Site‐Effects Model for Central and Eastern North America Based on Peak Frequency and Average Shear‐Wave Velocity

2017 ◽  
Vol 108 (1) ◽  
pp. 338-350 ◽  
Author(s):  
Behzad Hassani ◽  
Gail M. Atkinson
Keyword(s):  
North America ◽  
Shear Wave ◽  
Wave Velocity ◽  
Shear Wave Velocity ◽  
Site Effects ◽  
Peak Frequency ◽  
Eastern North America ◽  
Average Shear

Shear-Wave Velocity Characteristics of Geologic Units in California

1998 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 533-556 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher J. Wills ◽  
Walter Silva
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Shear Wave ◽  
Wave Velocity ◽  
Shear Wave Velocity ◽  
Site Effects ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Site Conditions ◽  
Hazard Maps ◽  
Franciscan Complex ◽  
Average Shear

Site conditions can be classified by the average shear-wave velocity to 30 meters (Vs30) and used for estimating site effects in seismic hazard calculations. Large scale seismic hazard maps, which include site effects, may be produced, providing Vs30 can be well correlated with geologic units. Vs30 values for several geologic units can be easily classified into soil profile types of the UBC (ICBO 1997). Most geologic units have wide variations in Vs30 and some extensive geologic units, such as older alluvium, the Franciscan Complex or the Puente Formation cannot be easily classified.

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 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 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