Ground Motion Site Amplification Factors for Sites Located within the Mississippi Embayment with Consideration of Deep Soil Deposits

Abstract

In this study, site amplification factors for the deep soil deposits of the Mississippi embayment are computed using a nonlinear site response analysis program first to develop a model for nonlinear soil response for possible use by ground motion developers and second to address site amplification estimation. The effects of geology, sediment depth, and average shear wave velocity at the upper 30 m of soil ranging 180–800 m/s, as well as the effect of peak ground acceleration at the bedrock on nonlinear ground motion amplification for the upper embayment, are investigated. The site response computations cover various site conditions, sediment depth of 70–750 m, and peak acceleration of input rock motions of 0.01–0.90 g. The amplification (or de-amplification) at various frequencies implied by the sediment depth is greater than that implied just by site classification of the top 30 m of soil.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abrahamson

N. A.

and Silva

W. J.

1997. Empirical response spectral attenuation relations for shallow crustal earthquakes, Seismological Research Letters 68, 94–127.

Assimaki

and Li

2012. Site- and ground motion-dependent nonlinear effects in seismological model predictions, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 32, 143–151.

Atkinson

G. M.

and Boore

D. M.

2006. Earthquake ground-motion prediction equations for eastern North America, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 96, 2181–2205.

Bonilla

L. F.

2000. Computation of Linear and Nonlinear Site Response for Near Field Ground Motion, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara, 285.

Bonilla

L. F.

Lavallée

and Archuleta

R. J.

1998. Nonlinear site response: laboratory modeling as a constraint for modeling accelerograms, in Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on the Effects of Surface Geology on Seismic Motion, ( Irikura

, Kudo

, Okada

, and Sasatani

, eds.), vol. 2, A. A. Balkema, Brookfield, VT, 793–800.

Boore

D. M.

2012. SMSIM, software, http://www.daveboore.com/software_online.html.

Boore

D. M.

Joyner

W. B.

and Fumal

T. E.

1997. Equations for estimating horizontal response spectra and peak acceleration from western North American earthquakes: A summary of recent work, Seismological Research Letters 68, 128–153.

Borcherdt

R. D.

2002a. Empirical evidence for acceleration-dependent amplification factors, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 92, 761–782.

Borcherdt

R. D.

2002b. Empirical evidence for site coefficients in building code provisions, Earthquake Spectra 18, 189–217.

10.

Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC), 2001. NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures—Part 1: Provisions, FEMA-368; Part 2: Commentary, FEMA-369, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington D.C.

11.

Campbell

K. W.

and Bozorgnia

2003. Updated near-source ground-motion (attenuation) relations for the horizontal and vertical components of peak ground acceleration and acceleration response spectra, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 93, 314–331.

12.

Choi

and Stewart

J. P.

2005. Nonlinear site amplification as function of 30m shear wave velocity, Earthquake Spectra 21, 1–30.

13.

Cramer

2006. Quantifying the uncertainty in site amplification modeling and its effects on site-specific seismic-hazard estimation in the upper Mississippi embayment and adjacent areas, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 96, 2008–2020.

14.

Crouse

C. B.

and McGuire

J. W.

1996. Site response studies for purpose of revising NEHRP seismic provisions, Earthquake Spectra 12, 407–439.

15.

Dobry

Ramos

and Power

M. S.

1999. Site Factors and Site Categories in Seismic Code, Technical Report MCEER-99-0010, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER), Buffalo, NY, 81 pp.

16.

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), 1993. Guidelines for Determining Design Basis Ground Motions, EPRI TR-102293, vols. 1–5, Palo Alto, CA.

17.

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), 2013. Seismic Evaluation Guidance–Screening, Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic, Appendix B, Palo Alto, CA.

18.

Field

E. H.

2000. A modified ground motion attenuation relationship for southern California that accounts for detailed site classification and a basin depth effect, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 90, 209–221.

19.

Hanks

T. C.

and McGuire

R. K.

1981. The character of high-frequency strong ground motion, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 71, 2071–2095.

20.

Hartzell

Bonilla

L. F.

and Williams

R. A.

2004. Prediction of nonlinear soil effects, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 94, 1609–1629.

21.

