Site amplification of ground motion during the 1995 Kobe earthquake and unsolved issue on SFSI problem

2010 ◽  
pp. 1-2
Author(s):  
M. Nagano
Keyword(s):  
Ground Motion ◽  
Site Amplification ◽  
Kobe Earthquake ◽  
Unsolved Issue

scholarly journals Seismic Ground Response Analysis of Input Earthquake Motion and Site Amplification Factor at KUET

2021 ◽  
pp. 45-54
Author(s):  
Sonia Akter
Keyword(s):  
Ground Motion ◽  
Shear Wave Velocity ◽  
Amplification Factor ◽  
Site Response ◽  
Site Amplification ◽  
Response Analysis ◽  
Ground Response ◽  
Ground Response Analysis ◽  
Kobe Earthquake ◽  
Earthquake Motion

Ground motion is the movement of the earth's surface due to explosions or the propagation of seismic waves. In the seismic design process, ground response analysis evaluates the impact of local soil conditions during earthquake shaking. However, it is difficult to determine the dynamic site response of soil deposits in earthquake hazard-prone areas. Structural damage has a great influence on the selection of input ground motion, and in this study, the importance of bedrock motion upon the response of soil is highlighted. The specific site response analysis is assessed through “DEEPSOIl" software with an equivalent linear analysis method. Furthermore, four input motions including Kobe, LomaGilroy, Northridge, and Chi-Chi were selected to obtain normalized response spectra. This study aims to obtain the site amplification of ground motion, peak spectral acceleration (PSA), and maximum peak ground acceleration (PGA) based on shear wave velocity from the detailed site-specific analysis of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibor Rahman hall at Khulna University of Engineering & Technology. The maximum shear wave velocity obtained was 205 m/s while the amplification factor varied from 4.01 (Kobe) to 1.8 (Northridge) for rigid bedrock properties. Furthermore, the Kobe earthquake produced the highest (4.3g) PSA and the Northridge earthquake produced the lowest (1.08g) PSA for bedrock, with Vs=205 m/s. The surface PGA values were acquired in the range of 0.254g (Northridge) to 0.722g (Kobe), and the maximum strain values for Kobe earthquakes were in the range of 0.016 to .303. Therefore, the surface acceleration values were very high (>0.12g) for the Kobe earthquake motion.

scholarly journals Checking the site categorization criteria and amplification factors of the 2021 draft of Eurocode 8 Part 1–1

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberto Paolucci ◽  
Mauro Aimar ◽  
Andrea Ciancimino ◽  
Marco Dotti ◽  
Sebastiano Foti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Numerical Simulations ◽  
Shear Wave ◽  
Ground Motion ◽  
Shear Wave Velocity ◽  
Soft Soil ◽  
Site Amplification ◽  
Soil Conditions ◽  
Eurocode 8 ◽  
Site Specific ◽  
Amplification Factors

AbstractIn this paper the site categorization criteria and the corresponding site amplification factors proposed in the 2021 draft of Part 1 of Eurocode 8 (2021-draft, CEN/TC250/SC8 Working Draft N1017) are first introduced and compared with the current version of Eurocode 8, as well as with site amplification factors from recent empirical ground motion prediction equations. Afterwards, these values are checked by two approaches. First, a wide dataset of strong motion records is built, where recording stations are classified according to 2021-draft, and the spectral amplifications are empirically estimated computing the site-to-site residuals from regional and global ground motion models for reference rock conditions. Second, a comprehensive parametric numerical study of one-dimensional (1D) site amplification is carried out, based on randomly generated shear-wave velocity profiles, classified according to the new criteria. A reasonably good agreement is found by both approaches. The most relevant discrepancies occur for the shallow soft soil conditions (soil category E) that, owing to the complex interaction of shear wave velocity, soil deposit thickness and frequency range of the excitation, show the largest scatter both in terms of records and of 1D numerical simulations. Furthermore, 1D numerical simulations for soft soil conditions tend to provide lower site amplification factors than 2021-draft, as well as lower than the corresponding site-to-site residuals from records, because of higher impact of non-linear (NL) site effects in the simulations. A site-specific study on NL effects at three KiK-net stations with a significantly large amount of high-intensity recorded ground motions gives support to the 2021-draft NL reduction factors, although the very limited number of recording stations allowing such analysis prevents deriving more general implications. In the presence of such controversial arguments, it is reasonable that a standard should adopt a prudent solution, with a limited reduction of the site amplification factors to account for NL soil response, while leaving the possibility to carry out site-specific estimations of such factors when sufficient information is available to model the ground strain dependency of local soil properties.

