Characterization of Different Site Category Method On Strong Ground Motion

th
The 14 World Conference on Earthquake Engineering

October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China
CHARACTERIZATION OF DIFFERENT SITE CATEGORY METHOD ON

STRONG GROUND MOTION
Lu Hongshan
Associate Professor, Institute of Geophysics, China Earthquake Administration, Beijing. China
Email: [email protected]
ABSTRACT :
The average shear-wave velocity of the top 30 m (vS30) of the earth is an important parameter used in classifying
sites in US building codes. In China building code, the average shear-wave velocity of the top 20 m (vS20) of the
near surface and depth of the soil are both used in classifying sites. The comparison of site classification
between China and US code provisions has been carried out. And the relationship between two site
classifications has been found. The PEER NGA strong motion Database has been used as dataset. Site condition
of each record in the dataset has been classified by China building codes. The characterization of strong motion
for the China classifying dataset has been analyzed. The fuzzy of classification can make uncertainty. For one
site, adoption of China or US site classification can cause different ground shaking level assessment. So the
uncertainty of site category should be taken account in seismic hazard or risk analyze.
KEYWORDS:
site classification, seismic code, average shear-wave velocity, uncertainty
th

1. INTRUCTION
Site effect on strong earthquake ground motion is an important problem for seismologists and earthquake
engineers. Many strong motion data for different site condition have been recorded in Mexico, Loma Prieta,
Northridge and Kobe earthquake. Simplified theory and empirical calculation show that average amplification
factors calculated using spectra ratios between soil and nearby rock sites are proportional to the mean shear
wave velocity of the top 30 m underground (Borcherdt, 1994). Therefore a new method has been applied in
NEHRP provisions for site classifications, the method uses a quantitative index of mean shear wave velocity
instead of qualitative description to soil profile. The PEER NGA strong motion Database has thousands of
strong ground motion record. In this database use mean shear wave velocity of the top 30 m underground as the
index to sort the site. The strong ground motion record is lack in China.
In this study two site classification methods will be compared between China and US seismic code and the
relation between them will be analyzed. And then analyze the NGA strong motion Database based on China
sites classification. The uncertainty of site category in assessment of ground motion will also discuss.
2.SITE CLASSIFICATION COMPARISION BETWEEN CHINA AND US
SEISMIC CODE
The average shear-wave velocity of the top 30 m of the soil (vS30) is used as index for classifying sites in
US seismic code (Building Seismic Safety Council, 2004). On the contrast, the average velocity of top 20 m
(vS20) and depth of soil with average velocity large than 500 m/s are used in China provision Ministry of
Construction, Peoples Republic of China and General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and
Quarantine of Peoples Republic of China ,2001). The rock in US code is the site which average shear-wave
velocity vS30 is large than 760 m/s, but in China site with average shear-wave velocity VS20 large than 500m/s is
regarded as rock site. The site category in US code have 5 classes, such as A, B, C, D, E. In China category only
have 4 classes, such as I, II, III, IV. The average shear-wave velocity range for different site is different in US
and China code. The calculation method of average shear-wave velocity is same in US and China code, but the
depth is different. In this study, the same site soil profile is used to calculate average shear-wave velocity VS30
and VS20, and then the sites are classified by China and US site category. At last comparisons of the average
shear-wave velocity and the site classification are made between them.
The soil profile data used in this study come from ROSRINE (Resolution of Site Response Issues from the
Northridge Earthquake) project (Bardet et al, 1998). In this project many free field strong ground motion station
sites in California have been characterized using drilling, borehole logging, surface geophysical, and
shear-wave velocity measurement. vS30 and vS20 results are shown in Figure 1. In Figure 1, x-axis is vS30, and
y-axis is vS20. The site category in US code for each station is zoned by vS30, and site category in China code is
drawn by different symbols.
Figure 1 Comparison of site category in China and US code
th