Hashash

Y. M. A.

Kottke

A. R.

Stewart

J. P.

Campbell

K. W.

Kim

Moss

Nikolaou

Rathje

E. M.

and Silva

W. J.

2014. Reference rock site condition for central and eastern North America, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 104, 684–701.

22.

Idriss

I. M.

and Sun

J. I.

1992. User Manual for SHAKE91, Center for Geotechnical Modeling, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis.

23.

Joyner

W. B.

and Boore

D. M.

2000. Recent developments in earthquake ground motion estimation, in Proceedings, 6th International Conference on Seismic Zonation, 12–15 November 2000, Palm Springs, CA.

24.

Kwok

A. O.

and Stewart

J. P.

2006. Evaluation of the effectiveness of theoretical 1-D amplification factors for earthquake ground-motion prediction, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 96, 1422–1436.

25.

McGuire

R. K.

Becker

A. M.

and Donovan

N. C.

1984. Spectral estimates of seismic shear waves, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 74, 1427–1440.

26.

Park

and Hashash

Y. M. A.

2005. Evaluation of seismic site factors in the Mississippi embayment—Part II: Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis with nonlinear site effects, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25, 145–156.

27.

Park

Pezeshk

and Hashash

2004. Nonlinear site response of deep deposits in West Tennessee, in Proceedings, 4th National Seismic Conference and Workshop on Bridges and Highways, 9–12 February 2004, Memphis, TN.

28.

Power

Borcherdt

and Stewart

2004. Site Amplification Factors from Empirical Studies, NGA Working Group #5 Report, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), Berkeley, CA.

29.

Rodriguez-Marek

Bray

J. D.

and Abrahamson

1999. Task 3: Characterization of Site Response, General Site Categories, PEER Report 1999/03, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), Berkeley, CA.

30.

Romero

and Rix

G. J.

2001. Regional variations in near surface shear-wave velocity in the Greater Memphis area, Engineering Geology 62, 137–158.

31.

Sadigh

Chang

C.-Y.

Egan

J. A.

Makdisi

and Youngs

R. R.

1997. Attenuation relations for shallow crustal earthquakes based on California strong motion data, Seismological Research Letters 68, 180–189.

32.

Silva

W. J.

Abrahamson

Toro

and Costantino

1997. Description and Validation of the Stochastic Ground Motion Model, Report Submitted to Brookhaven National Laboratory, Associated Universities, Upton, NY.

33.

Silva

W. J.

Darragh

R. B.

and Gregor

2000. Surface geology based strong motion amplification factors for the San Francisco Bay and Los Angeles areas, Prepared for PG&E PEER–Task 5.B, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA.

34.

Stewart

J. P.

Liu

A. H.

and Choi

2003. Amplification factors for spectral acceleration in tectonically active regions, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 93, 332–352.

35.

Toro

1993. Probabilistic model of soil-profile variability, in Guidelines for Determining Design Basis Ground Motions, EPRI TR-102293 ( Schneider

J. F.

, ed.), vol. 2, Appendix 6A Electric Power Research Institute.

36.

Toro

G. R.

and McGuire

R. K.

1987. An investigation into earthquake ground motion characteristics in eastern North America, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 77, 468–489.

37.

Toro

G. R.

and Silva

W. J.

2001. Scenario Earthquakes for Saint Louis, MO, and Memphis, TN, and Seismic Hazard Maps for the Central United States Region Including the Effect of Site Conditions, Final technical report to the USGS, Risk Engineering, Boulder, Colorado.

38.

Towhata

and Ishihara

1985. Modeling soil behavior under principal axes rotation, in Proceedings, Fifth International Conference on Numerical Methods in Geomechanics, Nagoya, Japan, 523–530.

39.

Van Arsdale

R. B.

and TenBrink

R. K.

2000. Late Cretaceous and Cenozoic geology of the New Madrid seismic zone, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 90, 345–356.

40.

Walling

Silva

W. J.

and Abrahamson

N. A.

2008. Nonlinear site amplification factors for constraining the NGA models, Earthquake Spectra 24, 243–255.

41.

Wen

Y. K.

and Wu

C. L.

2001. Uniform hazard ground motions for Mid-American cities, Earthquake Spectra 17, 359–384.