Tenth U.S.

National Conference on Earthquake Engineering

Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering
July 21-25, 2014
10NCEE Anchorage, Alaska

MODELING FRAMEWORK FOR SOIL-

BRIDGE SYSTEM RESPONSE DURING
SEQUENTIAL EARTHQUAKE AND
TSUNAMI LOADING
Trevor Carey,1 H. Benjamin Mason,2 Andre R. Barbosa,3
and Michael H. Scott4

ABSTRACT

Numerous bridge structures on Japan’s eastern coast were damaged by the intense ground
motion and subsequent tsunami caused by the 2011 Great East Japan earthquake. Damage to
bridge systems during this multi-hazard event consisted of two components: long duration
ground shaking and tsunami inundation forces. Determining the extent of damage from each
hazard is difficult because bridge assessment typically cannot be performed between the
earthquake motion and tsunami attack. Herein, a comprehensive multi-hazard framework is
proposed to simulate the contemporaneous damage from long duration ground shaking, and
tsunami inundation for a typical coastal bridge. The framework considers soil-structure
interaction, fluid-structure interaction, and ground motion time duration effects when estimating
bridge damage. The implementation of this multi-hazard framework utilizes new developments
in the OpenSees finite element software framework.

Keywords: Bridges, Earthquakes, Finite Element, Fluid-Structure-Interaction, Megathrust,

Multi-Hazard, OpenSees, Soil-Structure-Interaction, Subduction Zone, Tsunami

1
Graduate Research Assistant, careyt@onid.oregonstate.edu
2
Assistant Professor, ben.mason@oregonstate.edu
3
Assistant Professor, andre.barbosa@oregonstate.edu
4
Associate Professor, michael.scott@oregonstate.edu
School of Civil and Construction Engineering, 101 Kearney Hall, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331

Carey T, Mason HB, Barbosa AR, Scott MH. Modeling framework for soil-bridge system response during
sequential earthquake and tsunami loading. Proceedings of the 10th National Conference in Earthquake
Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Anchorage, AK, 2014.
 Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering
Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering
July 21-25, 2014
10NCEE Anchorage, Alaska

Modeling Framework for Soil-Bridge System Response during

Sequential Earthquake and Tsunami Loading

Trevor Carey,1 H. Benjamin Mason,2 Andre R. Barbosa,3 and Michael H. Scott4

ABSTRACT

Numerous bridge structures on Japan’s eastern coast were damaged by the intense ground motion
and subsequent tsunami caused by the 2011 Great East Japan earthquake. Damage to bridge
systems during this multi-hazard event consisted of two components: long duration ground
shaking and tsunami inundation forces. Determining the extent of damage from each hazard is
difficult because bridge assessment typically cannot be performed between the earthquake motion
and tsunami attack. Herein, a comprehensive multi-hazard framework is proposed to simulate the
contemporaneous damage from long duration ground shaking, and tsunami inundation for a
typical coastal bridge. The framework considers soil-structure interaction, fluid-structure
interaction, and ground motion time duration effects when estimating bridge damage. The
implementation of this multi-hazard framework utilizes new developments in the OpenSees finite
element software framework.

Introduction

Damage in coastal areas caused by recent megathrust earthquakes, such as the 2011 Great East
Japan Earthquake and the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman Earthquake, has highlighted the need to
consider the multi-hazard scenario of an earthquake followed by a tsunami when designing new
bridges and specifying bridge retrofits. In particular, the examination of damage to coastal
bridges caused by multiple hazards is important because coastal bridges serve as important
lifeline corridors following a natural disaster.

The OpenSees finite element framework [1] has been used to model seismic bridge
response [e.g. 2-4]; similarly, other researchers [e.g. 5-7] are modeling soil-bridge interaction in
OpenSees using the direct method [8]. More recently, researchers have started numerically
simulating tsunami wave loading using the Particle Finite Element Method (PFEM) in OpenSees
[9]. The PFEM is a natural extension of Lagrangian structural mechanics, as described by

1
Graduate Research Assistant, careyt@onid.oregonstate.edu
2
Assistant Professor, ben.mason@oregonstate.edu
3
Assistant Professor, andre.barbosa@oregonstate.edu
4
Associate Professor, michael.scott@oregonstate.edu
School of Civil and Construction Engineering, 101 Kearney Hall, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331

Carey T, Mason HB, Barbosa AR, Scott MH. Modeling framework for soil-bridge system response during
sequential earthquake and tsunami loading. Proceedings of the 10th National Conference in Earthquake
Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Anchorage, AK, 2014.
Idelsohn et al. [10], who modeled breaking waves and solved fluid-structure interaction problems
effectively with the PFEM [11]. Bazilevs et al. [12] discuss the implementation of the PFEM in
terms of the required algorithms and computations.

