School of Civil and Environmental Engineering

A.Y. 2017-18

Prof. R. PAOLUCCI

Homework # 5
(given on May 22th 2018, to be discussed at oral examination)

GROUND RESPONSE ASSESSMENT IN THE SITE OF MIRANDOLA

PART I - SITE SPECIFIC GROUND RESPONSE ANALYSIS

Consider the site of Mirandola (MRN, 44.8782, 11.0617) of homeworks n. 2 and 3. Refer to the
ground type and elastic spectrum for design computed therein and to the soil profile named
Martelli S2 project analyzed in homework 2.
a) Use the program REXELite (see the ITACA website, http://itaca.mi.ingv.it/, to select 7 real
accelerograms compatible with the elastic design spectrum at the site for outcropping rock
conditions, for the return period of 475 years. Select events with epicentral distance < 30 km.
For the magnitude ranges, refer to these disaggregation results: Mw=5.5. To ensure a
sufficient number of accelerograms, allow a range of ± 0.3 around the selected value of
Magnitude and take records from whatever site class. Do not scale the accelerograms in the
selection procedure.
b) To compute the site-specific response analysis, use the program DEEPSOIL, with the soil
profile defined in homework n. 2 for the equivalent linear analysis , with the 7 selected
accelerograms as input motions at outcropping bedrock. Place groundwater level at surface,
for proper computation of ’vo .
c) From the results obtained at point b), compute the average of the 7 acceleration response
spectra obtained at the ground surface. Compare this average response spectrum with the
elastic design spectrum of the seismic norms for the ground type of concern.
d) Calculate the ratio between the average surface response spectrum of point c) and the elastic
design spectrum for outcropping rock. Compare this ratio with the corresponding response
spectral amplification factor computed from the norms (for the same return period).

PART II - LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS

The aim herein is the liquefaction assessment in the site at study, using the simplified empirical
approach illustrated in the lesson, with different levels of detail in the evaluation of the shear stress
variation with depth.

1
For this purpose, the earthquake-induced cyclic shear stress (cyc) to evaluate the cyclic stress ratio
CSR = (cyc/’vo ), shall be computed in two ways: (a) by the empirical formulas proposed in the seismic
norms, and (b) by using the results of the detailed ground response analysis of part I.

For evaluation of liquefaction resistance, the NSPT values are given in Table 1, for the first two layers
of the soil profile of Part I, down to a depth of 30 m. Groundwater level is at ground surface. These
values have to be used to determine the cyclic resistance ratio CRR((N 1)60) with the NCEER simplified
formula shown at lesson. Consider FC (fine content) = 10 and DR (relative density) = 50% for the
whole profile. For (N1)60 evaluation, use only the correction factor for the energy ratio CE= ER(%)/60.

Table 1. Stratigraphic profile at log site. z = depth from ground surface;  = unit weight; NSPT = SPT
resistance (Standard Penetration Test, with energy ratio ER=65%).

stratigraphy z (m)  (kN/m3) NSPT

silty sand with 3.8 18
clay
6.5 13
18
13 10
silty sand 18 13
22 18

The safety factor against liquefaction, FSL, shall be evaluated for the different soil layers, down to
about 20 m depth, considering seismic actions with a return period of 475 yrs.

More specifically, the selected approaches are as follows:

a) Simplified approach
a max
a.1) Compute cyc with the empirical formula of Seed and Idriss (1971):  cyc  0.65  v rd ,
g
a max
where is the design ground surface acceleration in g units (= a g S , with S as NTC site
g
coefficient),  v the total vertical stress and rd the reduction factor of acceleration at the depth of
interest:
rd (z) = 1.0 - 0.00765 z for z  9.15 m
rd (z) = 1.174 - 0.0267 z for 9.15 m < z  23 m
rd (z) = 0.744 - 0.008 z for 23 m < z  30 m

a.2) Compute the cyclic stress ratio CSR(z) as (cyc/’vo ).

b) Detailed ground response analysis

b.1) From the results of the 1D propagation analysis of part I, compute max(z) as the average value of
max_j(z), that is the maximum value of  computed at depth z for the j-th simulation. (Note that
DEEPSOIL actually calculates for each propagation analysis the values of max /’vo as a function of
depth).
b.2) Compute the cyclic stress ratio CSR(z) as (cyc/’vo ), where cyc=0.65*max .

2
 Homework 5
Part I
a) 7 real accelerograms compatible with the elastic design spectrum at the site for
outcropping rock conditions, for the return period of 475 years. Select events with epicentral
distance < 30 km and Mw=5.5 ± 0.3
b) & c) Use the program DEEPSOIL, with the soil profile defined in homework n. 2 for the
equivalent linear analysis , with the 7 selected accelerograms as input motions at outcropping
bedrock. Place groundwater level at surface, for proper computation of vertical effective
stress.

Compute the average of the 7 acceleration response spectra obtained at the ground surface.
Compare this average response spectrum with the elastic design spectrum of the seismic
norms for the ground type of concern.

Soil profile is represented as on the left figure.

 Site-specific response analysis (DEEPSOIL)
1,2

1 BA.MIRE
IT.MRN
IT.NRC
0,8
IV.GMN
SA(g)

IV.T0819
0,6
TV.MIR02
TV.MIR08
0,4
AVERAGE

0,2

0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4
Period (s)

Comparison between NTC Design Spectrum (Return Period of 475 years) vs Site-specific
response analysis from DEEPSOIL software.

0,7

0,6

0,5

0,4
SA (g)

0,3

0,2

0,1

0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4
Period (T - sec)
d) The ratio between the average surface response spectrum of point c) and the elastic design

spectrum for outcropping rock. Compare this ratio with the corresponding response spectral

amplification factor computed from the norms (for the same return period).

For Design Spectra

After a certain period, when T ≥ TD , constant displacement is assumed that is why we have
very high ratios after TD.
 Homework 5
Part II – Liquefaction Analysis

General Formulas that has been used in order to check factor of safety for possible
liquefaction.

CN = As seen above

CE = 1 (Not indicated : taken as average value)

CB = 1 (Not indicated : taken as minimum value)

CR = 1

CS = 1 (Not indicated : taken as a standart)

FC = 10

DR = 50%

FC = 10 ,

Alpha = 0.86936 , Beta = 1.02162

MSF is 2.2 (Magnitude of Earthquake is 5.5)

Factor of Safety = Cyclic resistance ratio / Cyclic stress ratio

Paramaters for TR = 475 years for the site of Mirandola (MRN, 44.8782, 11.0617)
RESULTS
 Discussion of Results

There is a huge difference between results of simplied approach and detailed ground analysis.
In detailed ground analysis, using real accelogram data and linear equivalent analysis, 4 out of
5 different depth are under risk for possible liquefaction. However in simplied approach,
using emprical formulas and design acceleration values, only 1 out of 5 different depth are
under risk. According to these 2 results, detailed approach should be considered and there
must be precautions and actions for liquefaction in site Mirandola.