Permanent Seismically Induced Displacement of Rock-Founded Structures Computed by The Newmark Program
Permanent Seismically Induced Displacement of Rock-Founded Structures Computed by The Newmark Program
Permanent Seismically Induced Displacement of Rock-Founded Structures Computed by The Newmark Program
Flood and Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Research and Development Program
Final report
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
DISCLAIMER: The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising, publication, or promotional purposes.
Citation of trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the use of such commercial products.
All product names and trademarks cited are the property of their respective owners. The findings of this report are not to
be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless so designated by other authorized documents.
DESTROY THIS REPORT WHEN NO LONGER NEEDED. DO NOT RETURN IT TO THE ORIGINATOR.
ERDC TR-09-2 iii
Contents
Figures and Tables.................................................................................................................................vi
Preface....................................................................................................................................................ix
3 Regression Analysis.....................................................................................................................56
3.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................56
3.2 Three-term regression analysis.......................................................................................56
3.3 Two-term regression analysis, linear in natural logarithm transformation...................64
3.4 Two-term regression analysis, linear in common logarithm transformation ................70
ERDC TR-09-2 iv
References......................................................................................................................................... 169
Appendix A: Listing and Description of the Newmark ASCII Input Data File (file name:
Newmark.in)................................................................................................................................173
Tables
Table 1.1. Approximate magnitudes of movements required to reach minimum active
earth pressure conditions (after Clough and Duncan 1991)................................................................. 5
Table 3.1. Forms of simplified non-dimensionalized permanent displacement
relationships. ............................................................................................................................................ 56
Table 4.1. Master accelerograph table of magnitude 6.9 – 8.1.......................................................... 79
ERDC TR-09-2 viii
Preface
This research report describes the engineering formulation and corre-
sponding software developed for the translational response of U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers hydraulic structures to earthquake ground motions.
The PC software Newmark was developed to perform an analysis of the
permanent sliding displacement response for each structural feature (e.g.,
a rock-founded retaining wall section or a gravity dam section) to a user-
specified earthquake acceleration time-history via a complete time-history
analysis. PC software Newmark is also used in this R&D effort to perform a
statistical analysis of computed permanent displacements for a suite of
acceleration time-histories resulting in simplified (seismic) permanent
displacement relationships for use in simplified sliding block analysis. This
R&D was accomplished and the results summarized in this report for use
on rock-founded structural systems. Prior to this publication, the simpli-
fied permanent displacement relationships found in the technical litera-
ture are for soil-founded structures. Funding to initiate research and soft-
ware development and engineering study was provided by Headquarters,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (HQUSACE), as part of the Flood and
Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Research and Development Program.
The research was performed under the Dam Safety Focus Area, Work Unit
142084 entitled “Simplified Probabilistic Models for Concrete Gravity
Dams” for which Dr. Robert M. Ebeling, Computational Science and Engi-
neering (CSED), Information Technology Laboratory (ITL), U.S. Army
Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC), was the Principal
Investigator. Additional funding was provided by the Engineering Risk
and Reliability Directory of Expertise. Andy Harkness (of Pittsburgh
District), Technical Manager of the Engineering Risk and Reliability
Directory of Expertise, supervised this R&D effort.
H. Wayne Jones, ITL, was the Dam Safety Focus Area Manager.
William R. Curtis, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory (CHL), ERDC, was
the Flood and Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Research and Develop-
ment Program Manager, and Dr. Michael Sharp, Geotechnical and
Structures Laboratory (GSL), ERDC, was the Water Resources Infra-
structure Technical Director.
ERDC TR-09-2 x
This R&D study was conducted by Dr. Robert M. Ebeling and Moira T.
Fong, ITL, Donald E. Yule, GSL, Amos Chase, Sr., Science Applications
International Corporation, and Raju Kala, GSL. Dr. Ebeling was author of
the scope of work for this research. The report was prepared by
Dr. Ebeling, Ms. Fong, and Mr. Yule under the supervision of
Dr. Robert M. Wallace, Chief, CSED, and Dr. Reed Mosher, Director, ITL.
Notation
A a decimal fraction
Δt a time increment
Ms surface wave
ERDC TR-09-2 xiv
Two drawbacks to using the Franklin and Chang (1977) “Simplified Sliding
Block” relationships for rock-founded structural systems exist; the focus of
the relationships they developed is on soil sites (reflecting the early days
when the permanent sliding block displacement based method of analysis
was first applied to earthen “structural” systems consisting of slopes and
earthen embankments); and since 1977 there have been a number of
earthquake events recorded on rock as well as soil sites.
In the subsequent years there have been several studies resulting in seis-
mically induced simplified permanent sliding block relationships, but all
of these studies have been dominated by the use of soil site acceleration
time-history records (e.g., Makdisi and Seed 1978; Richards and Elms
1979; Whitman and Liao 1985a, 1985b; Ambraseys and Menu 1988; Cai
and Bathurst 1996). This research report summarizes the development of
seismically induced, simplified sliding block permanent deformation rela-
tionships for rock-founded structures and is accomplished by processing
data obtained by using a collection of acceleration time histories recorded
on different “rock” sites. One hundred and twenty-two sets of horizontal
“rock” acceleration time histories recorded during many different earth-
quake events were carefully selected, base-line corrected and processed (as
discussed in Chapter 4) using the PC software Newmark to develop the
simplified permanent sliding block displacement relationships summa-
rized in Chapter 6 of this report.
ERDC TR-09-2 3
• The factor of safety against sliding along the base of the wall,
• The ability of the wall to resist the earth forces acting to overturn the
wall,
• The factor of safety against a bearing capacity failure or crushing of the
concrete or rock at the toe in the case of a rock foundation.
Driving
Structural Soil
Wedge
Wedge
kvW DSW
khW DSW
kvW SW
khW SW
WDSW
WSW
+a = kh * g
h
Ground
acceleration
+a = kv * g
v
Slip Plane
Figure 1.1. Gravity retaining wall and “driving” soil wedge treated as a rigid body.
ERDC TR-09-2 5
For retaining walls in which the permanent relative motion of the retain-
ing structure and retained soil (i.e., the backfill) are sufficient to fully
mobilize the shear strength in the soil, soil wedge solutions, in which a
wedge of soil bounded by the structural wedge and by an assumed failure
plane within the retained soil, are considered to move as a rigid body and
with the same horizontal acceleration (Figure 1.1). Table 1.1 lists the
approximate magnitudes of movements required to reach minimum active
earth pressure conditions. Although this Clough and Duncan (1991) guid-
ance is for static loading, after careful evaluation Ebeling and Morrison
(1992, in Section 2.2.2) concluded that the Table 1.1 values may also be
used as rough guidance for minimum retained soil seismic displacement to
fully mobilize a soils shear resistance, resulting in dynamic active earth
pressures.
A commonly-cited expression for the forces the driving soil wedge exerts
on the structural wedge was first proposed by Okabe (1924, 1926) and
Mononobe and Matsuo (1929). A form of their expression for PAE in use
today (see Chapter 4 in Ebeling and Morrison 1992) is given in Figure 1.2.
Their formulation is referred to as Mononobe-Okabe with PAE expressed in
terms of an active earth pressure coefficient, KAE, with the subscript A
designating active and the subscript E designating earthquake. The
Mononobe-Okabe formulation is an extension of Coulomb’s theory of
static active earth pressures with a horizontal seismic coefficient and a ver-
tical seismic coefficient acting at the center of a Coulomb’s “driving” soil
wedge mass of a moist retained soil (i.e., with no water table), as shown in
this figure. Equation 36 in Chapter 4 of Ebeling and Morrison (1992) gives
the Mononobe-Okabe relationship for KAE. The general wedge solution
ERDC TR-09-2 6
P
Driving
Soil PAE
Wedge
α
αAE
kvW DSW
khW DSW
Slip Plane
WDSW
+a = kh * g
δ h
α φ
PAE Ground
R acceleration
+a = kv * g
v
Figure 1.2. Simplified “driving” wedge method of analysis and the Mononobe-Okabe active
earth pressure force relationship.
resulting in this same value for PAE as can be calculated by the Mononobe-
Okabe relationship is given in Appendix A of Ebeling and Morrison (1992).
For retaining wall problems analyzed using the simplified wedge method,
EM 1110-2-2100 in Section 5-5, part (3)b provides guidance on assump-
tions regarding the magnitude of the seismic coefficient kh that may be
used as a fraction of peak ground acceleration. Guidance is also given
regarding the magnitude of the seismic coefficient kv, expressed as a frac-
tion of the value for kh. Minimum kh values are cited in Table G-1,
Section G-4 of Appendix G, part (a) in EM 1110-2-2100, according to the
seismic zone in which the project resides.
Steps (1), (2), (4) and (6) are handled by the engineer while steps (3) and
(5) are dealt with by the engineering software. A partial listing of
computer-based codes for dynamic analysis of soil systems are given in
Appendix D of Ebeling and Morrison (1992). Use of this type of advanced
engineering software requires specialized knowledge in the fields of
geotechnical and structural engineering dynamics as well as in numerical
methods. Two computer programs, FLUSH and FLAC, will be discussed
briefly to give the reader a sense of what is involved with the application of
computationally complex numerical codes in a complete soil-structure
interaction dynamic analysis and the numerous input and modeling
considerations required.
