Comparison of one and three dimensional site response analyses

Abstract

Site response analysis is based on determining how strong ground motions occurring in bedrock are affected by local soils above the bedrock. Although the local ground response is determined as a result of simplified one-dimensional linear analysis of the system, which is actually three-dimensional, it is insufficient to represent the nonlinear behavior of soil which exhibiting plastic behavior under small deformations. The equivalent linear analysis method is more commonly used among other methods (linear or non-linear) to represent the nonlinear behavior of the soil. However, two or three dimensional analyzes are required in cases where the soil environment varies in all three dimensions or does not consist of horizontal layers, and especially when soil-structure interaction will be applied. In this study, threedimensional modeling strategies are dwelled on and the effects of nonreflective boundary element lengths, dimensions of the soil (system), finite element size and the frequency range selected for damping on the response of the three-dimensional system are investigated. Onedimensional and three-dimensional soil behavior analysis results are compared with the studies in the literature in terms of the maximum ground acceleration, maximum displacement and response spectrum. As a result of the comparisons, it is revealed that the correctly generated three-dimensional model can be applied in determining the ground behavior in cases where one-dimensional analysis cannot be used.

Keywords

• Site response analyses
• Equivalent linear method
• 3D modeling
• Infinite element

Bir ve üç boyutlu zemin davranış analizlerinin karşılaştırılması

Öz

Zemin davranış analizleri, anakayada meydana gelen kuvvetli yer hareketlerinin anakaya üzerinde bulunan yerel zeminler tarafından nasıl etkilendiğinin belirlenmesi esasına dayanmaktadır. Yerel zemin tepkisi, gerçekte üç boyutlu olan sistemin basitleştirilmiş bir boyutlu doğrusal analizler sonucunda belirlenmesine rağmen, küçük şekil değiştirmelerde plastik davranış sergileyen zeminin doğrusal olmayan davranışını temsil etmede yetersiz kalmaktadır. Eşdeğer doğrusal analiz yöntemi, zeminin doğrusal olmayan davranışını temsil etmek için diğer yöntemler (doğrusal ya da doğrusal olmayan) arasında daha yaygın bir şekilde kullanılmaktadır. Ancak, zemin ortamının her üç boyutta değişkenlik gösterdiği veya yatay tabakalardan oluşmadığı ve ayrıca özellikle yapı-zemin etkileşimi yapılacağı durumlarda iki veya üç boyutlu analizlere ihtiyaç duyulmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, üç boyutlu modelleme stratejileri üzerinde durulmakta ve yansıtmayan sınır eleman boyları, zeminin (sistemin) boyutları, sonlu eleman boyutu ve sönüm için seçilen frekans aralığının üç boyutlu sistemin tepkisi üzerindeki etkileri araştırılmaktadır. Bir boyutlu ve üç boyutlu zemin davranış analiz sonuçları maksimum yer ivmesi, maksimum deplasman ve tepki spektrumu dikkate alınarak literatürdeki çalışmalarla karşılaştırılmaktadır. Yapılan kıyaslamalar sonucunda, doğru bir şekilde oluşturulan üç boyutlu modelin, bir boyutlu analizlerin kullanılamayacağı durumlarda zemin davranışını belirlemede uygulanabileceğini ortaya koymaktadır

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Zemin davranış analizi
• Eşdeğer doğrusal yöntem
• 3B modelleme
• Sonsuz eleman

Kaynakça

1. [1] Wolf JP. Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction. 1st ed. New Jersey, USA, Prentice Hall, 1985.
2. [2] Kramer SL. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. 1st ed. New Jersey, USA, Prentice Hall, 1996.
3. [3] Matasovic N, Hashash YMA. “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, D.C., USA, Scientific Report, 78, 2012.
4. [4] Idriss IM, Seed HB. "Response of horizontal soil layers during earthquakes". Soil Mechanics and Bituminous Materials Research Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA, 1967.
5. [5] Stanko D, Gülerce Z, Markušić S, Šalić R. "Evaluation of the site amplification factors estimated by equivalent linear site response analysis using time series and random vibration theory based approaches". Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 117, 16-29, 2019.
6. [6] Astroza R, Pastén C, Ochoa-Cornejo F. "Site response analysis using one-dimensional equivalent-linear method and Bayesian filtering". Computers and Geotechnics, 89, 43-54, 2017.
7. [7] Bolisetti C, Whittaker AS, Mason HB, Almufti I, Willford M. "Equivalent linear and nonlinear site response analysis for design and risk assessment of safety-related nuclear structures". Nuclear Engineering and Design, 275, 107-121, 2014.
8. [8] Tabatabaiefar HRS, Fatahi B, Samali B. "An empirical relationship to determine lateral seismic response of mid-rise building frames under influence of soil-structure interaction". The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 23(7), 526-548, 2014.

9. [9] Luo R, Yang M, Li W. "Assessments of kinematic bending moment at pile head in seismic area". Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 25(5), 970-991, 2018.
10. [10] TBDY. “Deprem Etkisi Altında Binaların Tasarımı için Esaslar”. Afet ve Acil Durum Yönetimi Başkanlığı, Ankara, Türkiye, 417, 2018.
11. [11] Amoroso S, Gaudiosi I, Tallini M, Di Giulio G, Milana G. “2D site response analysis of a cultural heritage: the case study of the site of Santa Maria di Collemaggio Basilica (L’Aquila, Italy)". Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 16(10), 4443-4466, 2018.
12. [12] Bakır BS, Özkan MY, Cılız S. "Effects of basin edge on the distribution of damage in 1995 Dinar, Turkey earthquake". Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 22(4), 335-345, 2002.
13. [13] Amorosi A, Boldini D, di Lernia A. "Seismic ground response at Lotung: Hysteretic elasto-plastic-based 3D analyses". Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 85, 44-61, 2016.
14. [14] Makra K, Chávez-García FJ. "Site effects in 3D basins using 1D and 2D models: an evaluation of the differences based on simulations of the seismic response of Euroseistest". Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 14(4), 1177-1194, 2016.
15. [15] Smerzini C, Paolucci R, Stupazzini M. "Comparison of 3D, 2D and 1D numerical approaches to predict long period earthquake ground motion in the Gubbio plain, Central Italy". Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 9(6), 2007-2029, 2011.
16. [16] Hashash YMA, Musgrove MI, Harmon JA, Ilhan O, Groholski DR, Philips CA, Park D. "DEEPSOIL 7.0, User Manual". Board of Trustees of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Urbana, IL, Board of Trustees of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2020.
17. [17] Abaqus. "Documentation". Dassault Systemes Simulia Corporation, USA (online documentation) 2019.
18. [18] Zienkiewicz OC, Emson C, Bettess P. “A novel boundary infinite element”. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 19, 393-404, 1983.
19. [19] Lysmer J, Kuhlemayer RJ. “Finite dynamic model for infinite media”. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, 95(4), 859-878, 1969.
20. [20] Seed BH, Sun JI. “Implications of site effects in the mexico city earthquake of September 19, 1985 for earthquakeresistant design criteria in the san francisco bay area of california”. University of California at Berkeley, California, USA, Scientific Report, 140, 1989.
21. [21] Idriss IM. "Response of soft soil sites during earthquakes". Proceedings to Honor Professor Harry Bolton Seed, Berkeley, California, USA, 05 May 1990.
22. [22] de Sanctis L, Maiorano RMS, Aversa S. "A method for assessing kinematic bending moments at the pile head". Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 39, 1133-1154, 2010.
23. [23] Vucetic M, Dobry R. "Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response". Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 117(1), 89-107, 1991.