Mechanical‐probabilistic formulation of the soil–structure interaction, accounting for the average shear wave velocity

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 176-190
Author(s):  
Riadh Attal ◽  
Stéphane Grange ◽  
Julien Baroth ◽  
Abdelnasser Dahmani
Keyword(s):  
Shear Wave ◽  
Wave Velocity ◽  
Shear Wave Velocity ◽  
Soil Structure ◽  
Soil Structure Interaction ◽  
Structure Interaction ◽  
Probabilistic Formulation ◽  
Average Shear

Probabilistic assessment of plan-asymmetric structures under the near-fault pulse-like events considering soil–structure interaction

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 702-721 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad S Birzhandi ◽  
Amir M Halabian
Keyword(s):  
Shear Wave ◽  
Wave Velocity ◽  
Shear Wave Velocity ◽  
Soil Structure ◽  
Fragility Curves ◽  
Incremental Dynamic Analysis ◽  
Soil Structure Interaction ◽  
Structure Interaction ◽  
Near Fault ◽  
Low Shear

This study aims to evaluate the torsional effects and soil–structure interaction simultaneously under near-fault pulse-like earthquakes in a probabilistic framework. Incremental dynamic analysis and fragility curves are employed for this goal. An eight-story R/C dual lateral load-resistant building consisting of shear walls and moment resisting frames is used. The median incremental dynamic analysis curves reported the maximum capacity for the symmetric structure in each foundation conditions. In addition, the capacity of structure will be increased when more shear wave velocity is assumed. Therefore, from this view, neglecting the soil–structure interaction will not be in the safe side. Fragility curves (using intensity measure directly) show that for different cases (except for very low shear wave velocity), more value of eccentricity leads to more probability of collapse. Moreover, the fragility curves show that (for each eccentricity), soil–structure interaction effect is significant only for the flexible base structure with the very low shear wave velocity (100 m/s) and more eccentricity value leads to less soil–structure interaction effects. Results show that the significant eccentricity value may lead to reduce the soil–structure interaction effect in the shear-wall structures under the near-fault events.

scholarly journals A Comparative Study on the VS30 and N30 Based Seismic Site Classification in Kahramanmaras, Turkey

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Dalia Munaff Naji ◽  
Muge K. Akin ◽  
Ali Firat Cabalar
Keyword(s):  
Shear Wave ◽  
Wave Velocity ◽  
Shear Wave Velocity ◽  
Soil Structure ◽  
Site Response ◽  
Dead Sea ◽  
Site Classification ◽  
Earthquake Hazards ◽  
Class D ◽  
Average Shear

Assessment of seismic site classification (SSC) using either the average shear wave velocity (VS30) or the average SPT-N values (N30) for upper 30 m in soils is the simplest method to carry out various studies including site response and soil-structure interactions. Either the VS30- or the N30-based SSC maps designed according to the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) classification system are effectively used to predict possible locations for future seismic events. The main goal of this study is to generate maps using the Geographic Information System (GIS) for the SSC in Kahramanmaras city, influenced by both East Anatolian Fault and Dead Sea Fault Zones, using both VS30 and N30 values. The study also presents a series of GIS maps produced using the shear wave velocity (VS) and SPT-N values at the depths of 5 m, 10 m, 15 m, 20 m, and 25 m. Furthermore, the study estimates the bed rock level and generates the SSC maps for the average VS values through overburden soils by using the NEHRP system. The VS30 maps categorize the study area mainly under class C and limited number of areas under classes B and D, whereas the N30 maps classify the study area mainly under class D. Both maps indicate that the soil classes in the study area are different to a high extent. Eventually, the GIS maps complied for the purpose of urban development may be utilized effectively by engineers in the field.

scholarly journals AVERAGE SHEAR-WAVE VELOCITY MAPPING USING JAPAN ENGINEERING GEOMORPHOLOGIC CLASSIFICATION MAP

2006 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 57s-68s ◽  
Author(s):  
Masashi MATSUOKA ◽  
Kazue WAKAMATSU ◽  
Kazuo FUJIMOTO ◽  
Saburoh MIDORIKAWA
Keyword(s):  
Shear Wave ◽  
Wave Velocity ◽  
Shear Wave Velocity ◽  
Velocity Mapping ◽  
Average Shear

scholarly journals Average shear-wave velocity structure of the Kamchatka peninsula from the dispersion of surface waves

2000 ◽  
Vol 52 (9) ◽  
pp. 573-577 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. M. Shapiro ◽  
A. V. Gorbatov ◽  
E. Gordeev ◽  
J. Dominguez
Keyword(s):  
Surface Waves ◽  
Shear Wave ◽  
Wave Velocity ◽  
Shear Wave Velocity ◽  
Velocity Structure ◽  
Kamchatka Peninsula ◽  
Average Shear ◽  
Shear Wave Velocity Structure

Mapping of Average Shear Wave Velocity for Bangalore Region: A Case Study

2008 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 69-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Anbazhagan ◽  
T. G. Sitharam
Keyword(s):  
Shear Wave ◽  
Wave Velocity ◽  
Shear Wave Velocity ◽  
Average Shear

scholarly journals Risks of Solely Relying on VS30 in Ground Motion Response Studies

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (12) ◽  
pp. 2937
Author(s):  
Amin Ghanbari ◽  
Younes Daghigh ◽  
Forough Hassanvand
Keyword(s):  
Shear Wave ◽  
Ground Motion ◽  
Wave Velocity ◽  
Shear Wave Velocity ◽  
Ground Surface ◽  
Earthquake Excitation ◽  
Site Class ◽  
Velocity Models ◽  
Average Shear ◽  
Classification Tool

The average shear wave velocity of the uppermost 30 m of earth (Vs30) is widely used in seismic geotechnical engineering and soil-structure interaction studies. In this regard, any given subsurface profile is assigned to a specific site class according to its average shear wave velocity. However, in a real-world scenario, entirely different velocity models could be considered in the same class type due to their identical average velocities. The objective of the present study is to underline some of the risks associated with solely using Vs30 as a classification tool. To do so, three imaginary soil profiles that are quite different in nature, but all with the same average Vs were considered and were subjected to the same earthquake excitation. Seismic records acquired at the ground surface demonstrated that the three sites have different ground motion amplifications. Then, the different ground responses were used to excite a five-story structure. Results confirmed that even sites from the same class can indeed exhibit different responses under identical seismic excitations. Our results demonstrated that caution should be practiced when large-contrast velocity models are involved as such profiles are prone to pronounced ground motion amplification. This study, which serves as link between soil dynamics and structural dynamics, warns practitioners about the risks associated with oversimplifying the subsurface profile. Such oversimplifications can potentially undermine the safety of existing or future structures.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document