Ground-motion amplification factors (GMAFs) are used to characterize amplification of a ground motion propagating from the bedrock to the ground surface. They are usually determined by ground response analysis, in which the soil parameter variabilities and input motion uncertainties contribute to their uncertainty. The construction of design response spectra requires mean GMAFs or GMAFs with different probability levels. Thus, it is significant to study the sensitivity of soil parameter variabilities and the number of random soil profiles for the estimation of GMAFs. This study investigates the minimum number of random soil profiles required to represent the extent of the epistemic uncertainty in the GMAFs obtained from ground response analysis. It shows that at least 20 and 60 random soil profiles are respectively required to estimate the mean and standard deviations of GMAFs with the maximum relative difference below 10%. In addition, potential reasons for a reduction in the mean GMAFs resulting from randomization of the soil column properties are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2005. Seismic Design Criteria for Structures, Systems, and Components in Nuclear Facilities, ASCE/SEI 43-05, Reston, VA.
2.
BaraniS., and SpallarossaD., 2017. Soil amplification in probabilistic ground motion hazard analysis, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering15, 2525–2545.
3.
BaraniS., De FerrariR., and FerrettiG., 2013. Influence of soil modeling uncertainties on site response, Earthquake Spectra29, 705–732.
4.
BaturayM. B., and StewartJ. P., 2003. Uncertainty and bias in ground-motion estimates from ground response analyses, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America93, 2025–2042.
5.
BazzurroP., and CornellC. A., 2004a. Ground-motion amplification in nonlinear soil sites with uncertain properties, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America94, 2090–2109.
6.
BazzurroP., and CornellC. A., 2004b. Nonlinear soil-site effects in probabilistic seismic-hazard analysis, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America94, 2110–2123.
7.
BeresnevI. A., and WenK. -L., 1996. Nonlinear soil response—A reality?Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America86, 1964–1978.
8.
BooreD. M., and AtkinsonG. M., 2008. Ground-motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA at spectral periods between 0.01 s and 10.0 s, Earthquake Spectra24, 99–138.
9.
BooreD. M., GibbsJ. F., JoynerW. B., TinsleyJ. C., and PontiD. J., 2003. Estimated ground motion from the 1994 Northridge, California, earthquake at the site of the Interstate 10 and La Cienega Boulevard bridge collapse, West Los Angeles, California, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America93, 2737–2751.
10.
BorjaR. I., ChaoH. -Y., MontánsF. J., and LinC. -H., 1999. Nonlinear ground response at Lotung LSST site, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering125, 187–197.
11.
CampbellK. W., and BozorgniaY., 2008. NGA ground motion model for the geometric mean horizontal component of PGA, PGV, PGD and 5% damped linear elastic response spectra for periods ranging from 0.01 to 10 s, Earthquake Spectra24, 139–171.
12.
DaiK., WangJ., LiB., and HongH. P., 2017. Use of residual drift for post-earthquake damage assessment of RC Buildings, Engineering Structures147, 242–255.
13.
DaiK., LiB., WangJ., LiA., LiH., LiJ., and TesfamariamS., 2018a. Optimal probability-based partial mass isolation of elevated coal scuttle in thermal power plant building, The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings27, e1477.
14.
DaiK., LiA., ZhangH., ChenS. -E., and PanY., 2018b. Surface damage quantification of postearthquake building based on terrestrial laser scan data, Structural Control and Health Monitoring25, e2210.
15.
DarendeliM. B., 2001. Development of a New Family of Normalized Modulus Reduction and Material Damping Curves, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
16.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), 1993. Guidelines for Determining Design Basis Ground Motions. Volume 2: Appendices for Ground Motion Estimation, Palo Alto, CA.
17.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), 2013. Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Screening, Prior-itization and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic, Rep. 1025287, Palo Alto, CA.
18.
HashashY. M. A., MusgroveM. I., HarmonJ. A., GroholskiD. R., PhillipsC. A., and ParkD., 2016. DEEPSOIL 6.1, User Manual and Tutorial, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL.
19.
JiangW., LiB., XieW. -C., and PandeyM. D., 2015. Generate floor response spectra: Part 1. Direct spectra-to-spectra method, Nuclear Engineering and Design293, 525–546.
20.
