GROUND RESPONSE ANALYSES AT DELHI

G. V. Ramana ramana@civil.iitd.ernet.in

Earthquakes on May 24th

Department of Civil Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110 016

Slight Intensity Earthquake Felt in DELHI

Recent Major Earthquakes

Year
1988 1991 1993 1997 1999

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

Seismic Damage on Built-Environment Earthquake History

Direct Effects Ground failures; Surface rupture; Soil vibration; Ground liquefaction; Others Structural vibration and damage Indirect Effects Tsunamis Seiches Landslides Floods Fires

Dynamic Properties of Soil Shear wave velocity Modulus Reduction and Damping Characteristics of Structures

Physical processes affecting ground motion

Earthquake ground motion is the outcome of a complicated physical system that consists of three processes: Earthquake source process: Seismic waves are generated as part of the strain energy released from the rupture of an active geologic fault Wave propagation (path): Seismic waves then propagate through the earths crust Shallow soil response : Seismic waves approach the surface of the earth, where they undergo further modifications while propagating through shallow soils.

Physical processes

Important Aspects of Earthquake Motion

Earthquake damage is influenced by ground motion: ! ! ! Amplitude Frequency content Duration

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

Why worry about site amplification?

! ! ! Calculate site natural periods Assess ground motion amplification Provide structural engineers with various parameters, primarily Response Spectra, for design and safety evaluations of structures Evaluate the potential for Liquefaction Conduct the first analytical phase of seismic stability evaluations for slopes and embankments

! !

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

SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY

Resonant Column

Vs Bender elements

SASW

LABORATORY

Vs Vs Suspension Logging Vs Cross Hole

IN-SITU

SCPT

Site Specific Ground Response Analysis

Down Hole

SASW

1 Hz 4.5 Hz

CABLES

NDT pc

SASW Method (Institute support)

Dispersion phenomena

Shear Wave Velocity (m/s) 0 0 10 Depth (m) 20 30 40 50 100 200 300 400 500

Correlation between shear wave velocity and N - value

Depth 15 m Depth 25 m Depth 50 m

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)

Some Soil Profiles Geological Map of Delhi

After GSI 1997

www.ictp.trieste.it/~pub_off

Modulus Reduction (G/Gmax)

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

Damping Ratio (%)

0.7

10

Shear Strain (%)

0 0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

Shear Strain (%)

Modulus reduction curves used in the analyses

Damping curves used in the analyses

Long and short period ground motions

Long-period motions Deterministic One can reasonably predict their waveforms and spectral contents using seismological models that do not contain any stochastic element in either the input or the theoretical formulation. Short Period (High-frequency) waveforms Relatively difficult to simulate using a deterministic approach Source radiation and wave propagation become increasingly incoherent at short periods (due to the existence of small-scale heterogeneities in the earthquake source process and crustal properties). Behave stochastically. The period of transition from deterministic to stochastic behavior is uncertain, but is often taken as about T =!1s.

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 HIMALAYAN SEISMIC GAP

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

Central Seismic Gap

During the last few large earthquakes, a 750-km long segment is unbroken that spans from eastern edge of 1905 rupture zone and western edge of 1934 earthquake. This segment is called the central seismic gap and it continues to be under high strain. Large earthquakes have occurred in 1803 and 1833 in this seismic gap but the magnitude was less than 8 and hence they were not gap filling earthquakes. Khattri (1999) has estimated the probability of occurrence of a great 8.5 magnitude earthquake in the gap in next 100 years to be 0.59.

The Two Models

One model is an "2 source model that does not take into account the finiteness of the source and is in good agreement for distances greater than twice the dimensions of the fault source. It has the advantage that it is controlled by the familiar stress parameter !". The other model is a finite source model proposed by Bersenev and Atkinson that considers the Finite fault to be a combination of subfaults. It is much more reliable for near source ground motion estimation. The high frequency radiation is controlled by the strength factor, sfact, a quantity that is physically related to maximum slip rate on the fault. !" is estimated by fitting the synthetic data with the observed Amax and Vmax in the two earthquakes and then sfact is obtained by matching the curves predicted by both models in far field upto distances of 500 km.

Stochastic Point Source Model

The Fourier amplitude spectrum of a seismic signal is represented as

Stochastic Point Source Model

C % R+, FP (2) ) 2 /(4)*& 3 )
fc is the corner frequency and is given by f c % 4.9 ( 10 6 ( & ( !" / M 0 )1 / 3
! " #$ Q (f) F R%& P Mo Shear Wave Velocity Density of rock Stress Drop Quality factor that controls the damping Free Surface Amplification Average Radiation Pattern Partitioning of energy in two horizontal components Seismic Moment of the earthquake

A(# , R ) % C.S (# ).P (# ).e '#R / 2Q& / G ( R)

S(!) is the SOURCE SPECTRUM and accounts for the effects of the seismic source. For Brunes !2-source model

S (# ) % M 0# 2 /(1 $ (# / #c ) 2 )
G(R) is the GEOMETRICAL SPREADING

G ( R) % R G ( R ) % ( RR x )
1/ 2

For R < Rx For R > Rx

P(!) is A Butterworth filter used for High Frequency Attenuation 8 '1 / 2 P ( ) % [1 $ ( / m ) ]

# #

Generating the Acceleration History

Generate band limited random white Gaussian noise with zero expected mean and variance of the noise equal to its total bandwidth. Apply a normalized time window to it such that the integral of its square is unity. The generated noise has unit spectral amplitude. Multiply the spectrum of windowed time series with the specified spectrum. Transform back to time domain.

Finite Source Model

The fault plane is discretized into a certain number of equal rectangular elements (sub-faults) with dimensions #l(#w. According to Beresnev and Atkinson (1999), the sub-fault size increases linearly with the moment magnitude Mw of the simulated earthquake.

log A % M w ' 4.0

log !l % '2 $ 0 .4 M

The Main Assumptions for the Himalayan Arc Region

Shear waves dominate at R < 100 km and Surface waves at R >= 100 km. Q = 508 * f ^ (0.48) is valid for both the regions. The effective duration is given by fc^(-1) + 0.05*R, where fc is the corner frequency and R is the hypocentral distance. The acceleration spectra are sharply cut off after 15 Hz.

PARAMETERS USED FOR SYNTHETIC SIMULATION

GLOBAL COORDINATES: HYPOCENTRAL DISTANCE: MOMENT MAGNITUDE M w: FAULT: RUPTURE AREA: "# = 50 bars Delhi Hypocentre 200 km 8.0 Strike = 300 Length = 125 km fm = 15 Hz Dip = 7 Width = 80 km 28.60 N 77.20 E 30.15 N 77.80 E

Strength factor = 1.0

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

P (partitioning of energy into two horizontal components) = 1 / $2 Rx = 100 km fc (calculated) = 0.132 Hz

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 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Time [sec] 40 45 50 55 60

20

15

Acceleration History generated using Finite Source Model

Acceleration [cm/sec 10 0 -10 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Time [sec] 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110

10 5

0 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9

Mw

Acceleration History generated using Point Source Model

Peak Ground Acceleration versus Moment Magnitude for point source approximation

Acceleration time histories used in the analyses

Acceleration response spectra for different input motions used in the analysis

Equivalent Linear Approach

Most popular with practitioners SHAKE
The actual nonlinear hysteretic stress-strain behavior of cyclically loaded soils can be approximated by equivalent linear properties.

Response at free-field 15 m deep deposit

Input at bedrock level

(magnitude 7.5 Non-plastic)

Use these values to compute Response

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

PI=0 & D=15 m PI=15 & D=15 m

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)

0.4 Input 0.3 Depth 15 m Depth 25 m Depth 50 m 0.2

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)

Input and computed response

[Magnitude 7.5 earthquake (PI = 0)]

Reference Site?

Liquefaction Susceptibility
"Cyclic stresses Induced "Cyclic resistance available Laboratory testing Field testing

Cyclic Stresses Induced

" Site amplification study Simplified procedure

amax Wave propagation analysis

h Seed & Idriss

-h

.max =(-h/g)amax
Maximum Shear Stress at a Depth for a Rigid Soil Column

CSR from simplified approach versus wave propagation analysis

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

Magnitude 7 Magnitude 7.5

20

Magnitude 8 Magnitude 8.5

25

Depth of Liquefaction for 25 m deep soil profile

(PI =0)

1 excess pr. P. ratio 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0

7 6

20 Deviator Stress, kPa

-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

Liquefaction analyses For CSR = 0.10 Frequency = 1 Hz R.D = 70 %

dev.st.ratio q/p'

1 0 -1 -2 -3 time (sec) 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Clean Yamuna Sand

41

1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0

5 4

1 excess pore pr. ratio

Deviator Stress, kPa

0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

excess pr.p.ratio

dev. stress, q (kpa)

31

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

-31

-41

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90 100 110 120 130

axial strain (%)

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

5 4 axial strain (%) 3 2 1 0 0 1 2

No. of cycles, N

D.A.strain (%)

3 2 1 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130

No. of cycle s, N

10 dev. stress ratio, q/p' 5 0

0 10 20 30 40

3 No. of cycles, N

3 No. of cycle s, N

6
5 3 1 -1 0 -3 -5 1

Liquefaction analyses For CSR = 0.15 Frequency = 1 Hz R.D = 70 %

-5 -10 -15 time (sec)

dev.St.ratio q /p'

50

60

70

80

90

100 110 120 130

Liquefaction analyses For CSR = 0.2 Frequency = 1 Hz R.D = 70 %