The response of a bridge to the multiple hazards of a long-duration, high-intensity

earthquake motion followed by a tsunami has not been modeled extensively using the direct
method. Herein, we describe our modeling effort to examine this research gap. First, we describe
the soil-bridge system we modeled in OpenSees using both typical and novel modeling
assumptions. Next, we describe the process of selecting and implementing the earthquake motion
and tsunami loading. Finally, we provide the analysis framework used to complete the multi-
hazard modeling.

Methodology

Soil-bridge model

Figure 1a shows a schematic of the soil-bridge model. This soil-bridge model is adapted from the
model presented by Barbosa et al. [13]. The bridge has two equal spans that are supported by a
single column at midspan, and two end abutments. For analysis, only the center column is
considered, and the tributary deck mass and gravity loads are apportioned appropriately. The
bridge pile supporting the column extends 20 m downward from the ground surface to the
bedrock. The bridge column is 6.1 m in length from the top of the pile at the ground surface to
the bottom of the bridge deck.

The soil in the soil-bridge model is a homogeneous, saturated, dense sand, atop a dense
bedrock layer that represents the model boundary. The Pressure-Dependent-Multi-Yield
(PDMY) constitutive relationship [14] is used to describe the soil response during general
loading conditions. Dense sand was selected for the soil type because it is non-liquefiable and
significant research has been conducted characterizing its dynamic response [e.g. 15-17]. The
dense sand material model is implemented in OpenSees using input parameters presented by
Yang [18].

A far-field soil column is used to represent the soil continuum that interacts with the pile
foundation of the soil-bridge model. The soil column consists of discrete, two-dimensional,
uniform, plane strain elements. The uniform soil mesh shown in Figure 1b consists of 1 m x 1 m
quadrilateral elements, which are designated as Nine Node u-p Quad Elements in OpenSees [4,
5]. As seen in Figure 1b, the soil column has a width of one element (i.e., 1 m), which reduces
computational demands. A shear beam assumption is employed, which allows seismic waves to
be transmitted vertically along the one element wide soil column. The shear beam assumption is
implemented by constraining nodes at equivalent depths to have equal horizontal and vertical
displacements. The out-of-plane dimension of the soil mesh, which provides the soil mass, is 10
m. The 10 m dimension was determined by a sensitivity analysis performed by Barbosa et al.
[13].

An absorbing layer boundary is commonly used in computational soil dynamic analyses

to represent the dissipation of seismic wave energy to the underlying layers. The absorbing layer
boundary is modeled in OpenSees by specifying a horizontal “compliant bedrock” dashpot [7],
as shown in Figure 1b. The dashpot coefficient, c, is calculated as c = ρE Vs A, where ρE is the
mass density of the bedrock layer, Vs is the shear wave velocity of the bedrock layer, and A is the
out-of-plane cross sectional area of the quadrilateral element. The earthquake motion is applied
to the model as an equivalent force-time series, which is coupled with the dashpot. The
equivalent force-time series, FE, is calculated as FE = 2ρE Vs u̇ g A, where u̇ g is the velocity-time
series of the input earthquake motion. Applying the force-time series at the soil-bedrock interface
requires the soil column to have unconstrained horizontal degrees of freedom, which is
accomplished by modeling soil column bedrock interface with rollers (i.e. the vertical degree-of-
freedom is constrained).

(a) (b)

Figure 1. (a) Generalized elevation schematic of the bridge deck, column, pile, and interface
springs, and (b) generalized view of the fair-field soil column modeled using 9-4
quadrilateral elements.