1.1.2.1 FLUSH
One method of analysis for SSI is referred to as the Direct method and
treats the structure and the surrounding retained soil and foundation
medium in a single analysis step. FLUSH is a classic example of this cate-
gory of software which uses the finite element method in this dynamic
analysis (Lysmer et al. 1975).
shear stiffness results from the SHAKE analyses are used to determine the
maximum height of the soil elements for the maximum frequency of the
vertically propagating shear wave needed to be transmitted in the FLUSH
(2-D) analysis. A 1-D soil column is then constructed using finite elements
and analyzed using FLUSH to verify that the required vertically propagat-
ing shear wave frequencies are being transmitted by the FLUSH mesh. The
wavelength associated with the highest frequency transmitted by the mesh
is related to the heights of the elements and to the (strain compatible)
shear wave velocities via the strain compatible shear stiffness of each of
the elements. Recall that FLUSH accounts for nonlinear response of soils
during earthquake shaking through adjustments of the soil shear stiffness
and material damping parameters as a function of shear strain that
develop in each element of the finite element mesh. Note that the results of
this assessment are dependent on the characteristics of the acceleration
time-history used in the analysis.
1.1.2.2 FLAC
In 1992, the Corps completed its first research application of FLAC to the
seismic analysis of a cantilever retaining wall (Green and Ebeling 2002).
FLAC is a commercially available, two-dimensional, explicit finite differ-
ence program, which has been written primarily for geotechnical
ERDC TR-09-2 10
FLAC, like FLUSH, has restrictions associated with the wavelength asso-
ciated with the highest frequency transmitted within the grid. A procedure
similar to that used to design the FLUSH mesh and involving 1-D soil
column analyses, via SHAKE, is used to lay out the FLAC grid for the
dynamic retaining wall problem analyzed and for the specified accelera-
tion time-history. Section 3.3.4 of Green and Ebeling (2002) discuss the
dimensions of the finite difference grid and the maximum frequency that
can pass through without numerical distortion.
The advantages of FLUSH are that it has considerably faster run times
than FLAC and has been applied to a number of dynamic SSI problems.
FLUSH is now freely downloadable from the Internet. The major dis-
advantage of FLUSH is that it does not allow for permanent displacement
of the wall (although strain softening associated with earthquake-induced
soil or rock deformations are accounted for in the analysis). A disadvan-
tage of FLAC is that the earthquake engineering community and the Corps
is just now developing modeling procedures for the application of FLAC to
dynamic SSI problems, learning how to perform the analyses and interpret
the computed results.
1 An interesting footnote in seismic engineering history is given in Whitman (2000): Dr. Robert Whitman,
Professor Emeritus of MIT, in 1953 performed a calculation of the permanent displacement of a slope
as a result of earthquake-induced ground motions using a sliding block concept for a consulting job
that Professor Donald Taylor (of MIT) had with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Professor Newmark
was part of the same consulting panel and sent word back to Dr. Whitman that he found this approach
to be interesting, and that if he (Whitman) did not pursue it, he (Newmark) would. Dr. Whitman did not,
and Professor Newmark did. Professor Newmark’s research culminated in his (now classic) 1965
Geotechnique paper on this topic, the fifth Rankine lecture.
ERDC TR-09-2 12
Franklin and Chang (1977) and Hynes-Griffin and Franklin (1984) illu-
strate key concepts of a Newmark sliding block analysis using a potential
sliding mass within an embankment under earthquake loading. The
problems’ engineering idealization is shown in Figure 1.3. The Figure 1.3a
potential sliding mass is in a condition of incipient sliding with full mobil-
ization of the shear resistance for the soil along the slip plane shown in
this figure. The corresponding sliding factor of safety is equal to unity.
This condition results from the acceleration of the earthen mass into the
embankment (i.e., to the left) and away from the cut. W is the weight of the
sliding mass. The force N times W in this figure is the inertia force
required to reduce the sliding factor of safety to unity. By D’Alembert’s
principle, the inertia force, N times W, is applied pseudostatically to the
soil mass in a direction opposite to acceleration of the mass, N times g,
with N being a decimal fraction of the acceleration of gravity g (the uni-
versal gravitational constant). The acceleration of the soil mass contained
within the slip plane shown in Figure 1.3a is limited to an acceleration
value of N times g because the shear stress required for equilibrium along
the slip plane can never be less than that of the shear strength of the soil.
To state this in another way, the sliding factor of safety can never be less
than 1.0. So, if the earthquake induced ground acceleration should
increase to a value greater than the value N times g, the Figure 1.3a mass
above this slip plane would move downhill relative to the embankment.
During this permanent slope displacement, the “sliding” mass would only
feel the acceleration value N times g and not the ground acceleration
values. The acceleration value of N times g was referred to as the “yield
acceleration” in these early publications associated with the seismically
induced permanent movement of a slope.
Figure 1.3b shows the force polygon for the “sliding” soil mass. The angle
inclination θ of the inertia force may be found as the angle that is most
critical; that is, the angle that minimizes N. Franklin and Chang (1977)
and Hynes-Griffin and Franklin (1984) state that the angle θ is typically
set equal to zero in seismic slope stability analyses. The angle β is the
direction of the resultant force S of the distributed shear stresses along the
interface and is determined during the course of the slope stability anal-
yses to determine the value of N that results in a sliding factor of safety of
1.0 for the slope’s sliding mass. The force P is the resultant of the normal
forces.
ERDC TR-09-2 13
Figure 1.3. Elements of the Newmark (rigid) sliding block method of analysis
(from Hynes-Griffin and Franklin 1984).
ERDC TR-09-2 14
The Figure 1.3b force polygon for the slope mass being applied to an
“idealized” sliding rigid block model on a plane inclined at an angle β to
horizontal is illustrated in Figure 1.3c. This idealization is the basis for the
designation as the Newmark’s sliding (rigid) block method of analysis,
representing the sliding mass of the embankment.
Although this procedure has been applied to other types of structures, the
essential features of the Newmark (rigid) sliding block method of analysis
remain the same.
Driving
Soil Structural
Wedge
Wedge
Movement
of
N*g Rigid
N*g block
Retained
Soil
+a = kh * g
h
Ground
acceleration Slip Plane
+a = kv * g
v
Figure 1.4. Gravity retaining wall and failure wedge treated as a sliding block
(after Whitman 1990).
ERDC TR-09-2 17
The analytical procedure that was developed by Richards and Elms (1979)
recognizes that for some limiting value of horizontal acceleration, i.e., the
maximum transmissible acceleration identified as N*g in Figure 1.4, the
horizontal inertia force acting on a retaining wall with no toe fill will nom-
inally exceed the shear resistance provided by the foundation along the
interface between the base of the wall and the foundation.
This implies that although the soil base (i.e., the foundation to the wall)
may be accelerating horizontally at values greater than N*g, the wall will
be sliding along the base under the action of the horizontal inertial force
that corresponds to the horizontal acceleration N*g. This results in move-
ment of the soil base relative to the movement of the wall and vise-versa.
The relative movement originates at the point in time designated as point
a in the first time-history shown in Figure 1.5 and continues until the
(absolute) velocity of the base is equal to the (absolute) velocity of the wall,
designated as time point b in the second time-history of this same figure.
The (absolute) velocity of the soil base is equal to the integral over time of
the soil acceleration, and the (absolute) velocity of the wall between time
points a and b is equal to the integral of the wall acceleration, which is a
constant N*g. The relative velocity of the wall, vr, shown in the third time-
history is equal to the integral of the difference between the base accelera-
tion and the constant wall acceleration N*g between time points a and b,
as shown in Figure 1.5. The relative displacement of the wall is the fourth
time-history and equal to the integral of the relative velocity of the wall,
which occurs between the two points in time labeled a and b in Figure 1.5.
Note that at time point b, when the wall is stopping its first increment of
relative movement, the acceleration is less than N*g, as shown in the first
time-history. This observation demonstrates that the relative velocity of
the wall (shown in the third time-history) controls the cessation of the
seismically induced incremental wall movement. Additional incremental
relative displacements occur for the wall between the two latter points in
time labeled c and d in Figure 1.5, with the residual relative wall displace-
ments, dr, equal to the cumulative relative displacements computed during
ERDC TR-09-2 18
Figure 1.5. Incremental failure by base sliding (adapted from Richards and Elms 1979).
Ebeling and Morrison (1992) observe that the approach has been reason-
ably well validated for the case of walls retaining granular, moist backfills
(i.e., no water table). A key item is the selection of suitable shear strength
parameters. In an effective stress analysis, the issue of the suitable friction
angle is particularly troublesome when the peak friction angle is signifi-
cantly greater than the residual friction angle. In the displacement con-
trolled approach examples given in Section 6.2 of Ebeling and Morrison
(1992), effective stress based shear strength parameters (i.e., effective
cohesion c′ and effective angle of internal friction φ′) were used to define
the shear strength of the dilative granular backfills, with c′ set equal to
zero in all cases due to the level of deformations anticipated in a sliding
block analysis during seismic shaking. In 1992, Ebeling and Morrison
ERDC TR-09-2 19
concluded that using the residual friction angle in a sliding block analysis
is conservative, and that this should be the usual practice for displacement
based analysis of granular retained soils. For the Ebeling et al. (2007)
report discussing CorpsWallSlip, the primary author would broaden the con-
cept to the assignment of effective (or total) shear strength parameters for
the retained soil to be consistent with the level of shearing-induced defor-
mations encountered for each design earthquake in a sliding block analy-
sis, and note that active earth pressures are used to define the loading
imposed on the structural wedge by the driving soil wedge. (Refer to
Table 1.1 for guidance regarding wall movements required to fully mobilize
the shear resistance within the retained soil during earthquake shaking.)
Permanent
displacement
due to
rotation
about the
toe of the wall
Presist
toe
Figure 1.6. Idealized permanent, seismically induced displacement due to the rotation about
the toe of a rock-founded wall retaining moist backfill, with toe restraint, computed using
CorpsWallRotate.