Most data points in Figure 1 distribute approximately on a line, this result show clearly that the vS20 is
somewhat corresponding to vS30. There are some special points in Figure 1. Points N and O are far from the
trend line. vS30 is strictly calculated by the top 30 m of the soil, but the depth to calculate vS20 is the minor
value of cover soil thickness and 20 m. The cover soil thickness is defined as soil depth which average
shear-wave velocity large than 500 m/s. In this case, the site in which points N and O lie are under the top 10 m
of the soil and the average shear-wave velocity is large than 1 000 m/s, so the depth to calculate vS20 is 10 m.
The vS20 is about 320 m/s and 180 m/s for points N and O respectively, and vS30 is 560 m/s and 660 m/s,
separately. Points in zone P represent the site D according to US code, however in China code some represent
the site II, others represent the site III, and the points distribute. This is because vS20 is about 250 m/s and cover
soil thickness is about 50 m for these points, such vS20 and cover soil thickness value is close to the boundary
for the Site II and III. For point M, vS20 is between 140 m/s and 250 m/s and cover soil thickness is smaller than
50 m, therefore it cannot be classified as Site III. Under such condition, two sites which have the 1 m/s
difference of vS20 and 1 m difference of cover soil thickness may be classified as two site type. This uncertainty
results from simply classifications of complicated soil site into several types. Zone P and point M exactly
reflect this case.
In most case, vS30 and vS20 can be drawn as regular pattern curve as Figure 1.The vS30 is usually larger than
vS20. Commonly use vS20 as a index to classify a site is equivalent to vS30 .Only in few case, when depth 20m to
30m has soft soil, the vS30 is smaller than vS20. In this case, the vS30 reflect the features of site more accurate. But
the cost to measure vS30 is more expensive
Generally, the site with vS30 in US code greater than 510 m/s can be corresponding to site I in China code.
vS30 greater than 260 m/s and smaller than 510 m/s can be classified as site II, vS30 greater than 150 m/s and
smaller than 260 m/s can be classified as site III, the other site with vS30 smaller than 150 m/s can be classified
as site IV. Meanwhile, it can be seen that site I contains site A, site B and some site C; site II may belong to site
C or site D and site III may belong to site D or site E. Site IV all can be classified as site E. If there is only site
category information of US seismic code, we cannot accurately define the site type in China site category. But
if we have the vS30 for the site, we can define site category in China seismic code for the site according to
relation between vS20 and vS30. Now many strong motion stations give vS30 value, then we can establish strong
motion records set based on China site category to study site effect.
3.ANALYZE NGA STRONG MOTION RECORD BASE ON CHINA SITE TYPE

In this study, we will use NGA strong motion Database to analyze the characterization of soil strong ground
motion based on China site category method. The PEER NGA strong motion Database has thousands of strong
ground motion record. Each record in this database give the value of the vS30. So we can use the relationship
between vS30 and vS30 as describe as above, to sort each records site condition again. The figure 2 give the
classification result base on China site category for the NGA strong motion Database.
th

2500
2338
2000
Counts
1500
1000
652
535
500
0
I
II
III
IV
soil type
Figure 2 China soil type for NGA Strong Motion Database

In this study, we use curve shape as equation 3.1and 3.2 described to fit each strong motion records
response spectra. Amax is peak acceleration. The max and Tg have been computed for each record for type
I,II and III. The records for type IV are very few, so neglect analyze these few records. The results are shown in
figure3, figure4 and figure5.
(3.1)
S (T ) = Amax (T )
T T0
1 + ( m 1)
T1 T0
max
(T ) =
Tg
max
T T0
T0T T1
T1T Tg
(3.2)
Tg T 3s
3.0
0.8
0.7
0.6
Tg
max
0.5
2.5
0.4
0.35s
0.3
2.25
0.30s
0.25s
0.2
0.1
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.0
0.1
PGA(g)
0.2
PGA(g)
Figure 3max and Tg for type I
0.3
0.4
th

3.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
Tg(s)
max
0.6
2.5
0.5
0.45s
0.4
0.40s
0.35s
0.3
2.25
0.2
0.1
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.0
0.1
PGA(g)
0.2
0.3
0.4
PGA(g)
Figure 4max and Tg for type II