The soil mesh is connected to the concrete pile with a series of interface springs, as
shown conceptually in Figure 1a. The interface springs – lateral (p-y), vertical (t-z), and end
bearing (q-z) – capture the dynamic response of the surrounding soil and its interaction with the
concrete pile foundation. The interface spring coefficients are calculated in accordance with API
recommendations [20]. Each interface spring is defined by its depth varying ultimate resistance
(pult, qult, and tult) and its expected displacement when 50% of the ultimate strength is mobilized.
At larger depths, subgrade reaction moduli, which are used to define the shape of load-
displacement curves (i.e., p-y, t-z, and q-z curves), are adjusted for overburden effects by the
factor (50 kPa/σʹv)0.5, where σʹv is the effective vertical stress at the depth of interest, in
accordance with Boulanger et al. [21]. In OpenSees, the interface springs are implemented using
PySimple1, TzSimple1 and QzSimple1 [21] for the p-y, t-z, and q-z springs, respectively. More
details about the spring coefficients are given in Barbosa et al. [13].
 The bridge pile and column are a circular (diameter, D = 1.1 m), reinforced concrete
(compressive strength, f′c = 28 MPa) element, which is modeled after a Caltrans Type I shaft
[22]. The cross section of the bridge pile and column is divided into two areas: (1) the
unconfined concrete cover, and (2) the confined concrete core. The concrete confinement is
provided by transverse steel reinforcement along the length of the bridge pile and column. The
increased strength of the confined concrete core was determined with the Karthik and Mander
[23] confining model. The confined concrete strength ratio (K), which is the ratio between the
confined and expected concrete strength, was determined to be 1.38 [13,23]. The longitudinal
reinforcing steel consists of 16 #10 ASTM A706 Grade 60 (475 MPa) bars, which are equally
spaced (i.e. reinforcement ratio = 1.0%). The clear cover for the longitudinal bars, and depth of
the unconfined concrete, is 6.35 cm. For the longitudinal bars, the expected elastic modulus is
200 GPa and a strain hardening ratio of 3% was assumed.

The bridge pile and column are modeled in OpenSees with stiffness-based nonlinear
beam column elements. The pile elements are 1 m in length, which matches the vertical
dimension of the soil mesh. The bridge column (6.1 m) is divided into six equal length 1.017 m
elements. The length of the column elements was selected to satisfy h-refinement requirements
for stiffness-based elements. The bridge pile and column were discretized into a fiber section in
OpenSees which included the confined and unconfined concrete, and longitudinal steel
reinforcement. The fiber section is divided into 16 radial (rings) and 16 transverse (wedges),
which Barbosa et al. [13] determined, for the same bridge column design, was an acceptable
fiber division to provide computational accurate results without reducing efficiency. The
constitutive behavior of the concrete is specified by Yassin [25], which is designated as
Concrete02 in OpenSees. The Yassin concrete model was used for both the confined and
unconfined concrete, but was implemented in OpenSees as two different materials to indicate the
strength difference [13]. The constitutive behavior of the longitudinal steel reinforcement fibers
was specified by Filippou et al. [26], which is designated as Steel02 in OpenSees. In addition to
material nonlinearity, geometric nonlinearity is also considered with the corotational geometric
transformation. The corotational transformation accounts for large displacements in the model,
which are expected with the force-dashpot couple.

The bridge deck was modeled after Shamsabadi et al. [5], and a detailed schematic of the
bridge deck is given by Barbosa et al. [13]. The bridge deck was modeled with linear elastic
beam column elements in OpenSees with distributed mass throughout the cross section. In
addition to greater accuracy in predicting dynamic behavior, distributed mass is required for the
PFEM procedure. The expected gravity loads from self-weight, and live loads are applied as
distributed loads along the length (10.36 m) of the deck surface. Both the gravity loads, and mass
applied to the cross section were appropriately determined from the tributary deck area supported
by the single column.

Earthquake motion selection and tsunami loading

For initial modeling efforts, the Kesen-numa Bay, which is located on the northeast coast of
Japan (38.8885° N 141.5963° E), was chosen as the site of interest. The Kesen-numa Bay was
selected, because tsunami measurements from the 11 March 2011 Mw9.0 Great East Japan
Earthquake and Tsunami event were taken at this location [27]. A seismometer founded on
bedrock, which is part of the KiKnet seismic network, is located about 5 km from the Kesen-
numa Bay [28] (i.e., Karakuwa station (MYGH03); 38.9207° N 141.6377° E). The acceleration-
time series and velocity-time series for the north-south component of the earthquake motion
recorded during the 11 March 2011 event at the Karakuwa station is shown in Figure 2. The
acceleration-time series shown in Figure 2 was baseline corrected using a linear polynomial and
was filtered using a fourth-order Butterworth bandpass filter with corner frequencies of 0.2 and
13 Hz. An eigenvalue analysis was performed within OpenSees to determine the fundamental
frequency of the soil-bridge system, and the fundamental frequency was found to be 0.529 Hz
(1.89 sec). The filtered earthquake motion has a peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.12 g, a
peak ground velocity (PGV) of 9.2 cm/sec, and a significant duration (D5-95) of 79 sec.