KaklamanosJ., BaiseL. G., ThompsonE. M., and DorfmannL., 2015. Comparison of 1-D linear, equivalent-linear, and nonlinear site response models at six KiK-net validation sites, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering69, 207–219.
21.
KwokA. O. L., StewartJ. P., and HashashY. M. A., 2008. Nonlinear ground-response analysis of Turkey Flat shallow stiff-soil site to strong ground motion, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America98, 331–343.
22.
LeeC. -P., TsaiY. -B., and WenK. -L., 2006. Analysis of nonlinear site response using the LSST downhole accelerometer array data, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering26, 435–460.
23.
LiW., and AssimakiD., 2010. Site- and motion-dependent parametric uncertainty of site-response analyses in earthquake simulations, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America100, 954–968.
LiB., JiangW., XieW. -C., and PandeyM. D., 2015. Generate floor response spectra, Part 2: Response spectra for equipment-structure resonance, Nuclear Engineering and Design293, 547–560.
26.
LiB., LyB. -L., XieW. -C., and PandeyM. D., 2017. Generating spectrum-compatible time histories using eigenfunctions, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America107, 1512–1525.
27.
LiB., XieW. -C., and PandeyM. D., 2016a. Generate tri-directional spectra-compatible time histories using HHT method, Nuclear Engineering and Design308, 73–85.
28.
LiB., XieW. -C., and PandeyM. D., 2016b. Newmark design spectra considering earthquake magnitudes and site categories, Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration15, 519–535.
29.
LuY., HajirasoulihaI., and MarshallA. M., 2018. An improved replacement oscillator approach for soil-structure interaction analysis considering soft soils, Engineering Structures167, 26–38.
30.
McGuireR. K., SilvaW. J., and ConstantinoC. J., 2001. Technical Basis for Revision of Regulatory Guidance on Design Ground Motions: Hazard- and Risk-Consistent Ground Motion Spectra Guidelines, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
31.
McGuireR. K., SilvaW. J., and CostantinoC. J., 2002. Technical Basis for Revision of Regulatory Guidance on Design Ground Motions: Development of Hazard- and Risk-Consistent Seismic Spectra for Two Sites, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
32.
RathjeE. M., KottkeA. R., and TrentW. L., 2010. Influence of input motion and site property variabilities on seismic site response analysis, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering136, 607–619.
33.
SeyhanE., and StewartJ. P., 2014. Semi-empirical nonlinear site amplification from NGA-West2 data and simulations, Earthquake Spectra30, 1241–1256.
34.
StewartJ. P., KwokA. O. L., and HashashY. M. A., 2008. Benchmarking of Nonlinear Geo-technical Ground Response Analysis Procedures, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA.
35.
StewartJ. P., AfshariK., and GouletC. A., 2017. Non-ergodic site response in seismic hazard analysis, Earthquake Spectra33, 1385–1414.
36.
ThompsonE. M., BaiseL. G., TanakaY., and KayenR. E., 2012. A taxonomy of site response complexity, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering41, 32–43.
37.
TsaiC. -C. P., 2000. Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis considering nonlinear site effect, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America90, 66–72.
38.
TsaiC. -C., and HashashY. M., 2009. Learning of dynamic soil behavior from downhole arrays, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering135, 745–757.
39.
UniStar Nuclear Services (UNS), 2009. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit 3, Combined License Application, Part 2: Final Safety Analysis Report (Revision 6), Baltimore, MD.
40.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC), 2007. A Performance-Based Approach to Define the Site-Specific Earthquake Ground Motion, Regulatory Guide 1.208, Washington, DC.
41.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC), 2014. Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition—Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, and Systems, NUREG-0800, Chapter 3, Washington, DC.
42.
VuceticM., HsuC. -C., and DoroudianM., 1998. Results of Cyclic and Dynamic Simple Shear Tests on Soils from La Cienega Site, Conducted for ROSRINE Project and Other Research Purposes, UCLA-ENG 98-200, UCLA School of Engineering and Applied Science, Los Angeles, CA, 434 pp.
43.
WangJ., DaiK., YinY., and TesfamariamS., 2018. Seismic performance-based design and risk analysis of thermal power plant building with consideration of vertical and mass irregularities, Engineering Structures164, 141–154.
44.
YeeE., StewartJ. P., and TokimatsuK., 2013. Elastic and large-strain nonlinear seismic site response from analysis of vertical array recordings, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering139, 1789–1801.
