GMSV in SEISM Project Jonathan P. Stewart University of California, Los Angeles.
-
Upload
grant-curtis -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
0
Transcript of GMSV in SEISM Project Jonathan P. Stewart University of California, Los Angeles.
![Page 1: GMSV in SEISM Project Jonathan P. Stewart University of California, Los Angeles.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062806/5697bfe91a28abf838cb6d5c/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
GMSV in SEISM Project
Jonathan P. StewartUniversity of California, Los Angeles
![Page 2: GMSV in SEISM Project Jonathan P. Stewart University of California, Los Angeles.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062806/5697bfe91a28abf838cb6d5c/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Outline
Possible areas of activity:• Geotechnical validation – duration sensitive– Not at top of list in validation gauntlet
• General validation / use of simulations– Fundamental to the validation gauntlet
![Page 3: GMSV in SEISM Project Jonathan P. Stewart University of California, Los Angeles.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062806/5697bfe91a28abf838cb6d5c/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Geotechnical Validation
• Site responseV s
InputRock Att.
G/GMax
D
g
Output
Equivalent-linear
Nonlinear
![Page 4: GMSV in SEISM Project Jonathan P. Stewart University of California, Los Angeles.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062806/5697bfe91a28abf838cb6d5c/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Geotechnical Validation
• Site response
Outcome:
![Page 5: GMSV in SEISM Project Jonathan P. Stewart University of California, Los Angeles.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062806/5697bfe91a28abf838cb6d5c/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Geotechnical Validation
• Site response• Nonlinear soil response
Element response:
Boulanger and Idriss, 2004
![Page 6: GMSV in SEISM Project Jonathan P. Stewart University of California, Los Angeles.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062806/5697bfe91a28abf838cb6d5c/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Fig. 23: Undrained Cyclic Simple Shear Test on Monterey #30/0 Sand (Test No. Ms15j)Dr=50%, v,i’=85 kPa, CSR=0.22 , =0
Fig. 24: Undrained Cyclic Simple Shear Test on Monterey #30/0 Sand (Test No. Ms30j)Dr=75%, v,i’=85 kPa, CSR=0.4 , =0
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.30 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
No
rm. S
hea
r S
tres
s, (
/ c )
Normalized Effective Vertical Stress, 'v/
c'
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3-10 -5 0 5 10
Shear Strain, (%)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
00.20.40.60.81
Excess Pore Pressure Ratio, ru (%)
Nu
mbe
r o
f C
ycle
s
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
-10 -5 0 5 10
Shear Strain, (%)
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
No
rm. S
hear
Str
ess,
(/ c
)
Normalized Effective Vertical Stress, 'v/
c'
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
-10 -5 0 5 10
Shear Strain, (%)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
00.20.40.60.81
Excess Pore Pressure Ratio, ru (%)
Nu
mbe
r o
f C
ycle
s
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
-10 -5 0 5 10
Shear Strain, (%)
Candidate metrics:
End of record pore pressure generation
Peak shear strain
Kammerer et al. (2002)
![Page 7: GMSV in SEISM Project Jonathan P. Stewart University of California, Los Angeles.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062806/5697bfe91a28abf838cb6d5c/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Candidate metrics:
End of record pore pressure generation
Peak shear strain
Post (or during) cyclic volume change
Yee et al. (2012).
![Page 8: GMSV in SEISM Project Jonathan P. Stewart University of California, Los Angeles.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062806/5697bfe91a28abf838cb6d5c/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Geotechnical Validation
• Site response• Nonlinear soil response• Newmark displacements
![Page 9: GMSV in SEISM Project Jonathan P. Stewart University of California, Los Angeles.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062806/5697bfe91a28abf838cb6d5c/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Newmark sliding block:
![Page 10: GMSV in SEISM Project Jonathan P. Stewart University of California, Los Angeles.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062806/5697bfe91a28abf838cb6d5c/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Geotechnical Validation
• Compute geotechnical engineering demand parameters (EDPs) of interest using recorded and simulated ground motion suites.
• OpenSees platform can be used
• Identify inconsistencies and their cause
![Page 11: GMSV in SEISM Project Jonathan P. Stewart University of California, Los Angeles.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062806/5697bfe91a28abf838cb6d5c/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
General Validation / Use of Simulations
• Distance scaling; M-scaling• Spectral shape• Sigma from simulations (within- and between-
event)• Basin effects• Useful for: – Simulation validation– Constraining components of GMPEs poorly
constrained by data
![Page 12: GMSV in SEISM Project Jonathan P. Stewart University of California, Los Angeles.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062806/5697bfe91a28abf838cb6d5c/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Suggestion was to do geotechnical. My second suggestion is NGA-West3, so premature to do now.
Do it for the motions that pass the SWUS broadband validation project for the xx events. Select a series of simulated records and comparable real records and compare.
Some discussion of how do we compare apples and apples.
Could start by computing IMs for the sets that are relevant (CAV5, IA, duration, etc.). Could then compare sim/real for records with similar values of these Ims.
Coordinate with CG on this.