Figure 2. Filtered acceleration-time and velocity-time series recorded at the Karakuwa station
during the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami.

Wave loading is represented by an idealized tsunami bore. Figure 3 shows the initial
numerical conditions of the idealized tsunami bore. Although idealized, the tsunami bore
represents flow heights and velocities observed at Kesen-numa Bay [29]. When the tsunami bore
is released, it flows towards the soil-bridge model maintaining its initial hyperbolic tangent
shape. We only consider tsunami runup (i.e., tsunami drawdown effects are not considered). As
shown in Figure 3, H0 is the standing water height and H1 is the tsunami bore height. Yeh et al.
[30] shows that H0/H1 ratios between 2.0 and 2.6 are required to ensure a fully developed bore.
Herein, we use H0/H1 = 2.3. To maintain a consistent bore strength with changes in bore velocity,
V, and fluid heights, H0 and H1, the Froude number, F = V/(gH0)0.5, is set equal to 1.4 [30].
Realistic tsunami bores are modeled by adjusting the velocity and fluid heights while
maintaining a constant Froude number and H0/H1 ratio. The distance between the pre-released
tsunami bore transition point (defined in Figure 3) and the bridge deck is 1 m, which was
selected to reduce computational demands.

The out-of-plane fluid width is set to be the tributary deck length supported by the center
column, and accordingly, the out-of-plane contact width for the tsunami wave impact is 31.7 m,
which is equal to the span length in the longitudinal direction of the bridge. Within the PFEM
procedure, the mass and body forces are increased to represent the out-of-plane contact width.
For numerical stability, the column contact width (1.1 m) is not considered. Neglecting the
column width when considering tsunami impact is acceptable, because the soil-bridge system
response will be dominated by tsunami impact on the much larger deck width. The length of the
tsunami bore is set as twice the open length (defined in Figure 3). The accuracy and stability of
the PFEM solution depends on the mesh density of the fluid and structure under consideration
[9]. To ensure accuracy and stability, the mesh size for the tsunami bore simulation was selected
as 175 mm x 175 mm.

Figure 3. Schematic of the tsunami bore simulation (Note: pile and soil column are not shown).

Analysis Framework

The soil-bridge model analysis framework is divided into three stages. The stages simulate the
earthquake and tsunami wave loading. Furthermore, each stage is divided into sub-stages for
analytical and conceptual reasons. The sub-stages presented for the seismic analysis were
adapted from Barbosa et al. [13], and the tsunami stages from Zhu and Scott [9]. Figure 4 shows
a flow chart of the stages and sub-stages described below.

Stage 1: Earthquake Simulation

 Stage 1.1: The global geometry (nodes, connectivity, and boundary conditions) of the soil-
bridge model is established. The bridge column, bridge pile, and soil mesh are created.
Additionally, the 9-4 quadrilateral elements and soil interface springs are created. The
interface-springs are connected to the soil column, but not to the bridge pile.
 Stage 1.2: The bridge pile and bridge column fiber sections are defined. The bridge pile and
column is created using nonlinear beam column elements. The self-mass of the pile and
column elements is lumped at the end nodes.
 Stage 1.3: The linear elastic rigid bridge deck is created and attached to the bridge column
created in stage 1.2. The bridge deck elements are discretized to the same dimension as the
 PFEM fluid elements (i.e., 175 mm). Recorders are defined to capture the desired outputs.
 Stage 1.4: First, gravity loads are applied to the soil column. The gravity loading simulates
the pre-construction conditions. A transient analysis is performed while the gravity loads
are applied. At the conclusion of the transient analysis, the nonlinear soil-interface springs
are connected to the pile elements. Once the interface springs are attached, the distributed
deck gravity loads are applied and another transient analysis is performed. Both transient
analyses utilize the Krylov-Newton algorithm to solve for equilibrium. Likewise, numerical
damping is introduced to mimic static loading conditions for both the soil and bridge deck
loads. Numerical damping is employed by increasing the Newmark time integration
parameters to 1.5 and 1.0 for  and  , respectively.
 Stage 1.5: The “compliant bedrock” dashpot is created (nodes, material, elements, and
constraints) and is connected to the 9-4 quadrilateral element at soil-column-bedrock
interface. The force time history is then applied in conjunction with the dashpot. The
nonlinear dynamic analysis is performed using the Newmark constant average acceleration
time integration method, with a time step (dt) of 0.005 seconds. The total number of steps
in the analysis is an additional 5% of the total number of steps of the force time history.
The additional steps allows for free vibration of the structure concluding the ground
motion.