ERDC TR-09-2 20
Cantilever
Retaining
Wall
Spillway Channel
Base Slab
The Figure 1.7 cantilever retaining wall that is buttressed by an invert spill-
way slab (which is a reinforced concrete slab), exemplify a category of
Corps retaining walls that may be susceptible to earthquake induced rota-
tion. The primary author of this report is of the opinion that the assign-
ment of the point of rotation to the toe of the wall becomes a reasonable
simplifying assumption because of the constraint provided by the
Figure 1.6 invert spillway slab to lateral translations, combined with the
effects of the stiff, competent rock foundation. A key result of a
CorpsWallRotate analysis, idealized in Figure 1.6, is the permanent,
earthquake-induced displacement of a retaining wall resulting from
rotation about the toe of the wall.
Like the Zeng and Steedman (2000) rigid gravity wall formulation, dis-
cussed in Ebeling and White (2006), rotation of a rigid block model of the
structural retaining wall system in this new formulation is assumed to
occur about the toe of the wall (i.e., the rigid block is “pined” to the rigid
base at its toe). This new Ebeling and White procedure differs from the
Steedman and Zeng formulation by the following:
1 In the formulation described in this report, a cohesive soil refers to a total stress analysis in which the
shear strength of the soil is characterized in terms of its undrained shear strength Su. Note that
minimum wall movements needed to fully mobilize the shear resistance of the soil, on the order of
those listed in Table 1.1, will impact the characterization of the retained soil shear strength parameters
used in the permanent displacement analysis.
ERDC TR-09-2 23
P
Pmax= P
AE
α
αAE
Vertical section
Vertical section through the Heel θ= 0
+β Slip Plane
Kv W
P Kh W
AE
+
H Level W
Point of Rotation, 0 W δ
a N'
CG g H + c' L
v
Heel δ
W
a g I θ P N' tan φ'
CG
h CG AE
y Center of
P Gravity W αAE +a = K g
resist h h
Ground
T X Heel Heel +a = K g Acceleration
Toe N' v v
Figure 1.9. Structural wedge with toe resistance retaining a driving soil wedge with a bilinear moist slope
(i.e., no water table) analyzed by effective stress analysis with full mobilization of (c′, φ′) shear resistance
within the backfill.
rotation, i.e., the toe in Figure 1.6, during the entire earthquake shaking
process.
Thus for a rigid block that undergoes rotation during earthquake shaking,
the horizontal acceleration of (rigid) mass center is a function not only of
the horizontal ground acceleration but it is also a function of the angular
acceleration and the angular velocity during rotation (see Ebeling and
White 2006). This differs from the situation of a rigid block that under-
goes permanent sliding displacement during earthquake shaking; the
largest magnitude horizontal acceleration felt by this rigid block is N*g.
Recall that N*g, the maximum transmissible acceleration (i.e., the yield
acceleration or critical acceleration) is not the user-defined, horizontal
ground (or, equivalently, rigid base) acceleration. Unlike the sliding (rigid)
block model, which effectively isolates the sliding block from the shaking
base below, the rotating rigid block model continues to transmit horizontal
acceleration through the “pin”, located at the toe of the wall, into the wall.
A key step in the evaluation process of the idealized rigid block formula-
tions of Ebeling et al. (2007) and of Ebeling and White (2006) for transla-
tion and for rotation is the computation of the maximum transmissible
acceleration and the computation of threshold value of acceleration corre-
sponding to lift-off the base of the wall in rotation. Comparison of these
values determines if the wall will tend to slide before it will rotate or visa
versa. The lower of the two values dictates the kinematic mechanism for
the retaining wall system model. Both of these computational steps are
incorporated in both CorpsWallSlip and CorpsWallRotate. The PC-based pro-
gram Newmark, described and used in the R&D of this report, does not
perform this check nor does it do rotational permanent deformation
analyses. For this type of rotational analysis the reader is referred to
CorpsWallRotate.
The MDE is the maximum level of ground motion for which a structure is
designed or evaluated. The associated performance requirement is that the
project performs without catastrophic failure, such as an uncontrolled
release of a reservoir, although severe damage or economic loss may be
tolerated. For critical features, the MDE is the same as the Maximum
Credible Earthquake (MCE). [Section 5(a) and Table B-1 in ER 1110-2-
1806 outlines the assessment of the hazard potential classification of Civil
Works projects and is related to the consequences of project failure.
Critical features are the engineering structures, natural site conditions, or
operating equipment and utilities at high hazard projects whose failure
during earthquake could result, in loss of life.] For all other features, the
MDE shall be selected as a lesser earthquake than the MCE, which pro-
vides economical designs meeting appropriate safety standards. The MDE
is the maximum level of ground motion for which a structure is designed
or evaluated. Although not formally stated in the ER, recent (limited)
application to select, normal Corps (non-critical) structures is to assume
the MDE is an earthquake that has a 10 percent chance of being exceeded
in a 100-year period (or a 975-year return period). The MDE for normal
structures is determined by PSHA. For critical structures, the MDE is the
Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE), which is determined by a deter-
ministic seismic hazard assessment (DSHA). The MCE is defined as the
ERDC TR-09-2 26
Factors of safety for sliding and flotation, and the safety provisions related
to resultant location and allowable bearing capacity, contained in EM
1110-2-2100 are dependent on:
The axial load resistance Presist, provided by the Figure 1.7 invert slab, is
illustrated in Figure 1.6. Limited investigations, by Strom and Ebeling
(2004), based on the Corps minimum thickness for invert slabs con-
structed on rock and earth, and for both continuous reinforcing plans and
independent block plans, indicate the limit state axial load capacity, or
ultimate axial load resistance of the slab (Presist) may be on the order of:
• 120 kips per foot width of slab for a 1.0 foot thick invert slab on rock
• 240 kips per foot width of slab for a 2.0 foot thick invert slab on soil
The above values are valid for both anchored and unanchored invert slabs,
and for the minimum contraction joint spacings typically found on Corps
projects. However, a site-specific evaluation of the limiting axial resisting
force resulting from the buttressing effect of the type of slab on the toe of a
retaining wall is required. Refer to Strom and Ebeling (2004) for a simpli-
fied engineering methodology for the assessment of Presist for all types of
slabs buttressing all types of retaining structures, including the Figure 1.7
invert spillway slab.
Chapter 5 describes key aspects of the visual modeler and visual post-
processor Newmark. Specifically, a description of the graphical user inter-
face for input of value(s) of critical acceleration (i.e., the maximum trans-
missible acceleration or the yield acceleration), input/verification of earth-
quake time-history files, and for visualization of results is presented to
make the user familiar with its operation.
horizontal acceleration imparted to the rigid body model, that will nomi-
nally exceed the shear resistance provided by the foundation along (or
immediately below) the interface between the base of the rigid body and
the foundation (refer to Figure 1.4). Earth retaining structures and earthen
slope/embankments were discussed in Chapter 1 with regard to
(Newmark) permanent displacement based sliding block analysis resulting
from earthquake shaking. Hand calculations of the critical acceleration
(i.e., the maximum transmissible acceleration or the yield acceleration) for
a particular earth retaining structure are described in Ebeling and
Morrison (1992). Alternatively, CorpsWallSlip (Ebeling et al. 2007) may be
used to automatically compute the rock-founded earth retaining struc-
ture’s critical acceleration using the user defined geometry, retained soil
and rock foundation properties (as well as the value for the structure’s
critical acceleration). Several popular slope stability software programs
have the capability to compute the critical acceleration for an earthen
slope/embankment. The computation of the critical acceleration is done
prior to executing Newmark, when evaluating a structure for its per-
manent displacement to a single user-specified acceleration time-history.
(Note that when using the software Newmark in this fashion for a slope/
embankment, the acceleration time-history used is likely to an accelera-
tion time-history recorded on a soil site.)
1 Baseline-corrected, horizontal acceleration time histories are to be used to represent the earthquake
ground motions in program Newmark.
ERDC TR-09-2 33
at incremental
time
T
relA1
Relative
Acceleration relA0
(Linear)
0 0
relA = relA0
DT
+ ( T ) (relA1-relA0)
DT
T
Relative relV1
Velocity relV0 relV = relV0
(Quadratic)
0 0 + ( T) relA0
2
+ ( T ) (relA1-relA0)
2 DT
relD1
Relative relD = relD0
Displacement relD0 + ( T) relV0
(Cubic) 0 0 2
+ ( T ) relA0
2
3
+ ( T ) (relA1-relA0)
ti t 6 DT
i+1
Note: Postive relV0 value.
Figure 2.1. Complete equations for relative motions over time increment DT based on linearly
varying acceleration.
ERDC TR-09-2 35
t
relV = ∫ relA dt when relV > 0 (2.1)
0
or
So, for a linear variation in relative acceleration over time step DT, the
relative velocity, relV, is a quadratic relationship. Note that program
Newmark assumes that the structure cannot slide backwards (i.e., it is
impeded by the retained soil for an earth retaining structure or by the pool
for a gravity dam, which is expressed by Equation 2.2. Similarly, with the
permanent relative displacement of the structure being the integration of
the relative velocity, the relative displacement of the structure is a cubic
relationship, as listed in Figure 2.1. The permanent relative displacement
of the structure is the integration of the relative velocity
t
relD = ∫ relV dt (2.3)
0
In Figure 2.1, the value for relative acceleration relA, relative velocity relV
and (permanent structural) relative displacement relD at any point in time
Δt after ti and before time ti+1 are given by the linear, quadratic and cubic
relationships contained on the right-hand side of these three figures (with
Δt less than or equal to DT).
Recall that during sliding, the acceleration felt by the structure equals the
maximum transmissible acceleration. Thus, the sliding (rigid) block model
effectively isolates the sliding block from the shaking (rigid) base below.
