Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sensitivity of surface hazard to different factors and site response analysis approaches: a case study for a soft rock site

  • Case Study Reports
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Near-surface effects for a soft rock site (average shear-wave velocity of the top 30 m, Vs30 ≈ 800 m/s) for a proposed nuclear power station in the UK are integrated into the “bedrock” results of a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) by application of US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) Approach 3 and employing a partially non-ergodic PSHA. The sensitivity of the surface hazard to the site response analysis method is assessed, employing both random vibration theory (RVT) and time series (TS) approaches. The effects of different assumptions relating to strong-motion duration, selection of target frequency in the surface uniform hazard spectrum (UHS) and the incorporation of the variability of site properties through Monte Carlo simulations are also quantified. The results show that for the examined stiff site, with response concentrated at high frequencies, the use of RVT site response analysis does not introduce a systematic bias in the low frequency ground motion predictions and the duration used in the definition of the input ground motions is demonstrated to have a secondary effect on the site response. The incorporation of the variability of site properties and the selection of the target frequencies in the convolution are shown to be important in the derivation of the uniform hazard spectrum.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

from Tromans et al. (2018)

Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

References

  • Abrahamson N, Silva WJ (1996) Empirical ground motion models. Report to Brookhaven National Laboratory

  • Abrahamson NA, Coppersmith KJ, Koller M, Roth P, Sprecher C, Toro GR, Youngs R (2004) Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for Swiss Nuclear Power Plant Sites (PEGASOS Project), vol 1–6. NAGRA

    Google Scholar 

  • Ancheta TD, Darragh RB, Stewart J, Seyhan E, Silva WJ, Chiou BSJ, Wooddell KE, Graves RW, Kottke A, Boore DM, Kishida T, Donahue JL (2013) PEER NGA-West2 Database, PEER 2013/03

  • Anderson JG, Brune JB (1999) Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis without the ergodic assumption. Seismol Res Lett 70(1):19–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson J, Hough S (1984) A model for the shape of the Fourier amplitude spectrum of acceleration at high frequencies. Bull Seismol Soc Am 74(5):1969–1993

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson GM (2006) Single-station sigma. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96(2):446–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bard PY (2004) Probablistische Erdeben-Gefahrdungs-Analyse fur die KKW-Stand Orte in der Schwiz (PEGASOS). SP3 Site Response Characterisation, Grenoble, France

  • Bazzurro P, Cornell CA (2004) Nonlinear soil site effects in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 94(6):2110–2123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BC Hydro (2012) Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) model, vols 1, 2, 3 and 4. Engineering Report E658

  • Bommer JJ, Stafford PJ, Alarcon JE (2009) Empirical equations for the prediction of the significant, bracketed, and uniform duration of earthquake ground motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99(6):3217–3233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boore DM (1983) Stochastic simulation of high-frequency ground motions based on seismological models of the radiated spectra. Bull Seismol Soc Am 73(6):1865–1894

    Google Scholar 

  • Boore DM (2013) The uses and limitations of the square-root-impedance method for computing site amplification. Bull Seismol Soc Am 103(4):2356–2368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bora SS, Scherbaum F, Kuehn N, Stafford PJ, Edwards B (2015) Development of a response spectral ground-motion prediction equation (GMPE) for seismic-hazard analysis from empirical fourier spectral and duration models. Bull Seismol Soc Am 105(4):2192–2218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borden RH, Shao L, Gupta A (1996) Dynamic properties of piedmont residual soil. J Geotech Eng-ASCE 122(10):813–821

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darendeli MB (2001) Development of a new family of normalized modulus reduction and material damping curves. Ph.D., University of Texas at Austin

  • Davis PD, Eldred PJL, Bennel JD, Hight DW, King MS (1996) Site investigation for seismically designed structures. In: TELFORD, proceedings conference on advances in site investigation practice, pp 715–726

  • Dobry R, Idriss IM, Ng E (1978) Duration characteristics of horizontal components of strong-motion earthquake records. Bull Seismol Soc Am 68(5):1487–1520

    Google Scholar 

  • Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) (1993) Guidelines for determining design basis ground motions. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California, EPRI-TR-102293-V2