Stage 2: Pre-Tsunami Simulation

 Stage 2.1: First, the “compliant bedrock” dashpot is removed. Second, the soil column is
constrained with pin connections. The pin connections prevent the soil-bridge model from
rigidly translating during the tsunami simulation. Effectively, the soil is not allowed to
consolidate during tsunami loading. Finally, like in stage 1.4, a critically damped transient
analysis is performed. The transient analysis eliminates any vibrations that remain in the
system prior to stage 3. The elimination of vibrations is physically representative of actual
conditions, because all significant vibrations caused by the earthquake are dissipated before
tsunami inundation.

Stage 3: Tsunami Simulation

 Stage 3.1: First, the required particle discretization needed for the tsunami simulation is
performed. The discretization includes the bore, wave flume, and left wall. The particle size
(dx and dy between nodes) is user specified, and is set to optimize computational accuracy
and efficiency. The discretization lengths are consistent with the element sizes chosen in
stage 1.2 for the bridge column. Second, the initial velocity of the fluid particles (either
lateral and/or vertical) is specified during this stage. Finally, the fluid, wall, flume, and
bridge column are initially meshed with the 2D PFEM elements.
 Stage 3.2: First, a pseudo-gravity analysis is performed. The analysis uses a small time step
of 10-6 seconds, which allows the fluid particles to settle. Although not required, the
pseudo-gravity analysis alleviates some of the convergence problems during the initial
stages of the primary analysis. Next, the primary analysis was performed for 5 seconds,
with a time step of 10-4 seconds. The duration of 5 seconds was chosen so that only tsunami
runup was captured. If the analysis failed to converge with the time step of 10-4 seconds,
the time step was reduced to the minimum time step of 10-9 second, as specified by the
 PFEM procedure. At the conclusion of each time step, the fluid, wall, flume and bridge
column were re-meshed for the subsequent time steps. Figure 5 shows a schematic of the
tsunami simulation.

Figure 4. Flow Chart of the three stages comprising the analysis framework.

Initial Bore Time 0 Analysis at 0.575 Sec

30 30

25 25

20 20

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0

−5 −5
−20 −15 −10 −5 0 5 10 −20 −15 −10 −5 0 5 10
(a) (b)

Figure 5. (a) Tsunami bore at the end of Step 3.1, and (b) tsunami bore during Step 3.2.
 Conclusions

A methodology and analysis framework for simulating a combined earthquake-tsunami event has
been presented. The methodology was developed using the Kesen-numa Bay, in Northeast Japan,
as the site-of-interest. Data from the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami were used
to develop the methodology and analysis framework. For this initial work, a tsunami bore, which
represents an idealized tsunami loading, was used to create the analysis framework. The work
utilizes the OpenSees finite element framework to analyze the earthquake motion and tsunami
bore simulation. The methodology and analysis were tested with an earthquake motion and
tsunami bore, with tsunami results being depicted in Figure 5.

The analysis framework described herein will be used perform multi-hazard analysis
consisting of tsunamic following earthquakes. The analysis framework will be validated using
field data from Japan. Applying the analysis framework to a variety of different simulations will
further refine each of the aforementioned analysis framework steps.

Acknowledgments

This work was performed with the financial support from the Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research (PEER) Center and the Pacific Northwest Transportation Consortium (PacTrans). The
authors would like to thank Pedro Arduino (University of Washington) for technical advice
regarding site response modeling in OpenSees, Minjie Zhu (Oregon State University) for help
with the PFEM in OpenSees, and Harry Yeh (Oregon State University) for advice about
numerically modeling tsunami bores.