2.2.2 Positive relative accelerations relA0 and relA1 at times ti and ti+1
DT
relV 1 = relV 0 + • (relA0 + relA1) (2.4)
2
with the values for relV0 and relA0 now being known values that were
computed in the previous solution step. Note that the structure is in
motion at time ti, as reflected by a positive value for relative velocity
(designated relV0 in Figure 2.2). Similarly, the permanent relative struc-
tural displacement at time ti+1 (designated relD1) is computed from the
value for relative displacement at time ti (designated relD0) plus the
positive area under the quadratic relative velocity relationship over the
time step DT, designated Areav in this figure. For this linear acceleration
method, relD1 at time ti+1 is
ERDC TR-09-2 37
Known Unknown
relA0 relV1
relA1 relD1
relV0
relD0
relA1
Relative
Acceleration relA0 Area = ( DT ) ( relA1+relA0)
(Linear) Area a 2
a
0 0
DT
Relative relV1
Area = ( DT) relV0
Velocity relV0 v 2
relD1
Relative relD1 = relD0 + Area
Displacement relD0 v
(Cubic) 0 0
ti t
i+1
Note: Postive relV0 value.
Figure 2.2. Relative Velocity and displacements at the end of time increment DT based on
linearly varying relative acceleration.
DT 2
relD1 = relD0 + DT • relV 0 + • (2 • relA0 + relA1) (2.5)
6
with the value for relD0 being a known value that was computed in the
previous solution step. The values for relative velocity relV and (per-
manent structural) displacement relD at time ti+1 are also described in
terms of the area relationships contained in Figure 2.2.
However, there are three other situations that can arise during the step-
by-step solution:
• The case of a negative value for relA at time ti and a positive value for
relA at time ti+1
• The case of structure decelerating over the entire time step DT for
which the values of relA are negative at both times ti and ti+1
• The case of a positive value for relA at time ti and a negative value for
relA at time ti+1.
Next, consider a structure in motion (i.e., with a positive value for relV) at
time ti but with the Figure 2.3 case of a negative value for relA0 computed
at time step ti and positive value for relA1 computed at the next time step
of ti+1. 1 The first step is to determine the time instant [ti plus lhsDT] at
which the relative acceleration relA is equal to zero, as labeled in the
figure. By linear interpolation, this time increment lhsDT is
1 Note the assumption of a linear variation in relative acceleration over the time step DT in Figure 2.3.
ERDC TR-09-2 39
Figure 2.3. Two possible outcomes for the case of a negative relative acceleration at time ti
and a positive relative acceleration at time ti+1.
⎛ DT ⎞⎟
lhsDT = relA0 • ⎜⎜ (2.6)
⎜⎝ relA1 − relA0 ⎠⎟⎟
The negative area between the negative portion of the linear acceleration
line and the time-line over the Figure 2.3 time increment lhsDT is
1
NegativeArea− A+ = • lhsDT • (relA0 + 0) (2.7)
2
2.2.3.1 Case 1
This case results when the positive value for relV at time ti is greater than
the magnitude of NegativeArea−Α+ (i.e., the negative area between the
negative portion of the linear acceleration line and the time-line over the
portion of the Figure 2.3 time increment labeled lhsDT). The three left-
hand side figures in Figure 2.3 are used to describe the Case 1 step-by-step
solution scheme: The top figure describes the relative acceleration relA,
the middle figure describes the relative velocity relV, and the lower figure
describes the (permanent) relative structural displacement relD.
The top Case 1 figure depicts the case of a (labeled) negative triangular
area between the linear relative deceleration relA line and the time-line
(i.e., NegativeArea−Α+ by Equation 2.7), being of less magnitude than the
positive value for relative velocity at time ti (designated relV0). Conse-
quently, the structure will remain in displacement (i.e., sliding) during the
entire time step DT. At the increment in time lhsDT after time ti, a portion
of the negative deceleration area reduces the value of relative velocity from
the positive value of magnitude relV0 at time ti to a smaller magnitude
value at time [ti plus lhsDT], as shown in this figure. The relative velocity
at time [ti plus lhsDT] is
1
relVmid = relV 0 + • lhsDT • (relA0 + 0) (2.8)
2
The change in relative displacement from time ti to time [ti plus lhsDT] is
equal to the labeled positive area between the quadratic relative velocity
curve and the time-line. At time [ti plus lhsDT] the relative structural
displacement increases in magnitude from relD0 to relDmid.
2
(lhsDT )
relDmid = relD0 + lhsDT • relV 0 + • (2 • relA0 + 0) (2.9)
6
The structure continues in motion, with positive relative velocity and with
additional permanent deformation after time [ti plus lhsDT] when the
relative acceleration of the structure is positive. At time [ti plus lhsDT] the
magnitude of structure’s relative velocity begins to increase in magnitude
as a result of the positive relative acceleration of the structure. The positive
(labeled) triangular area between the time-line and the linear acceleration
line, shown in the top Case 1 figure, equals the change in relative velocity
ERDC TR-09-2 41
and for the structure, consequently, the value for relative velocity at time
ti+1 (labeled relV1 in the Case 1 middle figure) is
1
relV 1 = relVmid + • rhsDT • (0 + relA1) (2.10)
2
The change in structural displacement from time [ti plus lhsDT] to time ti+1
is equal to the integral of the positive relative velocity of the middle relV-
figure. The permanent structural displacement increases in value from
relDmid to relD1, as depicted in the bottom figure.
2
(rhsDT )
relD1 = relDmid + rhsDT • relVmid + • (2 • 0 + relA1) (2.11)
6
2.2.3.2 Case 2
This case results when the positive value for relative velocity at time ti is
less than the magnitude of NegativeArea−Α+ (i.e., the negative area
between the negative portion of the linear acceleration line and the time-
line over the portion of the Figure 2.3 time increment labeled lhsDT). The
four right-hand side figures in Figure 2.3 are used to describe the Case 2
step-by-step solution scheme. From the top to bottom, one figure
describes the relative acceleration, two figures describe the relative
velocity, and one figure describes the permanent relative structural
displacement.
The top, right-hand side, Case 2 figure depicts the case of a (labeled) nega-
tive triangular area between the linear relative deceleration line and the
time-line, being of greater magnitude than the positive value for relative
velocity at time ti (designated relV0). Consequently, the structure will
come to rest before time ti+1 is achieved. At an increment in time DTzeroV
after time ti, a portion of the negative deceleration area reduces the value
of relative velocity from the positive value of magnitude relV0 at time ti to
a value of 0 at time [ti plus DTzeroV], as shown in this figure. At time [ti
plus DTzeroV] the relative acceleration is
⎛ relA0 ⎟⎞
relAmid = DTzeroD • ⎜⎜ (2.12)
⎜⎝ lhsDT ⎟⎟⎠
ERDC TR-09-2 42
where DTzeroD is the time increment shown in Figure 2.3. Τhe Figure 2.3
negative (relative) deceleration area below time increment DTzeroV is
1
AreaTrapezoid− A+ = • DTzeroV • (relA0 + relAmid ) (2.13)
2
Τhe Figure 2.3 negative relative deceleration area below time increment
DTzeroD is
1
AreaTriangle− A+ = • DTzeroD • (relAmid + 0) (2.14)
2
Thus, the total Figure 2.3 negative relative deceleration area below time
increment lhsDT is
⎛ lhsDT ⎞⎟
⎜⎝ relA0 ⎠⎟⎟ (
DTzeroD = 2 • ⎜⎜ • relV 0 + NegativeArea−α+ ) (2.20)
ERDC TR-09-2 43
and by introducing Equations 2.21 and 2.13 into Equation 2.20 and solving
for DTzeroV,
⎛ lhsDT ⎞⎟
⎜⎝ relA0 ⎠⎟⎟ (
DTzeroV = lhsDT − 2 • ⎜⎜ • relV 0 + NegativeArea− A+ ) (2.22)
The change in relative displacement from time ti to time [ti plus DTzeroV]
is equal to the labeled positive area between the quadratic relative velocity
curve and the time-line. At time [ti plus DTzeroV] the structural displace-
ment increases in magnitude from relD0 to relDmid. The relative velocity
at time [ti plus DTzeroV], expressed in terms of DTzeroV, is
1
relVmid = relV 0 + • DTzeroV • (relA0 + relAmid ) (2.23)
2
⎛ relA1 − relA0 ⎞⎟
relAmid = relA0 + ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ • DTzeroV (2.24)
⎜⎝ DT ⎠
The change in relative displacement from time ti to time [ti plus DTzeroV]
is equal to the labeled positive area between the quadratic relative velocity
curve and the time-line. At time [ti plus DTzeroV] the structural displace-
ment increases in magnitude from relD0 to relDmid.
The structure remains at rest with zero relative velocity and with no addi-
tional permanent relative displacement from time [ti plus DTzeroV] until
time [ti plus lhsDT] when the relative acceleration of the structure begins
(again). At time [ti plus lhsDT] the structure begins to develop further
permanent displacement as a result of the positive relative reacceleration
of the structure. The positive (labeled) triangular area between the
ERDC TR-09-2 44
time-line and the linear relative acceleration line, shown in the right-hand
side of the top figure, equals the change in relative velocity and with the
structure at rest , consequently, the value for relative velocity at time ti+1
(labeled relV1 in the lower relative velocity figure) is
1
relV 1 = • rhsDT • (0 + relA1) (2.26)
2
The change in structural displacement from time [ti plus lhsDT] to time ti+1
is equal to the integral of the positive relative velocity, as depicted in the
middle two, right-hand side relV-figures. The top relV figure is a computa-
tional figure, and the bottom relV figure is the relV curve-shift figure that
properly accounts for zero structural relative velocity over time increment
DTzeroD, with an insert detailed, curve-shift figure for relV shown of this
computational relV figure in Figure 2.3. The permanent relative structural
displacement increases in value from relDmid to relD1, as depicted in the
bottom figure.