  • Electric Power Research institute (EPRI) (2012) Seismic evaluation guidance. Screening, prioritization and implementation details (SPID) for the resolution of Fukushima near-term task force recommendation 2.1: Seismic, 1025287

  • Gasparini DA, Vanmarcke EH (1976) Simulated earthquake motions compatible with prescribed response spectra. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Hancock J, Watson-Lamprey J, Abrahamson NA, Bommer JJ, Markatis A, Mccoyh E, Mendis R (2006) An improved method of matching response spectra of recorded earthquake ground motion using wavelets. J Earthq Eng 10(sup001):67–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hara A, Kiyota Y (1977) Dynamic shear tests in soils for seismic analyses. In: Proceedings of 9th ICSMFE, vol 2, pp 247–250

  • Kaklamanos J, Baise LG, Thompson EM, Dorfmann L (2015) Comparison of 1D linear, equivalent-linear, and nonlinear site response models at six KiK-net validation sites. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 69:207–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamiyama M (1984) Effects of subsoil conditions and other factors on the duration of earthquake ground shakings. In: 8WCEE, San Francisco, CA

  • Kempton JJ, Stewart JP (2006) Prediction equations for significant duration of earthquake ground motions considering site and near-source effects. Earthq Spectra 22(4):985–1013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim Y-S (1992) Deformation characteristics of sedimentary soft rocks by triaxial compression tests. Ph.D., University of Tokyo

  • King MS, Shams-Khansir M, Worthington MH (1992) Whitchester seismic cross-hole test site: petrophysics studies of core. In: 55th EAEG Meeting

  • Kottke A, Rathje EM (2008) A semi-automated procedure for selecting and scaling recorded earthquake motions for dynamic analysis. Earthq Spectra 24(4):911–932

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kottke AR, Rathje EM (2013) Comparison of time series and random-vibration theory site-response methods. Bull Seismol Soc Am 103(3):2111–2127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kottke A, Wang X, Rathje EM (2013) Technical manual for strata

  • Ktenidou OJ, Gelis C, Bonilla LF (2013) A study on the variability of kappa (κ) in a borehole: implications of the computation process. Bull Seismol Soc Am 103(2A):1048–1068

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin PS, Chiou B, Abrahamson N, Walling M, Lee CT, Cheng CT (2011) Repeatable source, site, and path effects on the standard deviation for empirical ground-motion prediction models. Bull Seismol Soc Am 101(5):2281–2295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuire RK, Barnhard TP (1979) The usefulness of ground motion duration in prediction of severity of seismic shaking. In: Proceedings of second US national conference on earthquake engineering, Stanford, CA, pp 713–722

  • McGuire RK, Becker AM, Donovan NC (1984) Spectral estimates of seismic shear waves. Bull Seismol Soc Am 74(4):1427–1440

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire RK, Silva WJ, Constantino CJ (2001) Technical basis for revision of regulatory guidance on design ground motions: hazard- and risk-consistent ground motion spectra guidelines. NUREG/CR-6728, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC

  • Morikawa N, Kanno T, Narita A, Fujiwara H, Okumura T, Fukushima Y, Guerpinar A (2008) Strong motion uncertainty determined from observed records by dense network in Japan. J Seismol 12(4):529–546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nishi K, Kokusho T, Esahi Y (1983) Dynamic shear modulus and damping ratio of rocks for a wide confining pressure range. In: Proceedings of 5th congress ISRM, Melbourne

  • Nuclear Electric (NE) (1995) Hinkley point C power station: review of dynamic geotechnical properties, HPC-IC-096521

  • Pegasos Refinement Project (PRP) (2015) Volume 5-SP3 site response characterization. Evaluation summaries and hazard input documents, SWISSNUCLEAR, PMT-1005

  • PNNL (2014) Hanford sitewide probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Report No. PNNL-23361 http://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/officialdocuments/hspsha

  • Rathje EM, Ozbey MC (2006) Site-specific validation of random vibration theory-based seismic site response analysis. J Geotech Geoenviron 132(7):911–922

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rathje EM, Kottke AR, Ozbey MC (2005) Using inverse random vibration theory to develop input fourier amplitude spectra for use in site response. In: 16th ICSMGE, TC4 earthquake geotechnical engineering satellite conference, Osaka, Japan

