Advertisement

Geotechnical and Geological Engineering

, Volume 36, Issue 4, pp 2649–2666 | Cite as

Parametric Study on Seismic Topography–Soil–Structure Interaction; Topographic Effect

  • Mahtab Alitalesh
  • Habib Shahnazari
  • Mohammad Hassan Baziar
Original paper
  • 42 Downloads

Abstract

Site and Soil–Structure Interaction (SSI) considerably affects ground seismic motion characteristics. Since some structures are constructed on top of slopes or hills, it is essential to assess the seismic response of the topography–soil–structure system. The current research evaluated important topographic parameters in topography-soil-structure interaction. In this paper, by using numerical method of finite difference, significant parameters of single-faced slope topography were studied. The results showed that geometry of the topographic irregularity could significantly alter the SSI mechanism. The effects of free field soil thickness were also investigated. It was revealed that the mechanism of the SSI was affected by changing the free field soil thickness; yet, due to pure topographic it did not significantly affect the amplification of the acceleration. The effect of soil critical damping ratio in altering ground response was more pronounced for topographic effects. Studying the structure-soil impedance ratio suggested that impedance ratio had considerable effect on seismic ground motion under simultaneous effects of the SSI and the topography. Slope height, as one of the geometrical properties of the system, affected seismic response of the topography with and without structure. The results of this research were presented as spatial distribution of acceleration. Also, transfer functions of the SSI on the slope were also calculated.

Keywords

Soil-structure interaction Topography Single-faced slope Ground seismic motion 

References

  1. Alterman Z, Karal FC Jr (1968) Propagation of elastic waves in layered media by finite difference methods. Bull Seismol Soc Am 58(1):367–398Google Scholar
  2. Assimaki D (2004) Topography effects in the 1999 Athens earthquake: Engineering issues in seismology. Sc. D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Assimaki D, Jeong S (2011) Coupled topography-stratigraphy effects during the M7.0 Haiti earthquake: the case of hotel Montana. In: Proceeding of 4th IASPEI/IAEE international symposium on the effects of surface geology on seismic motion. University of California Santa Barbara, CAGoogle Scholar
  4. Assimaki D, Kausel E (2007) Modified topographic amplification factors for a single-faced slope due to kinematic soil-structure interaction. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 133(11):1414–1431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Assimaki D, Kausel E, Gazetas G (2005) Wave propagation and soil-structure interaction on a cliff crest during the 1999 Athens Earthquake. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 25(7–10):513–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Avilés J, Pérez-Rocha LE (1998) Site effects and soil–structure interaction in the Valley of Mexico. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 17(1):29–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boore DM (1972) Finite difference methods for seismic wave propagation in heterogeneous materials. Methods Comput Phys 11:1–37Google Scholar
  8. Boore DM, Page RA (1972) Acceleration near-faulting in moderate-sized earthquakes. In: U.S. geological survey open-file report. pp 72–43Google Scholar
  9. Boore DM, Larner KL, Aki K (1971) Comparison of two independent methods for the solution of wave-scattering problems: response of a sedimentary basin to vertically incident SH waves. J Geophys Res 76(2):558–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boore DM, Harmsen SC, Harding ST (1981) Wave scattering from a step change in surface topography. Bull Seismol Soc Am 71:117–125Google Scholar
  11. Boukovalas GD, Papadimitriou AG (2005) Numerical evaluation of slope topography effects on seismic ground motion. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 25(7–10):547–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Costain JK, Çoruh C (2004) Basic theory of exploration seismology. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  13. Duzgun OA, Budak A (2010) A study on soil-structure interaction analysis in canyon-shaped topographies. Sadhana Indian Acad Sci 35(3):255–277Google Scholar
  14. Finn WDL (1991) Geotechnical engineering aspects of seismic microzonation. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference of seismic zonation, vol 1. Stanford, pp 199–250Google Scholar
  15. Fotopoulou S, Anastasiadou C, Pitilakis D (2013) Topographic effects and soil-foundation-structure interaction on a cliff crest. In: Proceeding of Vienna Congress on Recent Advances in Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics (VEESD 2013), paper no. 208. Vienna, pp 28–30Google Scholar
  16. Ganev T, Yamazaki F, Katayama T (1995) Observation and numerical analysis of soil-structure interaction of a reinforced concrete tower. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 24:491–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Geli L, Bard PY, Jullien B (1988) The effect of topography on earthquake ground motion: a review and new results. Bull Seismol Soc Am 78(1):42–63Google Scholar
  18. Harmsen S, Harding S (1981) Surface motion over a sedimentary valley for incident plane P and SV waves. Bull Seismol Soc Am 71(3):655–670Google Scholar
  19. Itasca Consulting Group Inc. (2005) Fast lagrangian analysis of continua (FLAC), V.5. Itasca Consulting Group Inc., MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  20. Joyner WB, Chen ATF (1975) Calculation of nonlinear ground response in earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 65(5):1315–1336Google Scholar
  21. Kawase H, Aki K (1990) Topography effect at the critical SV wave incidence: possible explanation of damage pattern by to the Whittier Narrows, California, earthquake of 1 October 1987. Bull Seismol Soc Am 80(1):1–22Google Scholar
  22. Kuhlemeyer RL, Lysmer J (1973) Finite element method accuracy for wave propagation problems. J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE 99(SM5):421–427Google Scholar
  23. Levret A, Loup C, Goula X (l986) The Provence earthquake of June 11th. 1909 (France): New assessment of near-field effects. In: Proceedings of the 8th conference of earthquake engineering, vol 2. LisbonGoogle Scholar
  24. Liao ZP, Baipo Y, Yifan Y (1980) Effect of three-dimensional topography on earthquake ground motion. In: Proceeding of word conference of earthquake engineering, 7th, vol 2, Istanbul. pp 161–168Google Scholar
  25. Marzorati S, Ladina C, Falcucci E, Gori S, Saroli M, Ameri G, Galadini F (2011) Site effects “on the rock”: the case of Castelvecchio Subequo (L’Aquila, Central Italy). Bull Earthq Eng 9(3):841–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pitilakis D (2009) Topographic irregularities and soil-foundation-structure interaction. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Japan–Greece workshop on seismic design. Observation and Retrofit of Foundations, Santorini, pp 335–343Google Scholar
  27. Pitilakis D, Tsinaris A (2010) Soil-foundation-structure interaction close to natural slopes and topographic irregularities. In: Proceeding of the 6th National Conference of Geotechnical Engineering. Volos (in Greek)Google Scholar
  28. Rayhani MHT, El Naggar MH (2008) Numerical modeling of seismic response of rigid foundation on soft soil. Int J Geomech ASCE 8(6):336–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ricker N (1960) The form and laws of propagation of seismic wavelets. Geophysics 18:10–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shafique M, Meijde MVD, Kerle N, Meer FVD, Asif Khan M (2008) Predicting topographic aggravation of seismic ground shaking by applying geospatial tools. J Himal Earth Sci 41:33–43Google Scholar
  31. Stewart JP, Sholtis SE (2005) Case study of strong ground motion variations across cut slope. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 25(7–10):539–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wolf JP (1985) Dynamic soil–structure interaction. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Civil and Environmental EngineeringTarbiat Modares UniversityTehranIran
  2. 2.School of Civil and Environmental EngineeringIran University of Science and TechnologyNarmak, TehranIran

Personalised recommendations