2
(rhsDT )
relD1 = relDmid + rhsDT • 0 + • (2 • 0 + relA1) (2.27)
6
2.2.4 Negative relative accelerations relA0 and relA1 at times ti and ti+1
Next, consider a structure in motion (i.e., with a positive value for relative
velocity) at time ti but with the Figure 2.4 case of a negative values for
relative acceleration computed at time steps ti and ti+1. 1
The first step is to determine if the structure, which is in motion at time ti,
comes to rest during the time step DT.
The negative area between the negative portion of the linear acceleration
line and the time-line over the Figure 2.4 time increment DT is
1
NegativeArea− A− = • DT • (relA0 + relA1) (2.28)
2
1 Again, note the assumption of a linear variation in relative acceleration over the time step DT shown in
Figure 2.4.
ERDC TR-09-2 45
Figure 2.4. Two possible outcomes for the case of negative relative accelerations at times ti and ti+1.
There are two possible outcomes for the Figure 2.4 step-by-step numerical
solution for relative velocity and relative displacement at time ti+1, depend-
ing upon the magnitude of relV0 relative to the magnitude of Equa-
tion 2.28 NegativeArea−Α− . These possible scenarios are depicted by two
columns of figures in Figure 2.4, labeled as Case 1 and Case 2 figure
groups.
2.2.4.1 Case 1
This case results when the positive value for relative velocity at time ti is
greater than the magnitude of NegativeArea−Α− (i.e., the negative area
between the negative portion of the linear acceleration line and the time-
line over the Figure 2.4 time step DT). The three left-hand side figures in
Figure 2.4 are used to describe the Case 1 step-by-step solution scheme:
The top figure describes the relative acceleration, the middle figure
describes the relative velocity, and the lower figure describes the
permanent relative structural displacement.
ERDC TR-09-2 46
The top Case 1 figure depicts the case of a (labeled) negative area between
the linear relative deceleration line and the time-line (i.e.,
NegativeArea−Α− by Equation 2.28), being of less magnitude than the
positive value for relative velocity at time ti (designated relV0). Conse-
quently, the structure will remain in motion during the entire time step
DT. At the time step DT after time ti, the negative deceleration area
reduces the value of relative velocity from the positive value of magnitude
relV0 at time ti to a smaller magnitude value at time [ti plus DT], as shown
in this figure. The relative velocity at time [ti plus DT] is
1
relV 1 = relV 0 + • DT • (relA0 + relV 1) (2.29)
2
The change in relative displacement from time ti to time [ti plus DT] is
equal to the labeled positive area between the quadratic relative velocity
curve and the time-line. At time [ti plus DT] the structural displacement
increases in magnitude from relD0 to relD1.
2
( DT )
relD1 = relD0 + DT • relV 0 + • (2 • relA0 + relA1) (2.30)
6
2.2.4.2 Case 2
This case results when the positive value for relative velocity at time ti is
less than the magnitude of NegativeArea−Α− (i.e., the negative area
between the negative portion of the linear acceleration line and the time-
line over the portion of the Figure 2.4 time increment labeled lhsDT). The
four right-hand side figures in Figure 2.4 are used to describe the Case 2
step-by-step solution scheme. From the top to bottom, one figure
describes the relative acceleration, two figures describe the relative
velocity, and one figure describes the permanent relative structural
displacement.
The top, right-hand side, Case 2 figure depicts the case of a (labeled)
negative area between the linear relative deceleration line and the time-
line (i.e., NegativeArea−Α− by Equation 2.28), being of greater magnitude
than the positive value for relative velocity at time ti (designated relV0).
Consequently, the structure will come to rest before time ti+1 is achieved.
At an increment in time DTzeroV after time ti, a portion of the negative
deceleration area reduces the value of relative velocity from the positive
ERDC TR-09-2 47
⎛ relA1 − relA0 ⎞⎟
relAmid = relA0 + DTzeroV • ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (2.31)
⎜⎝ DT ⎠
where DTzeroV is the time increment shown in Figure 2.4. Τhe Figure 2.4
negative relative deceleration area below time increment DTzeroV is
1
AreaTrapezoid− A− = • DTzeroV • (relA0 + relAmid ) (2.32)
2
⎧⎪1 ⎫⎪
⎪⎪ • DTzeroV • relA0 ⎪⎪
⎪⎪ 2 ⎪⎪
⎪⎪ ⎪⎪
⎪ DTzeroV
⎪ ⎪⎪⎬ (2.33)
AreaTrapezoid− A− = ⎨+
⎪⎪ 2 ⎪⎪
⎪⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎡ ⎛ relA1 − relA0 ⎞⎟⎤ ⎪⎪
⎪⎪• ⎢relA0 + DTzeroV • ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟⎥ ⎪⎪
⎢ ⎜⎝ ⎠⎥⎦ ⎪⎭⎪
⎪⎩⎪ ⎣ DT
This simplifies to
The change in rotation from time ti to time [ti plus DTzeroV] is equal to
the labeled positive area between the quadratic relative velocity curve and
the time-line. At time [ti plus DTzeroV] the structural displacement
increases in magnitude from relD0 to relDmid. The relative velocity at
time [ti plus DTzeroV] is
⎡ 1 ⎛ relA1 − relA0 ⎞⎤
0 = ⎢ • ⎜⎜ ⎟⎥ • ( DTzeroV )2 + relA0 • DTzeroV + relV 0
⎟ (2.36)
⎢⎣ 2 ⎝⎜ DT ⎟⎠⎥
⎦
⎡ 1 ⎛ relA1 − relA0 ⎞⎤
−relA0 ±
2
(relA0) − 4 • ⎢⎢ • ⎜⎜⎜ ⎟⎟⎥ • relV 0
⎣2 ⎝ DT ⎠⎟⎥⎦
DTzeroV = (2.37)
⎡ 1 ⎛ relA1 − relA0 ⎞⎤
2 • ⎢ • ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟⎥
⎢⎣ 2 ⎜⎝ DT ⎠⎟⎦⎥
Even though this solution provides for two possible values for DTzeroV,
only the positive value is assigned to DTzeroV in program Newmark.
The change in displacement from time ti to time [ti plus DTzeroV] is equal
to the labeled positive area between the quadratic relative velocity curve
and the time-line. At time [ti plus DTzeroV] the relative structural dis-
placement increases in magnitude from relD0 to relDTmid.
The structure remains at rest with zero relative velocity and with no addi-
tional permanent displacement from time [ti plus DTzeroV] until time [ti
plus DT]. Consequently, at time ti+1 the permanent relative structural dis-
placement is constant, as depicted in the bottom figure.
Next, consider a structure in motion (i.e., with a positive value for relative
velocity) at time ti, but with the Figure 2.5 case of a positive value for rela-
tive acceleration at time step ti and negative value for relative acceleration
ERDC TR-09-2 49
at the next time step of ti+1. 1 The first step is to determine the time instant
[ti plus lhsDT] at which the relative acceleration is equal to zero, as labeled
in the figure. By linear interpolation, this time increment lhsDT is
⎛ DT ⎟⎟⎞
lhsDT = relA0 • ⎜⎜ (bis 2.6)
⎜⎝ relA1 − relA0 ⎟⎠
The positive area between the positive portion of the linear acceleration
line and the time-line over the Figure 2.5 time increment lhsDT is
1
PositiveArea+ A− = • lhsDT • (relA0 + 0) (2.39)
2
Figure 2.5. Two possible outcomes for the case of a positive relative acceleration at time ti and a negative
relative acceleration at time ti+1.
1 Again, observe the assumption of a linear variation in relative acceleration over the time step DT shown
in Figure 2.5.
ERDC TR-09-2 50
The negative area between the negative portion of the linear acceleration
line and the time-line over the Figure 2.5 time increment rhsDT is
1
NegativeArea+ A− = • rhsDT • (0 + relA1) (2.41)
2
There are two possible outcomes for the Figure 2.5 step-by-step numerical
solution for relative velocity and relative displacement at time ti+1, depend-
ing upon the magnitude of relV0 relative to the magnitude of the sum of
the PositiveArea+Α− plus the NegativeArea+Α−. These possible scenarios are
depicted by two columns of figures in Figure 2.5, labeled as Case 1 and
Case 2 figure groups.
2.2.5.1 Case 1
The top Case 1 figure depicts the case of a structure sliding during the
entire time step DT because either the NegativeArea+Α− exceeds
PositiveArea+Α− but the positive value for relative velocity at time ti is
greater than the magnitude of the sum of PositiveArea+Α− plus
NegativeArea+Α−, or because the NegativeArea+Α− is less than
PositiveArea+Α−. At the increment in time lhsDT after time ti, the positive
acceleration area increases the value of relative velocity from the positive
value of magnitude relV0 at time ti to a larger magnitude value at time [ti
plus lhsDT], as shown in this figure. The relative velocity at time [ti plus
lhsDT] is
1
relVmid = relV 0 + • lhsDT • (relA0 + 0) (bis 2.8)
2
ERDC TR-09-2 51
The change in displacement from time ti to time [ti plus lhsDT] is equal to
the labeled positive area between the quadratic relative velocity curve and
the time-line. At time [ti plus lhsDT] the structural displacement increases
in magnitude from relD0 to relDmid.
2
(lhsDT )
relDmid = relD0 + lhsDT • relV 0 + • (2 • relA0 + 0) (bis 2.9)
6
The structure continues in motion, with positive relative velocity and with
additional permanent relative displacement after time [ti plus lhsDT],
when the relative acceleration of the structure is positive. At time [ti plus
lhsDT], the magnitude of the structure’s relative velocity begins to
decrease in magnitude as a result of the relative deceleration of the struc-
ture. The negative (labeled) triangular area between the time-line and the
linear relative deceleration line, shown in the top Case 1 figure, equals the
change in relative velocity and for the structure. Consequently, the value
for relative velocity at time ti+1 (labeled relV1 in the Case 1 middle figure) is
1
relV 1 = relVmid + • rhsDT • (0 + relA1) (bis 2.10)
2
The change in structural displacement from time [ti plus lhsDT] to time ti+1
is equal to the integral of the positive relative velocity of the middle relV-
figure. The permanent relative structural displacement increases in value
from relDmid to relD1, as depicted in the bottom figure.
2
(rhsDT )
relD1 = relDmid + rhsDT • relVmid + • (2 • 0 + relA1) (bis 2.11)
6
2.2.5.2 Case 2
The top, right-hand side, Case 2 figure depicts the case of the sum of a
(labeled) positive triangular area between the linear relative deceleration
line and the time-line (i.e., PositiveArea+Α− by Equation 2.39) plus a
(labeled) negative triangular area between the linear relative deceleration
line and the time-line (i.e., NegativeArea+Α− by Equation 2.41), being
negative and of greater magnitude than the positive value for relative
velocity at time ti (designated relV0). Consequently, the structure will
come to rest before time ti+1 is achieved.
1
relVmid = relV 0 + • lhsDT • (relA0 + 0) (bis 2.8)
2
with the relative acceleration at time [ti plus lhsDT] equal to zero.
The change in displacement from time ti to time [ti plus lhsDT] is equal to
the labeled positive area between the quadratic relative velocity curve and
the time-line. At time [ti plus lhsDT], the structural displacement increases
in magnitude from relD0 to relDmid.
2
(lhsDT )
relDmid = relD0 + lhsDT • relV 0 + • (2 • relA0 + 0) (2.42)
6
⎛ relA1 ⎞⎟
relAend = DTmid • ⎜⎜ (2.43)
⎜⎝ rhsDT ⎟⎟⎠
where DTmid is the time increment shown in Figure 2.5. Τhe Figure 2.5
negative relative acceleration area below time increment DTmid is
1
AreaTriangle+ A− = • DTmid • (0 + relAend ) (2.44)
2
ERDC TR-09-2 53
Τhe Figure 2.5 negative relative acceleration area below time increment
DTzeroV is
1
AreaTrapezoid+ A− = • DTzeroV • (relAend + relA1) (2.45)
2
Thus, the total Figure 2.5 negative relative acceleration area below time
increment rhsDT is
With the relative velocity at time [ti plus (lhsDT+DTmid)] equal to zero,
By introducing Equations 2.8, 2.39, 2.43, and 2.44, and solving for DTmid,
Equation 2.47 becomes
⎛ rhsDT ⎞⎟
⎜⎝ relA1 ⎟⎟⎠ (
DTmid = −2 • ⎜⎜ • relV 0 + PositiveArea+ A− ) (2.48)
The structure remains at rest with zero relative velocity and with no
additional permanent relative displacement from time [ti plus
(lhsDT+DTmid)] until time ti+1. The permanent relative structural
displacement at this time ti+1 is
Note that structural translation can begin again at a later point in time, as
described in the subsection 2.2.6 paragraph entitled “Starting the program
Newmark analysis and the initiation of structural translation during a DT
time step.”
ERDC TR-09-2 56
3 Regression Analysis
3.1 Introduction
This chapter describes three formulations for developing simplified non-
dimensionalized permanent displacement relationships. These relation-
ships as illustrated in Table 3.1 are described in detail at each following
section, respectively. The derivations of these mean estimates, together
with their standard error terms, also determine the 68 percent prediction
intervals and 95 percent probability of non-exceedance upper bound
estimates.
−0.38
vm 2 ⎛ kc ⎞⎟ ⎜⎛ kc ⎞⎟
dm = 35 • ⎜
• exp ⎜⎜−6.91 • ⎟⎟ • ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (3.1)
km g ⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟ ⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟
Newmark (1965) introduced the peak ground acceleration and the peak
ground velocity as characteristic soil parameters. Collecting these
parameters, along with the permanent seismic displacement, the left-hand
side becomes what is termed a non-dimensionalized displacement, which
for the Cai and Bathurst relationship becomes,
−0.38
dm • km g ⎛ kc ⎟⎞ ⎜⎛ kc ⎟⎞
⎜
= 35 • exp ⎜⎜−6.91 • ⎟⎟ • ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (3.2)
vm 2 ⎝⎜ km ⎠⎟ ⎜⎝ km ⎟⎠
with
dm • km g
y= ; non-dimensionalized displacement, and
vm 2
kc
x= ; critical acceleration ratio
km
where:
dm = permanent displacement
k mg = maximum horizontal ground acceleration
vm = maximum ground velocity
kc = maximum transmissible acceleration capacity
ERDC TR-09-2 58
for which β1, β2, and β3 are constants and the equation is nonlinear in β2.
The form of Equation 3.3 is now [x, y] as compared to the original form
⎡ k d •k g⎤
⎢ c , m m ⎥ of Equation 3.2.
⎢k vm 2 ⎦⎥⎥
⎣⎢ m
Taking the natural log (ln) of both sides, Equation 3.3 becomes
ln ( y) = ln (β1 ) + β2 • x + β3 • ln ( x ) (3.4)
which simplifies to
ln ( y) = β1* + β2 • x + β3 • ln ( x ) (3.5)
From Equation 3.6, the set of basis functions (1, x, ln(x)) have a nonlinear
term, ln(x); however, the parameters (β1* , β2 , and β3 ) are constant and not
part of any nonlinear term.
Regression models which are a linear function of the parameters are called
linear regression models. Therefore, a linear regression analysis can be
applied to solve for these constant parameters.
The least squares fitting method is one of the simplest and most common
applied forms of linear regression. This method will be used to estimate
the parameters which will minimize the sum of squares of the y-distance
from the specified, or produce the least possible value of S,
N N 2
S = ∑ ei = ∑ ⎡⎢ yi * − (β1 * + β2 xi + β3 xi * )⎤⎥
2
(3.7)
i =1 i =1
⎣ ⎦
ERDC TR-09-2 59
with
N
∂S
= ∑ 2 ⎡⎢ yi * −(β1 * + β2 xi + β3 xi * )⎤⎥ (−1) = 0
∂β1 i=1 ⎣ ⎦
N
∂S
= ∑ 2 ⎡⎢ yi * −(β1 * + β2 xi + β3 xi * )⎤⎥ (−xi ) = 0 (3.8)
∂β2 i=1 ⎣ ⎦
N
∂S
= ∑ 2 ⎡⎢ yi * −(β1 * + β2 xi + β3 xi * )⎤⎥ (−xi * ) = 0
∂β3 i=1 ⎣ ⎦
N N N
β1* ( N ) + β2 ∑ xi + β3 ∑ xi *
= ∑ yi *
i=1 i=1 i =1
N N N N
2
β1* ∑ xi + β2 ∑ ( xi ) + β3 ∑ xi xi * = ∑ xi yi * (3.9)
i =1 i =1 i =1 i =1
N N N 2 N
β1* ∑ x i + β2 ∑ x i x i + β 3 ∑ ( x i
* * *
) = ∑ xi * yi *
i =1 i =1 i=1 i=1
The linear system of Equation 3.9 can be reduced to the equivalent system
expressed in matrix form, M • β = Y, with matrix M, vector Y, and solving
for vector β,
ERDC TR-09-2 60
⎡ N N ⎤ ⎡ N * ⎤
⎢ N
⎢ ∑ xi ∑ xi ⎥
* ⎥ ⎢ ∑ yi ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ i =1 i =1 ⎥ ⎡β* ⎤ ⎢ i=1 ⎥
⎢ N N N ⎥ ⎢ 1⎥ ⎢ N ⎥
⎢ 2 * ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ * ⎥
⎢ ∑ xi ∑( xi ) ∑ xi xi ⎥⎥ • ⎢β2 ⎥ = ⎢⎢ ∑ xi yi ⎥⎥ (3.10)
⎢ i=1 i =1 i =1 ⎢ ⎥ i =1
⎢N ⎥ ⎢⎣β3 ⎥⎦ ⎢ N ⎥
⎢ N N
* ⎥
2 ⎢ * *⎥
⎢ ∑ xi *
⎢⎣ i=1 ∑ xi xi * ∑( xi ) ⎥⎥ β ⎢⎢∑ xi yi ⎥⎥
i =1 i=1 ⎦ ⎣ i=1 ⎦
M Y
D1 D2 D3
β1* = β2 = β3 = (3.11)
D D D
where D is the determinant of the matrix M and D1, D2, D3 are each
obtained by replacing the first, second and third columns of D, respec-
tively, with the elements of the column Y. The determinants D, D1, D2, and
D3 of the system can now be simply expressed as follows,
⎛N N N N ⎞
D = N • ⎜⎜⎜∑ ( xi ) • ∑ ( xi * ) − ∑ xi xi * • ∑ xi xi * ⎟⎟⎟
2 2
N ⎛N N N N ⎞
− ∑ xi •⎜⎜⎜∑ xi • ∑ ( xi * ) − ∑ xi xi * • ∑ xi * ⎟⎟⎟
2
(3.12)
i =1
⎜⎝ i=1 i =1 i =1 i =1
⎟⎠
N ⎛N N N N ⎞
+ ∑ xi • ⎜⎜∑ xi • ∑ xi xi − ∑ ( xi ) • ∑ xi * ⎟⎟⎟
⎜
* * 2
i=1
⎜⎝ i =1 i=1
⎟⎠
i =1 i =1
ERDC TR-09-2 61
N ⎛N N N N ⎞
D1 = ∑ yi • ⎜⎜∑ ( xi ) • ∑ ( xi ) − ∑ xi xi • ∑ xi xi * ⎟⎟⎟
2
⎜
* 2 * *
i =1
⎜⎝ i =1 i =1 i =1
⎟⎠
i =1
N ⎛N N N N ⎞
− ∑ xi yi * • ⎜⎜⎜∑ xi • ∑ ( xi * ) − ∑ xi xi * • ∑ xi * ⎟⎟⎟
2
(3.13)
i=1
⎜⎝ i=1 i =1 i =1 i =1
⎟⎠
N ⎛N N N N ⎞
+ ∑ xi yi • ⎜⎜∑ xi • ∑ xi xi − ∑ ( xi ) • ∑ xi * ⎟⎟⎟
⎜* * * 2
i =1
⎜⎝ i =1 i =1 i =1 ⎠⎟ i =1
N ⎛N N N N ⎞
D2 = − ∑ yi * • ⎜⎜⎜∑ xi • ∑ ( xi * ) − ∑ xi * • ∑ xi xi * ⎟⎟⎟
2
i =1
⎜⎝ i=1 i=1 i =1 i =1 ⎠⎟
N ⎛ N N N ⎞
+ ∑ xi yi * • ⎜⎜⎜ N • ∑ ( xi * ) − ∑ xi * • ∑ xi * ⎟⎟⎟
2
(3.14)
i =1
⎜⎝ i =1 i =1 i =1 ⎠⎟
N ⎛ N N N ⎞
− ∑ xi * yi * • ⎜⎜⎜ N • ∑ xi xi * − ∑ xi • ∑ xi * ⎟⎟⎟
i =1
⎜⎝ i =1 i =1 i =1 ⎠⎟
N ⎛N N N N
2⎞
D3 = ∑ yi * • ⎜⎜⎜∑ xi • ∑ xi xi * − ∑ xi * • ∑ ( xi ) ⎟⎟⎟
i =1
⎜⎝ i=1 i =1 i =1 i =1
⎟⎠
N ⎛ N N N ⎞
− ∑ xi yi * • ⎜⎜⎜ N • ∑ xi xi * − ∑ xi * • ∑ xi ⎟⎟⎟ (3.15)
i=1
⎜⎝ i =1 i =1 i=1 ⎠⎟
N ⎛ N N N ⎞
+ ∑ xi * yi * • ⎜⎜⎜ N • ∑ ( xi ) − ∑ xi • ∑ xi ⎟⎟⎟
2
i =1
⎜⎝ i =1 i =1 i =1
⎟⎠
From Cramer’s rule (Equation 3.11), the coefficients, β1* , β2 , and β3 can
now determined. These parameters were originally estimated with the
assumption that the sums of many independent and identically-
distributed random variables possess a finite variance. With this in mind,
ERDC TR-09-2 62
the residual error term or the variance, Equation 3.7, can be applied to
determine the error in the estimates, the standard error (Std. error),
defined as square root of the ratio of the square of the difference and the
difference between N data points and the number of parameters (3),
N 2
Typically, the smaller the Std. error, the more accurate the parameter
estimation. As can be noted, the Std. error term will tend to get smaller
with the increase in the number of data points. A 95 percent probability of
non-exceedance will be used as an upper bound estimate. For a normally
distributed variable, this value can be calculated by taking the product of
the Std. error and 1.65, specifically from Equation 3.6 we can show that,
Recalling that β1* = ln(β1 ) and y* = ln( y) ; taking the exponential of both
sides of Equation 3.6 and the residual error term, reintroduces a form of
Equation 3.3, namely,
⎡ k d •k g ⎤
Finally, restoring to the original form of ⎢⎢ c , m 2m ⎥⎥ gives us the non-
⎢⎣ km vm ⎥⎦
dimensionalized displacement equation for a 95 percent probability of
non-exceedance,
β3
dm • km g ⎛ kc ⎞⎟ ⎛⎜ kc ⎞⎟
⎜
= β1 • exp ⎜⎜β2 • ⎟⎟ • ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ • exp (1.65 • Std. error ) 3.19)
vm 2 ⎝⎜ km ⎟⎠ ⎝⎜ km ⎟⎠
β3
dm • km g ⎛ kc ⎞⎟ ⎛⎜ kc ⎞⎟
⎜
= β1 • exp ⎜⎜β2 • ⎟⎟ • ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (3.20)
vm 2 ⎜⎝ km ⎟⎠ ⎝⎜ km ⎠⎟
The estimate and its Std. error can also be used to construct prediction
intervals about the mean estimate. These prediction intervals reflect
ranges that limit the average of the estimated value with a known proba-
bility for a known distribution (a normal distribution for the transformed
coordinate system in this case). For a selected N data set that is normally
distributed, there is approximately a 68 percent probability that the
average result will fall between one Std. error above the mean estimate
and one Std. error below the mean estimate. The 68 percent prediction
interval can be determined by modifying Equation 3.6 and adding/
subtracting the Std. error as follows,
or specifically,
and
Recalling that β1* = ln(β1 ) and y* = ln( y) ; taking the exponential of both
sides of Equations 3.21a and 3.21b reintroduces a form of Equation 3.3,
namely,
and
⎡ k d •k g⎤
Finally, restoring to the original form of ⎢⎢ c , m 2m ⎥⎥ gives us the non-
⎣⎢ km vm ⎦⎥
dimensionalized displacement equations
β3
dm • km g ⎛ kc ⎟⎞ ⎛⎜ kc ⎟⎞
⎜
= β1 • exp ⎜⎜β2 • ⎟ • ⎜ ⎟ • exp ( Std. error ) (3.23a)
vm 2 ⎜⎝ km ⎟⎟⎠ ⎝⎜⎜ km ⎟⎟⎠
β3
dm • km g ⎛ kc ⎟⎞ ⎛⎜ kc ⎟⎞
⎜
= β1 • exp ⎜⎜β2 • ⎟⎟ • ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ • exp (−Std. error ) (3.23b)
vm 2 ⎝⎜ km ⎟⎠ ⎝⎜ km ⎟⎠
such that, there is a 68 percent probability that the mean of the estimate
will fall between the 68 percent prediction intervals of Equations 3.23a
and 3.23b.
vm 2 ⎛ k ⎞
dm = 37 • • exp ⎜⎜⎜−9.4 • c ⎟⎟⎟ (3.24)
km g ⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟
Recall that Newmark (1965) introduced the peak ground acceleration and
the peak ground velocity as characteristic soil parameters. Collecting these
parameters, along with the permanent seismic displacement, the left-hand
side becomes what is termed a non-dimensionalized displacement, which
for the Wong relationship becomes,
dm • km g ⎛ ⎞
= 37 • exp ⎜⎜−9.4 • kc ⎟⎟ (3.25)
vm 2 ⎜⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟⎟
with
dm • km g
y= ; non-dimensionalized displacement, and
vm 2
kc
x= ; critical acceleration ratio
km
where:
dm = permanent displacement,
k mg = maximum horizontal ground acceleration
vm = maximum ground velocity
kc = maximum transmissible acceleration capacity
for which β1 and β2 are constants and the equation is nonlinear in β2.
The form of Equation 3.26 is now [x, y] as compared to the original form
⎡ k d • k g⎤
⎢ c , m m ⎥ of Equation 3.25.
⎢k
⎣⎢ m vm 2 ⎦⎥⎥
Taking the natural log (ln) of both sides, Equation 3.26 becomes
ln ( y) = ln (β1 ) + β2 • x (3.27)
which simplifies to
ln ( y) = β1* + β2 • x (3.28)
y* = β1* + β2 • x (3.29)
ERDC TR-09-2 66
From Equation 3.29, the set of basis functions (1, x) are linear and the
parameters (β1* and β2 ) are constant. A linear regression analysis can be
applied to solve for these constant parameters.
The least squares fitting method will be used to estimate the parameters
(β1* and β2 ) which will minimize the sum of squares of the distance from
the specified curve, or produce the least possible value of S,
N N 2
S = ∑ ei = ∑ ⎡⎢ yi * − (β1 * + β2 xi )⎤⎥
2
(3.30)
i =1 i =1
⎣ ⎦
with
N
∂S
= ∑ 2 ⎡⎢ yi * − (β1 * + β2 xi )⎤⎥(−1) = 0
∂β1 i=1 ⎣ ⎦
(3.31)
N
∂S
= ∑ 2 ⎡⎢ yi * −(β1 * + β2 xi )⎤⎥(−xi ) = 0
∂β2 i=1 ⎣ ⎦
N N
β1* ( N ) + β2 ∑ xi = ∑ yi *
i =1 i=1
(3.32)
N N N
β1* ∑ xi + β2 ∑ xi 2 = ∑ xi yi *
i =1 i =1 i=1
The solution for β1* and β2 to the linear system of Equation 3.32 can be
numerically computed by applying the formula,
ERDC TR-09-2 67
⎛N N ⎞
*⎟
⎜⎜ x •
N ⎜⎜⎝ ∑ i ∑ yi
⎟⎟
⎠⎟
∑( xi • yi * )− i=1
N
i=1
i =1
β2 =
⎛ N ⎞⎟2
⎜⎜ x ⎟
N ⎜⎜⎝∑ i ⎠⎟⎟
∑ xi 2 − i =1
N
i=1
or (3.33)
N
∑ ⎢⎣( xi − x ) • (yi * − y* )⎥⎦
⎡ ⎤
i =1
N 2
∑ ( xi − x )
i=1
β1* = y* − β2 x (3.34)
with
N
∑ y*
y* = i =1
; the mean of y*
N
N
∑ xi
i =1
x= ; the mean of x.
