Professional Documents
Culture Documents
G. V. Ramana ramana@civil.iitd.ernet.in
Department of Civil Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110 016
Location
Manipur-Burma Uttarakashi Delhi Jabalpur Chamoli
M
7.1 -6.5 6 6.8
Remarks
3 persons killed and little damage Considerable damage Not much damage 39 persons killed and extensive damage 103 persons killed and extensive damage
Buildings Dams
Pipelines
2001
Bhuj
7.6
19729 were killed and 166000 were injured, 6 lakh people left homeless, 3,48,000 houses destroyed, 8,44,000 houses damaged and losses of $ 5 Bn.
Tunnels
Dynamic Properties of Soil Shear wave velocity Modulus Reduction and Damping Characteristics of Structures
Physical processes
What causes damage during earthquakes? Type of soil (sand, clay, silt, or a mixture?) Properties of soil (loose, dense, soft, stiff ..?) Whether Saturated or not (ground water table)? Characteristics of ground motion.
Soil Amplification
! !
Torsional Shear
Triaxial cell
Dynamic Site Characterization Selection of Rock Motions Ground Response Analysis Site Specific Design Spectra for Response Spectrum Analysis
Shear Wave Velocity Profile Modulus Reduction Curve Damping versus Strain Curve Peak Ground Motion parameters Response Spectral Content Duration of strong shaking Site Specific time histories for Time history analyses
Vs Bender elements
SASW
LABORATORY
IN-SITU
SCPT
Down Hole
SASW
1 Hz 4.5 Hz
CABLES
NDT pc
Dispersion phenomena
Shear Wave Velocity (m/s) 0 0 10 Depth (m) 20 30 40 50 100 200 300 400 500
Vs = A N B m/s
where A, B are Correlation parameters Vs : Shear wave velocity and N : SPT value
Shear wave velocity profiles for 15 m, 25 m and 50 m depths for Sand at Dheerpur, Delhi
Silty Sand
Vs = 86 N 0.42 m/s
Sand
0 70 Hz Frequency
Applies Sine, Pulse shapes etc and Earthquake Loading ASTM D5311 ASTM D3999A, B codes
Liquefaction
Strain dependent Modulus and Damping
Vs = 79 N 0.43 m/s
(DST Support)
www.ictp.trieste.it/~pub_off
25 PI = 0 PI = 15 20 PI = 30 Rock 15
0.9 0.8
0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0.0001 PI = 0 PI = 15 PI = 30 Rock 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
0.7
10
0 0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
Types of Sources
For near source regions, or places near the epicenter, the high frequency content is most damaging. The fault slip process is finite in both time and space. When a site is within a few fault lengths of the source of a largemagnitude earthquake, a finite source is essential to the simulation of the near-fault effects. At distances far from the fault, a finite source can be reasonably simplified to a point source in space for the purpose of simulating ground motions. Because a procedure using a point source model is computationally less involved than one using a finite source model, considerable computational savings can be achieved when the point source model is deemed appropriate.
Central Seismic Gap (750 km long) Delhi (Min. distance 200 km)
The Regional Map of Delhi and surrounding areas with epicenters of the earthquakes which occurred in the region
S (# ) % M 0# 2 /(1 $ (# / #c ) 2 )
G(R) is the GEOMETRICAL SPREADING
G ( R) % R G ( R ) % ( RR x )
1/ 2
# #
Q % 508 f 0.48
Depth of top of fault = 16 km R (average radiation pattern) = 0.55 F (Free surface amplification) = 2.0
Number of sub-faults = 8 x 5
Artificially generated acceleration history at Delhi for expected earthquake from Central Himalayan Seismic Gap
Acc. [cm/sec2] 10 0 -10
30
PGA versus Mw
PGA vs Mw
25
PGA (cm/sec2)
20
15
10 5
Mw
Peak Ground Acceleration versus Moment Magnitude for point source approximation
Acceleration response spectra for different input motions used in the analysis
7
7
pga amplification
5 4 3 2
PI=30 & D=15 m PI=0 & D=25 m PI=15 & D=25 m PI=30 & D=25 m PI=0 & D=50 m PI=15 & D=50 m PI=30 & D=50 m
pga amplification
6 5 4 3 2 1 7 7.5 8 8.5
PI=0 & D=15 m PI=15 & D=15 m PI=30 & D=15 m PI=0 & D=25 m PI=15 & D=25 m PI=30 & D=25 m PI=0 & D=50 m PI=15 &D=50 m PI=30 & D=50 m
1 7 7.5 8 8.5
Earthquake Magnitude
Earthquake Magnitude
pga amplification for different soil profile depths and plasticity index (input at bedrock level)
pga amplification for different soil profile depths and plasticity index (input as outcrop)
Spectral acceleration, g
pga on the top of free field amplified up to 6 times for the acceleration histories used as bed rock motion. This factor came down to 3 when used as outcrop motion. However, this can not be generalized for bedrock pga > 0.05 g Non-linear behavior was clearly observed when the pga in the bed-rock is 0.20 g Plasticity index of the soil did influence the computed response. For the same profile, as PI increased, the computed pga increased
0.1
o o
0.1 1 10
0 0.01
Period (Sec)
Reference Site?
Liquefaction Susceptibility
"Cyclic stresses Induced "Cyclic resistance available Laboratory testing Field testing
.max =(-h/g)amax
Maximum Shear Stress at a Depth for a Rigid Soil Column
CSR, CRR
0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Simplified approach over predicts the CSR value as compared to wave propagation analysis As the magnitude of the earthquake increased, depth of liquefaction increased for shallow sites (up to 20 m deep). However, for deeper sites, depth of liquefaction does not change significantly As plasticity of the soil increased, the depth of liquefaction decreased Substantial difference in depth of liquefaction when object motion used as outcrop
Depth (m)
10
15
25
-20
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
5 4 axial strain (%) 3 2 1 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 No. of cycles, N
No. of cycles, N
D.A.strain (%)
5 4 3 2 1 0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
3 2
No. of cycles, N
dev.st.ratio q/p'
1 0 -1 -2 -3 time (sec) 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
41
excess pr.p.ratio
31
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-31
-41
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
No. of cycles, N
5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 No. of cycles, N
0
5 4 D.A.strain (%) 3 2 1 0 0
3 No. of cycles, N
No. of cycles, N
D.A.strain (%)
3 No. of cycles, N
3 No. of cycle s, N
6
5 3 1 -1 0 -3 -5 1
dev.St.ratio q /p'
50
60
70
80
90