  • Rodriguez-Marek A, Cotton F, Abrahamson NA, Akkar S, Al Atik L, Edwards B, Montalva GA, Dawood HM (2013) A model for single-station standard deviation using data from various tectonic regions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 103(6):3149–3163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez-Marek A, Rathje EM, Bommer JJ, Scherbaum F, Stafford PJ (2014) Application of single-station sigma and site-response characterization in a probabilistic seismic-hazard analysis for a new nuclear site. Bull Seismol Soc Am 104(4):1601–1619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart J, Afshari K, Hashash YMA (2014) Guidelines for performing hazard-consistent one-dimensional ground response analysis for ground motion prediction, PEER, 2014/2016

  • Swissnuclear (2016) Pegasos Refinement Project. https://portal.swissnuclear.ch/index_en_files.Accessed. 9 March 2016

  • Toro GR (1995) Probabilistic models of site velocity profiles for generic and site-specific ground-motion amplification studies, Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, New York

  • Trifunac MD, Brady AG (1975) A study on the duration of strong earthquake ground motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 65(3):581–626

    Google Scholar 

  • Tromans IJ, Aldama-Bustos G, Douglas J, Lessi-Cheimariou A, Hunt S, Davi M, Musson R, Garrard G, Strasser F, Robertson C (2018) Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for a new-build nuclear power plant in the UK. Bull Earth Eng (accepted for publication)

  • US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) (2007) Regulatory guide 1.208. a performance-based approach to define the site-specific earthquake ground motion, March 2007

  • Wang X, Rathje EM (2015) Influence of peak factors on random vibration theory based site response analysis. In: 6th international conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering, Christchurch, New Zealand

  • Wang X, Rathje EM (2016) Influence of peak factors on site amplification from random vibration theory based site-response analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 106(4):1733–1746

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker A, Green GW (1983) Geology of the Country Around Weston-Super-Mare, Memoir for 1:50000 Geological Sheet 279, New Series with Parts of Sheets 263 and 295, Edited by Geological Survey of Britain

  • Zalachoris G, Rathje EM (2015a) Comparisons of one-dimensional site response analysis and borehole array observations: quantification of bias and variability. In: 6ICEGE, Christchurch, New Zealand

  • Zalachoris G, Rathje EM (2015b) Evaluation of one-dimensional site response techniques using borehole arrays. J Geotech Geoenviron 141(12):15

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the client, EDF NNB GenCo for their agreement to publish this paper. The support and contributions from Colin Baird and Ryan Atkins are particularly acknowledged. We thank the Peer-Review Team, Dr Hilmar Bungum and Dr Martin Köller for their constructive, challenging and insightful comments on all aspects of the work undertaken. The work presented in the current paper benefits from the contributions of Prof. Pierre-Yves Bard and Dr-Ing Philippe Renault, in their roles as Subject Experts. We extend our thanks to fellow Technical Delivery Team members, Dr Fleur Strasser, Dr John Douglas and Dr Guillermo Aldama-Bustos, who brought valuable insights relating to the hazard calculations. Dr Fleur Strasser also carried out detailed checks of the convolution calculations. We are very grateful for the tireless support from our Project Management Team, Guy Green and Liz Rivers. Finally, we would also like to thank Prof. James Kaklamanos and an anonymous reviewer for improving this paper with their constructive and interesting comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Jacobs (Former CH2M), 43 Brook Green, London, W6 7EF, UK

    A. Lessi-Cheimariou & I. J. Tromans

  2. Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, 301E. Dean Keeton St. Stop C1700, Austin, TX, 78712-0273, USA

    E. Rathje

  3. NNB GenCo, Bridgewater House, Counterslip, Bristol, BS1 6BX, UK

    C. Robertson

Authors
  1. A. Lessi-Cheimariou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. I. J. Tromans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. E. Rathje
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C. Robertson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Lessi-Cheimariou.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lessi-Cheimariou, A., Tromans, I.J., Rathje, E. et al. Sensitivity of surface hazard to different factors and site response analysis approaches: a case study for a soft rock site. Bull Earthquake Eng 17, 73–96 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0446-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0446-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation