A reliable mitigation of the liquefaction hazard requires an accurate estimation of the consequences of liquefaction in the context of building performance. Knowledge and use of an optimal intensity measure (IM) will reduce variability and improve accuracy of the predicted measure of performance. This paper presents the results of a three-dimensional, fully coupled, nonlinear, dynamic parametric numerical simulation of shallow-founded structures on layered, liquefiable soils, previously validated with centrifuge results. The generation and redistribution of excess pore pressures as well as soil-structure interaction effects were directly considered in the simulations. The influence of different IMs recorded at the base rock, far-field soil surface, and foundation was evaluated and compared on engineering demand parameters (EDP) that relate to structural performance and damage potential, such as foundation settlement and peak, transient, inter-story drift ratios. The IMs identified with the best combination of efficiency, sufficiency, and predictability in predicting the structural EDPs of interest were identified at the base rock as: CAV and CAV5 for permanent settlement, PSA[TSTo] for total and flexural drift ratios, and PGV for rocking drift ratio.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbrahamsonN. A.SomervilleP. G. and CornellC. A.1990. Uncertainty in numerical strong motion predictions, Proc. 4th U.S. Nat. Conf. on Earthquake Engrg., EERI, El Cerrito, CA, 407–416.
2.
AriasA.1970. A measure of earthquake intensity, Seismic Design for Nuclear Power Plants (HansenR. J. Ed.), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
3.
ArulmoliK.MuraleetharanK. K.HossainM. M. and FruthL. S.1992. VELACS: Verification of liquefaction analyses by centrifuge studies, laboratory testing program, The Earth Technology, Irvine, CA.
4.
BiotM. A.1962. The mechanics of deformation and acoustic propagation in porous media, J. Appl. Phys.33, 1482–1498.
5.
BoltB.1973. Duration of strong motion, Proceedings of the 5th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Rome, Italy, vol. 6D, Paper no. 292.
6.
CampbellK. W. and BozorgniaY.2010. A ground motion prediction equation for the horizontal component of cumulative absolute velocity (CAV) based on the PEER-NGA strong motion database, Earthquake Spectra26, 635–650, doi: 10.1193/1.3457158.
7.
CampbellK. W. and BozorgniaY.2012a. Cumulative absolute velocity (CAV) and seismic intensity based on the PEER-NGA Database, Earthquake Spectra28, 457–485.
8.
CampbellK. W. and BozorgniaY.2012b. A comparison of ground motion prediction equations for arias intensity and cumulative absolute velocity developed using a consistent database and functional form, Earthquake Spectra28, 931–94.
9.
CetinK. O.UnutmazB. and JeremicB.2012. Assessment of seismic soil liquefaction triggering beneath building foundation systems, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering43, 160–173.
10.
DashtiS.BrayJ. D.PestanaJ. M.RiemerM. R. and WilsonD.2010a. Centrifuge testing to evaluate and mitigate liquefaction-induced building settlement mechanisms, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.136, 918–929.
11.
DashtiS.BrayJ.PestanaJ.RiemerM. and WilsonD.2010. Mechanisms of seismically induced settlement of buildings with shallow foundations on liquefiable soil, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.136, 151–164.
12.
ElgamalA.YangZ. and ParraE.2002. Computational modeling of cyclic mobility and post-liquefaction site response, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering22, 259–271.
13.
GelagotiF.KourkoulisR.AnastasopoulosI. and GazetasG.2012. Rocking isolation of low-rise frame structures founded on isolated footings, Earthquake Eng. and Struct. Dyn.41, 1177–1197.
14.
HackerT.EigenmannR. and RathjeE.2013. Advancing earthquake engineering research through cyber infrastructure, J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000712, 1099–1111.
15.
IshiharaK. and YoshimineM.1992. Evaluation of settlements in sand deposits following liquefaction during earthquakes, Soils and Foundations32, 173–188.
16.
