Ground motion intensity measures are usually used to predict the earthquake-induced displacements in earth dams, soil slopes and soil structures. In this study, the efficiency of various single ground motion intensity measures (scalar IMs) or a combination of them (vector IMs) are investigated using the PEER-NGA strong motion database and an equivalent-linear sliding-mass model. Although no single intensity measure is efficient enough for all slope conditions, the spectral acceleration at 1.5 times of the initial slope period and Arias intensity of the input motion are found to be the most efficient scalar IMs for flexible slopes and stiff slopes respectively.
Vector IMs can incorporate different characteristics of the ground motion and thus significantly improve the efficiency over a wide range of slope conditions. Among various vector IMs considered, the spectral accelerations at multiple spectral periods achieve high efficiency for a wide range of slope conditions. This study provides useful guidance to the development of more efficient empirical prediction models as well as the ground motion selection criteria for time domain analysis of seismic slope displacements.
Corresponding Author(s):
WANG Gang,Email:gwang@ust.hk
引用本文:
. Efficiency of scalar and vector intensity measures for seismic slope displacements[J]. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 2012, 6(1): 44-52.
Gang WANG. Efficiency of scalar and vector intensity measures for seismic slope displacements. Front Struc Civil Eng, 2012, 6(1): 44-52.
max?t|a(t)|, the maximum absolute value of the acceleration time history
g
Sa
spectral acceleration
Sa(T), peak acceleration of a single-DOF elastic oscillator with specified period T and 5% damping ratio
g
ASI
Acceleration spectrum intensity
∫T=0.10.5sSa(T)dT, integration of Sa(T) over T= 0.1 s to 0.5 s.
g
IA
arias intensity [14]
π2g∫0∞|a(t)|2dt, time integration of the acceleration squared
g?s
CAV
cumulative absolute velocity
∫0∞|a(t)|dt, time integration of the absolute value of acceleration.
g?s
D5-95
significant duration [15]
t(0.95IA)-t(0.05IA), time used to accumulate from 5% to 95% IA
s
Tm
mean period [16]
weighted mean period of Fourier spectrum
s
Tab.1
Fig.2
Fig.3
Fig.4
Fig.5
1
Newmark N M. Effects of earthquakes on dams and embankments. Geotechnique , 1965, 15(2): 139–160 doi: 10.1680/geot.1965.15.2.139
2
Ambraseys N N, Menu J M. Earthquake-induced ground displacements. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics , 1988, 16(7): 985–1006 doi: 10.1002/eqe.4290160704
3
Jibson R W. Regression models for estimating coseismic landslide displacement. Engineering Geology , 2007, 91(2-4): 209–218 doi: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2007.01.013
4
Saygili G, Rathje E M. Empirical prediction models for earthquake-induced sliding displacements of slopes. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering , 2008, 134(6): 790–803 doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)134:6(790)
5
Jibson R W. Predicting earthquake-induced landslide displacements using Newmark’s sliding block analysis. Transportation Research Record , 1993, 1411: 9–17
6
Romeo R. Seismically induced landslide displacements: a predictive model. Engineering Geology , 2000, 58(3-4): 337–351 doi: 10.1016/S0013-7952(00)00042-9
7
Watson-Lamprey J, Abrahamson N. Selection of ground motion time series and limits on scaling. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering , 2006, 26(5): 477–482 doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2005.07.001
8
Rathje E M, Bray J D. Nonlinear coupled seismic sliding analysis of earth structures. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering , 2000, 126(11): 1002–1014 doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2000)126:11(1002)
9
Bray J D, Travasarou T. Simplified procedure for estimating earthquake-induced deviatoric slope displacements. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering , 2007, 133(4): 381–392 doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:4(381)
10
Schnabel P B, Lysmer J, Seed H B. SHAKE—A Computer Program for Earthquake Response Analysis of Horizontally Layered Sites, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Report No. UCB/EERC-72/12. University of California, Berkeley , 1972
11
Chiou B, Darragh R, Gregor N, Silva W. NGA project strong-motion database. Earthquake Spectra , 2008, 24(1): 23–44 doi: 10.1193/1.2894831
12
Vucetic M, Dobry R. Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering , 1991, 117(1): 89–107 doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1991)117:1(89)
13
Kramer S L. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall , 1996
14
Arias A. A measure of earthquake intensity. In: Seismic Design for Nuclear Power Plants , Hansen RJ, ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1970, 438–483
15
Kempton J J, Stewart J P. Prediction equations for significant duration of earthquake ground motions considering site and near-source effects. Earthquake Spectra , 2006, 22(4): 985–1013 doi: 10.1193/1.2358175
16
Rathje E M, Abrahamson N A, Bray J D. Simplified frequency content estimate of earthquake ground motions. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering , 1998, 124(2): 150–159 doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1998)124:2(150)
17
Travasarou T, Bray J D. Optimal ground motion intensity measures for assessment of seismic slope displacements. Pacific Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Christchurch, New Zealand , 2003
18
Wang G. A ground motion selection and modification method capturing response spectrum characteristics and variability of scenario earthquakes. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering , 2011, 31(4): 611–625 doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.11.007
