Nonlinear ground-motion amplification by sediments during the 1994 Northridge earthquake

Field, Edward H.; Johnson, Paul A.; Beresnev, Igor A.; Zeng, Yuehua

doi:10.1038/37586

Cited by 233 publications

(134 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

123

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The first type of NL effect (i.e., without liquefaction) was identified by geotechnical earthquake engineering studies following the 1967 Caracas earthquake and further corroborated by observations after the 1989 Loma Prieta (Chin and Aki, 1991) and the 1994 Northridge (Field et al, 1997) earthquakes. Moreover, this was later confirmed both by laboratory tests and recordings obtained on vertical arrays with two or more accelerometers at different depths within the same borehole.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 82%

International Benchmark on Numerical Simulations for 1D, Nonlinear Site Response (PRENOLIN): Verification Phase Based on Canonical Cases

Régnier¹,

Bonilla²,

Bard³

et al. 2016

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PREdiction of NOn-LINear soil behavior (PRENOLIN) is an international benchmark aiming to test multiple numerical simulation codes that are capable of predicting nonlinear seismic site response with various constitutive models. One of the objectives of this project is the assessment of the uncertainties associated with nonlinear simulation of 1D site effects. A first verification phase (i.e., comparison between numerical codes on simple idealistic cases) will be followed by a validation phase, comparing the predictions of such numerical estimations with actual strongmotion recordings obtained at well-known sites. The benchmark presently involves 21 teams and 23 different computational codes.We present here the main results of the verification phase dealing with simple cases. Three different idealized soil profiles were tested over a wide range of shear strains with different input motions and different boundary conditions at the sediment/bedrock interface. A first iteration focusing on the elastic and viscoelastic cases was proved to be useful to ensure a common understanding and to identify numerical issues before pursuing the nonlinear modeling. Besides minor mistakes in the implementation of input parameters and output units, the initial discrepancies between the numerical results can be attributed to (1) different understanding of the expression "input motion" in different communities, and (2) different implementations of material damping and possible numerical energy dissipation. The second round of computations thus allowed a convergence of all teams to the Haskell-Thomson analytical solution in elastic and viscoelastic cases. For nonlinear computations, we investigate the epistemic uncertainties related only to wave propagation modeling using different nonlinear constitutive models. Such epistemic uncertainties are shown to increase with the strain level and to reach values around 0.2 (log 10 scale) for a peak ground acceleration of 5 m=s 2 at the base of the soil column, which may be reduced by almost 50% when the various constitutive models used the same shear strength and damping implementation.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 82%

International Benchmark on Numerical Simulations for 1D, Nonlinear Site Response (PRENOLIN): Verification Phase Based on Canonical Cases

Régnier¹,

Bonilla²,

Bard³

et al. 2016

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Dynamic reduction of soil moduli and increases in damping with increasing shear strain can substantially modify ground motion amplitudes as a function of frequency (Ishihara, 1996). While there has been evidence of nonlinear soil response in surface strong motion recordings (Field et al, 1997;Cultera et al, 1999), interpretation of these surface records solely in terms of soil nonlinearity is intrinsically non-unique (O 'Connell, 1999a). In contrast, downhole strong motion arrays have provided definitive evidence of soil nonlinearity consistent with laboratory testing of soils (Chang et al, 1991;Wen et al, 1995, Ghayamghamain andKawakami, 1996;Satoh et al, 1995Satoh et al, , 1997Satoh et al, , 2001).…”

Section:    Kij Smentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Rock outcrop motion is then usually used to estimate the motion at the bedrock and to calculate sediments amplification for both weak and strong motion (e.g. Celebi et al, 1987;Singh et al, 1988;Darragh et al, 1991;Field et al, 1997;Beresnev, 2002). The accuracy of this approximation strongly depends on near surface rock weathering or topography complexity (Steidl et al, 1996).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strong Ground Motion Estimation

O’Connell¹,

Ake²,

Bonilla³

et al. 2012

Earthquake Research and Analysis - New Frontiers in Seismology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Explicit evidence of strong-motion deamplification, accompanied by shifts of resonant frequencies towards lower frequencies, is found in a number of events throughout the world. Field et al (1997) reported that ground-motion amplification due to sediments for the main shock of the 1994 Northridge earthquake was up to a factor of two less than the amplification observed for its aftershocks. More recently Molchan et al (2011) supplied a list of hot/cold spots, in the definition of Olsen (2000), sites identified in the Italian macroseismic data, which are related to local fault geometry rather than to soil conditions.…”

Section: Nonlinear Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Linear and Nonlinear Site Effects for the MW 6.3, 2009 L’Aquila Earthquake

Nunziata¹,

Costanzo²,

Vaccari³

et al. 2012

Earthquake Research and Analysis - New Frontiers in Seismology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nonlinear ground-motion amplification by sediments during the 1994 Northridge earthquake

Cited by 233 publications

References 11 publications

International Benchmark on Numerical Simulations for 1D, Nonlinear Site Response (PRENOLIN): Verification Phase Based on Canonical Cases

International Benchmark on Numerical Simulations for 1D, Nonlinear Site Response (PRENOLIN): Verification Phase Based on Canonical Cases

Strong Ground Motion Estimation

Evaluation of Linear and Nonlinear Site Effects for the MW 6.3, 2009 L’Aquila Earthquake

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About