Topographic Amplification -

FE Modelling of Triangular Hill Geometry

Presented by:
Kavan Modha
Department of Earthquake Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee
Content
• Introduction
• Need for the study
• Methodology
• Results
• References
Introduction
• Researches in the past observed amplified ground motions as
compared to measured ground motion on flat surface.
• It is difficult to differentiate between the amplification effects due to
topography or any other effects.
• Topographic amplification is mainly due to reflections from the
boundaries. So, Higher amplification is observed at peak of the hill.
Need for the study
• Prime issue is to correctly evaluate augmented ground motion record
influenced by topographic effects.
• AFPS (1990), Euro Code 8 (2004) and NTC (2008) have addressed this
issue but still efficient literature is unavailable as they mentioned
approximate amplification factor without reliable study.
Material Properties
• Material Properties for site class A (homogeneous hard rock) are
selected in accordance with ASCE 7-10, from Narsimha, D.S., (2015)
Input Parameters
ν 0.258
𝐺= ρ𝑉𝑠2
ρ (kg/m3) 2457
Vs (m/s) 2824

Derived Parameters
Vp (m/s) 4944.92
E (N/m2) 49299802337
G (N/m2) 19594516032
Damping
• Rayleigh damping is used to model material damping in numerical analysis.
• Rayleigh damping coefficient is given by:
2ω𝑖 ω𝑗 2ξ
α= ξ β=
ω𝑖 + ω𝑗 ω𝑖 + ω𝑗
Where,
ω𝑖 𝑎𝑛𝑑 ω𝑗 = Range of rotational frequency
ξ = Damping ratio
• As the ground motion is applied as stress is filtered for maximum 10 Hz
frequency, various range of rotational frequency is considered to model
damping
Boundary Condition
Compliant Base or Viscous Boundary
• Dampers are installed at the base of the finite model to absorb the
dissipation wave energy and avoid reflection.
• While using this boundary condition, force needs to be applied in form of
stress.

σ𝑛 = 2 ρ 𝐶𝑝 𝑣𝑛 Where,
σ𝑛 = Applied normal stress;
σ𝑠 = Applied shear stress;
σ𝑠 = 2 ρ 𝐶𝑠 𝑣𝑠 ρ = Mass Density;
𝑣𝑛 = Input normal particle velocity;
𝑣𝑠 = Input shear particle velocity;
𝐶𝑝 = Speed of p-wave;
𝐶𝑠 = Speed of s-wave;
Amplification Pattern for Different Ground
Motion Suite
2.5

1.5
Amplification

FF NF FEMA
1

0.5

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Period (s)
Amplification Pattern a Ground Motion Suite
3

2.5
Amplification

1.5

0.5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Period (s)
Average Amplification Pattern
3

2.5
Amplification

1.5

0.5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Period
Deconvolution
• Record of the ground motion gets recorded on ground whereas
earthquake generate much below the ground.
• To verify proper wave propagation in finite element analysis, recorded
earthquake was deconvoluted using 1D wave propagation in software
SHAKE2000.
• Deconvoluted ground motion applied at the base of the FE model in
terms of stress and again measured on the flat surface which is
compared with the recorded motion.
Validation
RESPONSE SPECTRUM
20

0.1-10 Hz Actual
SPECTRAL ACCELERATION (M/S2)

15

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
PERIOD (S)
References
1. Abaqus (2016). “Implicit Dynamic Analysis.” Abaqus documentation 2016, Abaqus theory guide,
Dassault Systemes Simulia Corp.
2. ASCE 7, (2010). “Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures.” American Society of
Civil Engineers, Restom, Virginia, USA.
3. Association Francaise du Genie Parasismique, (1990). AFPS-90, “Recommendation for the
redaction of rules relative to the structures and installations built in regions prone to earthquakes.”
French Association for Earthquake Engineering, pp.183.
4. Bard, P.Y., (1982). “Diffracted waves and displacement fields over two dimensional elevated
topographies.” Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 71, pp. 731-760.
5. Bouckovalas , G.D., Papadimitriou, A.G., (2005). “Numerical evaluation of slope topography
effects on seismic ground motion.” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 25, pp. 547-558.
6. CEN (2004), EN 1998-5, Eurocode 8. “Design of structures for earthquake resistance part 5:
Foundations, Retaining structures and Geotechnical Aspects.”
7. Changwei, Y., Jingyu, Z., Jing, L., Wenying, Y., Jianjing, Z., (2017). “Slope earthquake stability.”
Science Press and Springer Science + Business Media, Singapore.
References
8. Federal Emergency Management Agency P695 (2009). “Quantification of building seismic
performance factors.”
9. Geli, L.,Bard, P.Y., Jullien, B., (1988). “The effect of topography on earthquake ground motion: A
review and new results.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 78, No. 1, pp. 42-
63.
10. Jeong, S., (2013). “Topographic amplification of seismic motion including nonlinear response.”
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology.
11. Kaynia, A.M., (2014). “Amplification of seismic waves by hills of different materials.” Norwegian
Geotechnical Institute, Doc. No. 2012023-01-TN.
12. Lysmar, J., Kuhlemeyer, R.L., (1969). “Finite dynamic model for infinite media.” Journal of
Engineering Mechanics Divison, Proceedings of the ASCE, 95(EM4), pp. 859-877.
13. Mejia, L.H., Dawson, E.M., (2006). “Earthquake deconvolution for FLAC.” 4th International FLAC
Symposium on Numerical Modeling in Geomechanics – Hart & Varona (eds.), Paper: 04 -10,
Itasca Consulting Group INC., Minneapolis, ISBN 0-9767577-0-2.
References
14. Narsimha, D.S., (2015). “Topographic amplification and seismic risk assessment in hills.”
Department of Earthquake Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee.
15. SHAKE2000 User’s Manual, (2004). “A computer program for the 1D analysis of geotechnical
earthquake engineering problems.”
16. Taghavi, A., Kamalian M., Baziar M.H., Sohrabi-Bidar A., Jafari, M.K., (2008). “Starting estimates of
seismic site coefficient along 2D semi-elliptical shaped hills.” The 14th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China.