Testing non-linear amplification factors used in ground motion models

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karina Loviknes ◽  
Danijel Schorlemmer ◽  
Fabrice Cotton ◽  
Sreeram Reddy Kotha
Keyword(s):  
Ground Motion ◽  
Site Effects ◽  
Ground Motions ◽  
Site Amplification ◽  
Building Codes ◽  
Linear Amplification ◽  
Motion Models ◽  
Earthquake Predictability ◽  
Non Linear ◽  
Ground Motion Models

<p>Non-linear site effects are mainly expected for strong ground motions and sites with soft soils and more recent ground-motion models (GMM) have started to include such effects. Observations in this range are, however, sparse, and most non-linear site amplification models are therefore partly or fully based on numerical simulations. We develop a framework for testing of non-linear site amplification models using data from the comprehensive Kiban-Kyoshin network in Japan. The test is reproducible, following the vision of the Collaboratory for the Study of Earthquake Predictability (CSEP), and takes advantage of new large datasets to evaluate <span>whether or not</span> non-linear site effects predicted by site-amplification models are supported by empirical data. The site amplification models are tested using residuals between the observations and predictions from a GMM based only on magnitude and distance. When the GMM is derived without any site term, the site-specific variability extracted from the residuals is expected to capture the site response of a site. The non-linear site amplification models are tested against a linear amplification model on individual well-record<span>ing</span> stations. Finally, the result is compared to building codes where non-linearity is included. The test shows that for most of the sites selected as having sufficient records, the non-linear site-amplification models do not score better than the linear amplification model. This suggests that including non-linear site amplification in GMMs and building codes may not yet be justified, at least not in the range of ground motions considered in the test (peak ground acceleration < 0.2 g).</p>

Estimation of site amplification and S-wave velocity profiles in metropolitan Manila, the Philippines, from earthquake ground motion records

2011 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hiroaki Yamanaka ◽  
Kaoru Ohtawara ◽  
Rhommel Grutas ◽  
Robert B. Tiglao ◽  
Melchor Lasala ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ground Motion ◽  
Wave Velocity ◽  
Site Amplification ◽  
Velocity Profiles ◽  
The Philippines ◽  
Earthquake Ground Motion ◽  
S Wave ◽  
Ground Motion Records

30 Ooctober 2020 Samos-Sigacik Earthquake: On Strong Ground Motion and Local Site Amplification

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eser Çakti ◽  
Karin Sesetyan ◽  
Ufuk Hancilar ◽  
Merve Caglar ◽  
Emrullah Dar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ground Motion ◽  
Structural Damage ◽  
Strong Ground Motion ◽  
Epicentral Distance ◽  
Strong Motion ◽  
Aegean Sea ◽  
Site Amplification ◽  
Local Site ◽  
Basin Effects ◽  
Strong Ground

<p>The Mw 6.9 earthquake that took place offshore between the Greek island of Samos and Turkey’s İzmir province on 30 October 2020 came hardly as a surprise. Due to the extensional tectonic regime of the Aegean and high deformation rates, earthquakes of similar size frequently occur in the Aegean Sea on fault segments close to the shores of Turkey, affecting the settlements on mainland Turkey and on the Greek Islands. Samos-Sigacik earthquake had a normal faulting mechanism. It was recorded by the strong motion networks in Turkey and Greece. Although expected, the earthquake was an  outstanding event in the sense of  highly localized, significant levels of building damage as a result of amplified ground motion levels. This presentation is an overview of strong ground motion characteristics of this important event both regionally and locally. Mainshock records suggest that local site effects, enhanced by basin effects could be responsible for structural damage in central Izmir, the third largest city of Turkey located at 60-70 km epicentral distance. We installed a seven-station network in Bayraklı and Karşıyaka districts of İzmir within three days of the mainshock in search of site and basin effects.  Through analysis of recorded aftershocks we explore the amplification characeristics of soils in the two aforementioned districts  and try to understand the role basin effects might have played in the resulting ground motion levels and consequently damage. </p>

Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for Taiwan: TEM PSHA2020

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 137-159
Author(s):  
Chung-Han Chan ◽  
Kuo-Fong Ma ◽  
J Bruce H Shyu ◽  
Ya-Ting Lee ◽  
Yu-Ju Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Ground Motion ◽  
Seismic Hazard Assessment ◽  
Site Amplification ◽  
Motion Prediction ◽  
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment ◽  
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard ◽  
Ground Motion Prediction Equations ◽  
Ground Motion Prediction ◽  
Seismogenic Structure

The Taiwan Earthquake Model (TEM) published the first version of the Taiwan probabilistic seismic hazard assessment (named TEM PSHA2015) 5 years ago. For updating to the TEM PSHA2020, we considered an updated seismogenic structure database, including the structures newly identified with 3D geometry, an earthquake catalog made current to 2016, state-of-the-art seismic models, a new set of ground motion prediction equations, and site amplification factors. In addition to earthquakes taking place on each individual seismogenic structure, the updated seismic model included the possibility of an earthquake occurring on multiple structures. To include fault memory for illustrating activity on seismogenic structure sources, we incorporated the Brownian passage time model. For the crustal seismicity that cannot be attributed to any specific structure, we implemented both area source and smoothing kernel models. A new set of ground motion prediction equations is incorporated. In addition to the calculation of hazard at engineering bedrock, our assessment included site amplification factors that competent authorities of governments and private companies could use to implement hazard prevention and reduction strategies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document