to more accurately model

recorded soil behavior (based on the modulus reduction and damping curves)
according to the parameters of the hyperbolic model. Using these curve-fitting
procedures, a new procedure is described which uses the results of dynamic tests for
small to medium strains and the shear strength of the soil for large strains to construct the
soils curve.
Techniques for the extraction of dynamic soil behavior from downhole array
measurements are reviewed. Such techniques include both parametric and non-
parametric system identification approaches which provide insight from field
observations, but are limited by assumptions made about soil behavior or the employed
soil model. An inverse analysis framework, SelfSim, has shown the capability of an
evolving soil model to reproduce global behavior of the site while simultaneously
extracting the underlying soil behavior. Further research is currently being
conducted to extend this concept towards the extraction of excess pore pressure
response in addition to soil behavior.

Nonlinear site response analysis can provide acceptable representation of soil

column response as long as the model parameters are implemented and understood
correctly. To this end, the accuracy of the results is dependent on the
engineering practitioner's understanding of requirements for a proper site response
analysis; which can be significantly augmented by the use of a well designed
graphical user interface in the site response analysis software.

P Anbazhagan and T G Sitharam (2008) conducted study on “Seismic

microzonation of Bangalore, India”, an attempt has been made to evaluate the
seismic hazard considering local site effects by carrying out detailed geotechnical and
geophysical site characterization in Bangalore, India to develop microzonation maps. An area
of 220 km2, encompassing Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BMP) has been chosen as the
study area. Seismic hazard analysis and microzonation of Bangalore are addressed in three
parts: in the first part, estimation of seismic hazard is done using seismotectonic and
geological information. Second part deals with site characterization using geotechnical and
shallow geophysical techniques. In the last part, local site effects are assessed by carrying out
one-dimensional (1-D) ground response analysis (using the program SHAKE 2000) using
both standard penetration test (SPT) data and shear wave velocity data from multichannel
analysis of surface wave (MASW) survey. Further, field experiments using microtremor
studies have also been carried out for evaluation of predominant frequency of the soil
columns. The same has been assessed using 1-D ground response analysis and compared
with microtremor results. Further, the Seed and Idriss simplified approach has been adopted
to evaluate the soil liquefaction susceptibility and liquefaction resistance assessment.

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING, UVCE, B’lore Page 10

 NON-LINEAR GROUND RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR LIQUEFACTION ASSESMENT OF SOIL DEPOSITS

Microzonation maps have been prepared with a scale of 1:20,000.

This study shows that, expected peak ground acceleration (PGA) at rock level
using DSHA for Bangalore is about 0.15 g. Based on large amount of borehole data with SPT
‘N ’ values, 3-D geotechnical borehole model has been generated using GIS. Field ‘N’ values
were corrected for various corrections. The site characterization of Bangalore
is attempted using measured shear wave velocity from Multichannel Analysis of Surface
Wave. Average shear wave velocity at each 5 m interval up to a depth of 30 m was evaluated
and presented. Based on soil average shear wave velocity and 30 m average shear wave
velocity, as per NEHRP and IBC, Bangalore is classified as “Site class D”. Theoretical 1-D
site response study shows that the amplification factor is in the range of 1 to 4.7and
predominant frequency varies from 3 to 12 Hz. The results of site response studies using
SPT data and MASW data are comparable. Ground response parameters evaluated using
MASW data are slightly lower when compared to the para-
meters obtained using SPT data. Field study of microtremor also shows similar values of
predominant frequencies for the selected sites. Predominant frequency obtained from these
three methods matches very well. Liquefaction hazard map has been generated using factor of
safety against liquefaction. Liquefaction study shows that Bangalore is safe against
liquefaction except at few locations where the overburden is sandy silt with presence of
shallow water table.

Bagheripour M. H, Asadi M, Ghasemi, M.(2012) conducted study on “Analysis of

Nonlinear Seismic Ground Response Using Adaptive Nero Fuzzy Inference Systems”
Evaluation of ground response due to earthquake is one the most important problems
in geotechnical earthquake engineering. This includes prediction of ground
movements caused by the “hard bed rock” transmitting through soil
layers. Several linear, semi-linear and nonlinear techniques have been proposed in this
context. Linear methods, however, are not reliable since the soil material behave
nonlinearly when facing large displacements occurred by
earthquakes. In current study we use adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) to
assess this problem. Data needed to train the system are generated using the
software NERA working based upon nonlinear method. Two
training strategies namely gird partitioning and subtractive clustering are adopted for
training the fuzzy model. Once the models are trained their predictions are
compared with the well-known commercial software SHAKE. The
results indicate that the model trained by subtractive clustering algorithm predicts the ground
motion better than the other model.

In current paper we studied the nonlinear response of ground to a base seismic

motion using adaptive neuro fuzzy inference systems (ANFIS). Two training
methods were adopted: grid partitioning and subtractive clustering.
Data required to train fuzzy models were generated using NERA (a computer code to
perform nonlinear analyses of ground seismic response). Comparing the
results of these to ANFIS models with outputs of SHAKE showed that

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING, UVCE, B’lore Page 11

 NON-LINEAR GROUND RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR LIQUEFACTION ASSESMENT OF SOIL DEPOSITS

they both present reasonable results. Furthermore, the model trained by subtractive
clustering offers high accuracy compared with the other model. This study revealed
that ANFIS models are appropriate frame work to deal with the
problem of nonlinear ground response to earthquake-induced motions. It is to be
mentioned that some other methods, including finite element method, FEM, have
been proposed before to predict this response when soil
material behave nonlinearly. The method introduce herein, however, offers ease of use
as well as high accuracy simultaneously. Moreover, such models may be
trained on experimental data to achieve more legitimate results from
practical point of view.

Shean-DerNi, Raj V Siddharthan and John G. Anderson (1997) conducted study on

“Characteristics of Nonlinear Response of Deep Saturated Soil Deposits”
Recent EPRI seismic design guidelines call for dynamic soil properties
(shear modulus ratio and damping) and liquefaction strength curves to be character-
ized as a function of the effective vertical stress (or depth). A modified version of
the DESRA2 constitutive model for saturated soil has been applied to study the
nonlinear seismic response including liquefaction of medium dense soil deposits of
various thicknesses. The results of the stress-dependent soil properties model show
lower deamplification and higher first-mode (resonant) frequency than that of the
stress-independent soil properties model. By using the stress-dependent model with
impulse base excitation, the nonlinear behavior of various soil deposits has been
investigated under a variety of conditions. The results show that (1) the saturated
soil deposit has a smaller surface amplitude and significantly lower resonant fre-
quency than the unsaturated soil deposit of the same thickness; (2) for the saturated
soil conditions, the larger the base excitation, the lower the surface amplification and
the resonant frequency; (3) the deep soil deposits show lower surface amplification
and resonant frequency compared to the response of shallow deposits; (4) when
shallow and deep deposits are compared, the shallow deposits develop much higher
residual pore-water pressure; and (5) the amplification and residual pore-water-pres-
sure response of deposits deeper than 100 m or so are very similar. The application
of the method has also been illustrated using a strong synthetic base excitation applied
to the base at a site near Reno. The results in general are consistent with those
computed using the impulse loading. The study reveals that the response predicted
from the conventionally used stress-independent soil properties model is unconservative
for deep deposit.

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING, UVCE, B’lore Page 12

 NON-LINEAR GROUND RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR LIQUEFACTION ASSESMENT OF SOIL DEPOSITS

REFERENCES

[1] L. Govindaraju, S. Bhattacharya (2011) “Site-specific earthquake response

study for hazard assessment in Kolkata city, India” Nat Hazards, VOL. 61, pp.943-
965.

[2] L. GovindaRaju, G. V. Ramana, C. HanumanthaRao and T. G. Sitharam(2004) “Site-

specific ground response analysis”, SPECIAL SECTION: GEOTECHNICS AND
EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS , CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 87, pp.1354-1362.

[3] Schnabel, P. B., Lysmer, J. and Seed, H. B., SHAKE - A computer

Program for earthquake response analysis of horizontally layered sites, EERC Report
72-12. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, California, 1972.

[4] Jianjing ZHANG and Changwei YANG (1972) “Characteristics of seismic responses
at liquefied and non-liquefied sites with same site conditions” Journal of Modern
Transportation, Volume 19, Number 2, Page 134-142.

[5] Bagheripour, M. H., Asadi, M., Ghasemi, M. (2012) “Analysis of Nonlinear Seismic
Ground Response Using Adaptive Nero Fuzzy Inference Systems” J. Basic. Appl. Sci.
Res, 2(4)3839-3843, 2012.Page 3839-3843.

[6] P Anbazhagan and T G Sitharam (2008) “Seismic microzonation of Bangalore,

India” J. Earth Syst. Sci.117, S2, pp. 833-852

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING, UVCE, B’lore Page 13