3.0
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
Tg(s)
max
1.0
2.5
0.9
0.8
0.7
2.25
0.65s
0.6
0.55s
0.5
0.45s
0.4
0.3
2.0
0.00
0.2
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.0
0.1
PGA(g)
0.2
0.3
0.4
PGA(g)
Figure 5max and Tg for type III

The defined value of max and Tg in China seismic coed are also shown in figure3, figure4 and
figure5.The data is scatteredbut we can find that defined value of max and Tg in China seismic coed are
relatively lower than the real strong ground motion record. It should to raise these two values in order to
improve the safety on a higher level in the future.
4.FUZZY OF CLASSIFICATION AND UNCERTAINTY IN ASSESSING GROUND MOTION

INTENSITY
In terms of theorythe difference of average shear-wave velocity is 1 m/s and thickness is 1 m, the two
site may be defined as two type of soil. The ground motion assessment will be different. But the accuracy for
shear-wave velocity measure is lower than 10%.The measure for soil thickness can not reach such high
precision. The fuzzy of classification cause this uncertainty. It should define a interval range to replace the fixed
boundary value between two soil type.
Two site coefficients, Fa and Fv, corresponding to the short period and long period ranges respectively,
were applied in NEHRP 1994 (Building Seismic Safety Council, 1995). The two site coefficients depend on
both site category and intensity of rock motions. The NEHRP 2003 and UBC 1997 have also use these two site
coefficients (Building Seismic Safety Council, 2004;Dobry et al,2000).
In present China seismic code, only long period site ground motion considers site category, but short period site
ground motion is same for different site category, and do not change for different rock shaking level. In other word
Fa always set to one in China seismic code. In China code, the
For a site, the vS20 and vS30 can be computed. The thickness of the soil can be measure. The soil type will be
deterministic. The site can be defined as C or II by different method. If the rock input ground motion is 0.2g,
the assessment intensity of this site in China code will only 70 percent of the value in US code.
In seismic hazard or risk analyze should take account of these nondeterministic factor.
th

5. CONCLUSIONS
Site effect is an important problem in earthquake engineering. The site classification comparison between China
and US code provisions has been carried out. The relationship between two site classifications has been found.
The NGA strong motion database is analyzed base on China site category. China seismic code set the relative
lower ground motion intensity level.
The nondeterministic factor such as fuzzy of soil classification and China and US code assess different
ground motion intensity for same site have been discussed.
The paper is a preliminary study on the problem. If we want to analyze the problem further, it needs to collect
strong motions record on different site with detail borehole logging and shear-wave velocity measurement
information in the future.
REFERENCES
Bardet J P, Nielsen E, Villacorta R. (1998). ROSRINE Data Dissemination, http://rccg03.usc.Edu/
rosrine/Publications/
Borcherdt R D. (1994). Estimates of site-dependent response spectra for design (methodology and justification)
Earthquake Spectra, 10, 617-653.
Building Seismic Safety Council. (1995). NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New
Buildings (1994 edition) . FEMA 222A/223A:,32-36, Washington, D.C
Building Seismic Safety Council. (2004). NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New
Buildings and Other Structures (2003 edition) . FEMA 450/451, 19-38.
Dobry R, Borcherdt R, Crouse C, et al. (2000). New site coefficients and site classification system used in
recent building seismic code provisions . Earthquake Spectra, 16:1, 41-67.
Ministry of Construction, Peoples Republic of China and General Administration of Quality Supervision,
Inspection and Quarantine of Peoples Republic of China.(2001). National Standard of Peoples Republic of
China, Code for Seismic Design of Buildings . China Architecture and Building Press, 15-17 (in Chinese).

Characterization of Different Site Category Method On Strong Ground Motion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Characterization of Different Site Category Method On Strong Ground Motion

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Characterization of Different Site Category Method On Strong Ground Motion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

th

The 14 World Conference on Earthquake Engineering