KammererA.WuJ.PestanaJ.RiemerM. and SeedR.2000. Cyclic Simple Shear Testing of Nevada Sand for PEER Center, Project 2051999, Rep. UCB/GT/00-01, Geological Engineering Research, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA.
17.
KammererA.WuJ.RiemerM.PestanaJ. and SeedR.2004. A new multi-directional simple shear testing database, Proc., 13th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Canadian Association for Earthquake Engineering, Ottawa.
18.
KaramitrosD. K.BouckovalasG. D. and ChaloulosY. K.2013. Seismic settlements of shallow foundations on liquefiable soil with a clay crust, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering46, 64–76.
19.
KarimiZ. and DashtiS.2015b. Numerical and centrifuge modeling of seismic soil–foundation–structure interaction on liquefiable ground, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001346, 04015061.
20.
KarimiZ. and DashtiS.2016. Seismic Performance of shallow founded structures on liquefiable ground: Validation of numerical simulations using centrifuge experiments, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., (under review).
21.
KarimiZ. and DashtiS.2015a. Numerical simulation of earthquake induced soil liquefaction: validation against centrifuge experimental results, IFCEE 2015, Geo-institute, ASCE, 11–20. doi: 10.1061/9780784479087.002.
22.
LucoN. and CornellC. A.2007. Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for near source and ordinary earthquake ground motions, Earthquake Spectra23, 357–392.
23.
McKennaF. and FenvesG. L.2008. Using the OpenSees Interpreter on Parallel Computers, Network for Earthquake Engrg. Simulations, Berkeley, CA.
24.
McKennaF.FenvesG. L.ScottM. H. and JeremicB.2000. Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees), Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
25.
NCEER, 1997. Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils (YoudT. L. and IdrissI. M. Editors), Technical Report No. NCEER-97-0022.
26.
SancioR.BrayJ. D.DurgunogluT. and OnalpA.2004. Performance of buildings over liquefiable ground in Adapazari, Turkey. Proc., 13th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Canadian Association for Earthquake Engineering, Ottawa.
27.
SeedR. B.CetinK. O.MossR. E. S.KammererA. M.WuJ.PestanaJ. M.RiemerM. F.SancioR. B.BrayJ. D.KayenR. E. and FarisA.2003. Recent advances in soil liquefaction engineering: A unified and consistent framework, 26th Annual ASCE Los Angeles Geotechnical Spring Seminar, ASCE.
28.
ShahirH. and PakA.2012. Estimating liquefaction-induced settlement of shallow foundations by numerical approach, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering37, 267–279.
29.
ShahirH.PakA.TaiebatM. and JeremicB.2012. Evaluation of variation of permeability in liquefiable soil under earthquake loading, Comput. Geotech.40, 74–88.
30.
SkemptonA. W.1986. Standard penetration test procedures and the effects in sands of overburden pressure, relative density, particle size, ageing and overconsolidation, Géotechnique36, 425–447.
31.
TokimatsuK. and SeedH. B.1987. Evaluation of settlements in sands due to earthquake shaking, J. Geot. Engrg.113, 861–878.
32.
TravasarouT.BrayJ. D. and AbrahamsonN. A.2003. Empirical attenuation relationship for Arias Intensity, Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn.32, 1133–1155.
33.
YangZ.ElgamalA. and ParraE.2003. Computational model for cyclic mobility and associated shear deformation, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.129, 1119–1127.
34.
YangZ.LuJ. and ElgamalA.2008. OpenSees Soil Models and Solid-Fluid Fully Coupled Elements: User's Manual, Department of Structural Engineering, University of California, San Diego.
35.
YoudT.IdrissI.AndrusR.ArangoI.CastroG.ChristianJ.DobryR.FinnW.HarderL.Jr., HynesM.IshiharaK.KoesterJ.LiaoS.MarcusonW.III, MartinG.MitchellJ.MoriwakiY.PowerM.RobertsonP.SeedR. and StokoeK.II., 2001. Liquefaction resistance of soils: Summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.127, 817–833.