References

1. McKenna F, Scott MH, Fenves GL. Nonlinear finite-element analysis software architecture using object
composition. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering 2010; 24 (1): 95-107.
2. Mackie K, Stojadinović B. Seismic demands for performance-based design of bridges. Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center 2003.
3. Moehle J, Deierlein GG. A framework methodology for performance-based earthquake
engineering. Proceedings of the 13th World conference on earthquake engineering 2004. Vancouver, B.C.,
Canada.
4. Nielson, BG. Analytical fragility curves for highway bridges in moderate seismic zones. Ph.D. Dissertation
2005. Georgia Institute of Technology.
5. Shamsabadi A, Rollins K, Kapuskar M. Nonlinear soil–abutment–bridge structure interaction for seismic
performance-based design. Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering 2007; 133 (6): 707-720.
6. Zhang Y, Conte JP, Yang Z, Elgamal A, Bielak, J, Acero G. Two-dimensional nonlinear earthquake response
analysis of a bridge-foundation-ground system. Earthquake Spectra 2008; 24 (2): 343-386.
7. Chiaramonte M, Arduino P, Lehman DE, Roeder CW. Seismic analyses of conventional and improved marginal
wharves. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 2013; 42 (10): 1435-1450.
8. Kramer SL, Stewart JS. Geotechnical Aspects of Seismic Hazards, Chapter 4. Engineering Seismology to
Performance-Based Engineering 2004, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
9. Zhu M, Scott MH. Modeling Fluid-Structure Interaction by the Particle Finite Element Method in
OpenSees. Computers & Structures 2014; 132: 12-21
10. Idelsohn SR, Oñate E, Del Pin F. The particle finite element method: a powerful tool to solve incompressible
flows with free‐surfaces and breaking waves. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering
2004; 61 (7): 964-989.
11. Idelsohn SR, Oñate E, Del Pin F. Calvo N. Fluid–structure interaction using the particle finite element
method. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 2006; 195 (17): 2100-2123.
12. Bazilevs Y, Calo VM, Hughes TJR, Zhang Y. Isogeometric fluid-structure interaction: theory, algorithms, and
computations. Computational Mechanics 2008; 43 (1): 3-37.
13. Barbosa AR, Mason HB, Romney K. SSI-Bridge: Soil-Bridge Interaction During Long-Duration Earthquake
Motions. USDOT University Transportation Center for Federal Region 10, PacTrans 2014; University of
Washington, Seattle, WA.
14. Elgamal A, Yang Z, Parra E. Computational modeling of cyclic mobility and post-liquefaction site
response. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2002; 22 (4): 259-271.
15. McVay M, Zhang L, Molnit T, Lai P. Centrifuge testing of large laterally loaded pile groups in sands. Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 1998; 124 (10): 1016-1026.
16. Zhang L, McVay M, Lai P. Centrifuge modelling of laterally loaded single battered piles in sands. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 1999; 36 (6): 1074-1084.
17. Yang Z, Jeremić B. Numerical study of group effects for pile groups in sands. International Journal for
Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 2003; 27 (15): 1255-1276.
18. Yang Z. Numerical modeling of earthquake site response including dilation and liquefaction. Ph.D. Dissertation
2000. University of California at San Diego.
19. Seed HB. Design problems in soil liquefaction. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 1987; 113 (8): 827-845.
20. American Petroleum Institute. Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed
Offshore Platforms-Working Stress Design: API Recommended Practice 2A-WSD (RP 2A-WSD). American
Petroleum Institute 1993.
21. Boulanger RW, Curras CJ, Kutter BL, Wilson DW, Abghari A. Seismic soil-pile-structure interaction
experiments and analyses. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 1999; 125 (9): 750-759.
22. Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria Version 1.7. California Department of Transportation 2013. Sacramento, CA.
23. Karthik MM, Mander JB. Stress-block parameters for unconfined and confined concrete based on a unified
stress-strain model. Journal of Structural Engineering 2010; 137 (2): 270-273.
24. Yassin MHM. Nonlinear analysis of prestressed concrete structures under monotonic and cyclic loads. Ph.D.
Dissertation 1994. University of California at Berkeley.
25. Neuenhofer A, Filippou FC. Geometrically nonlinear flexibility-based frame finite element. Journal of
Structural Engineering 1998; 124 (6): 704-711.
26. Filippou FC, Popov EP, Bertero VV. Effects of bond deterioration on hysteretic behavior of reinforced concrete
joints. Report No. UCB/EERC-83/19, Earthquake Engineering Research Center 1983; University of California,
Berkeley, CA.
27. Fritz HM, Phillips DA, Okayasu A, Shimozono T, Liu H, Mohammed F, Skanavis V, Synolakis CE, Takahashi
T. The 2011 Japan tsunami current velocity measurements from survivor videos at Kesennuma Bay using
LiDAR. Geophysical Research 2012; 39 (7):
28. National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention. Strong-motion seismograph networks
(K-NET, KiK-net), 2012. URL http://www.kyoshin.bosai.go.jp.
29. Yeh H, Mason HB. Sediment response to tsunami loading: Mechanisms and estimates. Geotechnique 2014; 64
(2): 131-143
30. Yeh H, Ghazali A, Marton I. Experimental study of bore run-up. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 1989; 206: 563-
578