N
The parameters β1* and β2 were originally estimated with the assumption
that the sums of many independent and identically-distributed random
variables possess a finite variance. With this in mind, the residual error
term or the variance, Equation 3.30 can be applied to determine the error
in the estimates, the standard error (Std. error), defined as the square root
of the ratio of the square of the difference and the difference between N
data points and the number of parameters (2),
N 2
Typically, the smaller the Std. error, the more accurate the parameter esti-
mation. As can be noted, the Std. error term will tend to get smaller with
the increase in the number of data points. A 95 percent probability of non-
exceedance will be used as an upper bound estimate. For a normally
distributed variable, this value can be calculated by taking the product of
the Std. error and 1.65, specifically from Equation 3.29 we can show that,
Recalling that β1* = ln (β1 ) and y* = ln( y) ; taking the exponential of both
sides of Equation 3.29 and the residual error term, reintroduces a form of
Equation 3.26, namely,
⎡ k d •k g⎤
Finally, restoring to the original form of ⎢⎢ c , m 2m ⎥⎥ gives us the non-
⎢⎣ km vm ⎥⎦
dimensionalized displacement equation for a 95 percent probability of
non-exceedance,
dm • km g ⎛ ⎞
= β • exp ⎜⎜β • kc ⎟⎟ • exp (1.65 • Std. error ) (3.38)
vm 2
1 ⎜⎜⎝ 2 k ⎟⎟⎠
m
dm • km g ⎛ k ⎞
= β1 • exp ⎜⎜⎜β2 • c ⎟⎟⎟ (3.39)
vm 2 ⎜⎝ km ⎟⎠
The estimate and its Std. error can also be used to construct prediction
intervals about the mean estimate. These prediction intervals reflect
ranges that limit the average of the estimated value with a known proba-
bility for a known distribution (a normal distribution for the transformed
coordinate system in this case). For a selected N data set that is normally
distributed, there is approximately a 68 percent probability that the
average result will fall between one Std. error above the mean estimate
ERDC TR-09-2 69
and one Std. error below the mean estimate. The 68 percent prediction
interval can be determined by modifying Equation 3.39 and adding/
subtracting the Std. error as follows,
or specifically,
and
Recalling that β1* = ln(β1 ) and y* = ln( y) ; taking the exponential of both
sides of Equations 3.40a and 3.40b reintroduces a form of Equation 3.26,
namely,
and
⎡ k d •k g⎤
Finally, restoring to the original form of ⎢⎢ c , m 2m ⎥⎥ gives us the non-
⎣⎢ km vm ⎦⎥
dimensionalized displacement equations
dm • km g ⎛ ⎞
= β • exp ⎜⎜β • kc ⎟⎟ • exp ( Std. error ) (3.42a)
1 ⎜⎜⎝ 2 ⎟
km ⎟⎠
vm 2
dm • km g ⎛ ⎞
= β • exp ⎜ ⎜β • kc ⎟⎟ • exp (−Std. error ) (3.42b)
vm 2
1 ⎜⎜⎝ 2 k ⎟⎟⎠
m
ERDC TR-09-2 70
such that, there is a 68 percent probability that the mean of the estimate
will fall between the 68 percent prediction intervals of Equations 3.42a
and 3.42b.
−4
vm2 2 ⎛⎜ kc ⎞⎟
dm = 0.087 • •⎜ ⎟ (3.43)
km g ⎜⎝⎜ km ⎠⎟⎟
Recall that Newmark (1965) introduced the peak ground acceleration and
the peak ground velocity as characteristic soil parameters. Collecting these
parameters, along with the permanent seismic displacement, the left-hand
side becomes what is termed a non-dimensionalized displacement, which
for the Richards and Elms relationship becomes,
dm • km g ⎛ k ⎟⎞−4
⎜
= 0.087 • ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ (3.44)
vm 2 ⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟
y = β 4 • x β5 (3.45)
with
dm • km g
y= ; non-dimensionalized displacement, and
vm 2
kc
x= ; critical acceleration ratio
km
where:
dm = permanent displacement,
kmg = maximum horizontal ground acceleration
ERDC TR-09-2 71
The form of Equation 3.45 is now [x, y] as compared to the original form
⎡ k d •k g⎤
⎢ c , m m ⎥ of Equation 3.2.
⎢k vm 2 ⎦⎥⎥
⎣⎢ m
Taking the common log (log10 or log) of both sides, Equation 3.45 becomes
which simplifies to
log ( y) = β**
4 + β5 • log ( x ) (3.47)
(β**4 )
with β**
4 equal to log (β 4 ) , or β 4 = 10 .
y** = β**
4 + β5 • log( x ) (3.48)
From Equation 3.48, the set of basis functions (1, log(x)) have a nonlinear
term, log(x); however, the parameters β**
4 and β5 are constant and not part
The least squares fitting method will be used to estimate the parameters
β**
4 and β5 which will minimize the sum of squares of the distance from the
N N 2
S = ∑ ei = ∑ ⎡⎢ yi ** − (β4 ** + β5 • xi ** )⎤⎥
2
(3.49)
i =1 i =1
⎣ ⎦
ERDC TR-09-2 72
with
zero.
N
∂S
= ∑ 2 ⎢⎡ yi ** − (β4 ** + β5 • xi ** )⎥⎤(−1) = 0
∂β4 **
i =1
⎣ ⎦
(3.50)
N
∂S
= ∑ 2 ⎡⎢ yi ** − (β4 ** + β5 • xi ** )⎤⎥(−xi ** ) = 0
∂β5 i=1 ⎣ ⎦
unknowns,
N N
β**
4 ( N ) + β5 ∑ xi **
= ∑ yi **
i =1 i =1
(3.51)
N N 2 N
4 ∑ x i + β5 ∑ ( x i ) = ∑ x i • yi
β** ** ** ** **
i =1 i =1 i =1
⎛ N ** N ** ⎟⎞
⎜⎜ x •
N ⎜⎜⎝∑ i ∑ yi ⎟⎟⎟⎠
∑( xi ** • yi ** )− i =1
N
i =1
i =1
β5 =
⎛ N ** ⎟⎞2
⎜⎜ x ⎟
N 2 ⎜⎜⎝∑ i ⎟⎟⎠
∑( xi ** ) − i =1
N
i =1
or (3.52)
N
∑ ⎢⎣( xi ** − x ** ) • (yi ** − y** )⎥⎦
⎡ ⎤
i =1
= N
∑( xi ** − x ** )
2
i =1
β** **
4 = y − β5 x
**
(3.53)
with
N
∑ y**
y** = i=1
; the mean of y**
N
N
∑ xi **
x ** = i =1
; the mean of x**
N
N 2
Typically, the smaller the Std. error, the more accurate the parameter
estimation. As can be noted, the Std. error term will tend to get smaller
with the increase in the number of data points. A 95 percent probability of
non-exceedance will be used as an upper bound estimate. For a normally
distributed variable, this value can be calculated by taking the product of
the Std. error and 1.65, specifically from Equation 3.48 we can show that,
y** = β**
4 + β 5 • log( x ) + 1.65 • Std. error (3.55)
y = β4 • x β5 • 10(
1.65• Std . error )
(3.56)
(β** )
with β4 = 10 4 .
⎡ k d •k g⎤
Finally, restoring to the original form of ⎢⎢ c , m 2m ⎥⎥ gives us the non-
⎣⎢ km vm ⎦⎥
dimensionalized displacement equation for a 95 percent probability of
non-exceedance,
dm • km g ⎛ k ⎞⎟β5
= β4 • ⎜⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ • 10(
1.65• Std . error )
(3.57)
vm 2 ⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟
dm • km g ⎛ k ⎞⎟β5
= β4 • ⎜⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ (3.58)
vm 2 ⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟
The estimate and its Std. error can also be used to construct prediction
intervals about the mean estimate. These prediction intervals reflect
ranges that limit the average of the estimated value with a known proba-
bility for a known distribution (a normal distribution for the transformed
coordinate system in this case). For a selected N data set that is normally
distributed, there is approximately a 68 percent probability that the
ERDC TR-09-2 75
average result will fall between one Std. error above the mean estimate
and one Std. error below the mean estimate. The 68 percent prediction
interval can be determined by modifying Equation 3.48 and adding/
subtracting the Std. error as follows,
y** = β**
4 + β5 • log( x ) ± Std . error (3.59)
or specifically,
y** = β**
4 + β5 • log( x ) + Std . error (3.59a)
and
y** = β**
4 + β5 • log( x ) − Std . error (3.59b)
and
(β** )
with β4 = 10 4 .
⎡ k d •k g⎤
Finally, restoring to the original form of ⎢⎢ c , m 2m ⎥⎥ gives us the non-
⎢⎣ km vm ⎥⎦
dimensionalized displacement equations
dm • km g ⎛ k ⎞⎟β5
= β4 • ⎜⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ • 10 Std . error (3.61a)
vm 2 ⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟
dm • km g ⎛ k ⎞⎟β5
= β4 • ⎜⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ • 10−Std . error (3.61b)
vm 2 ⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟
ERDC TR-09-2 76
such that, there is a 68 percent probability that the mean of the estimate
will fall between the 68 percent prediction intervals of Equations 3.61a and
3.61b.
ERDC TR-09-2 77
A rock site acceleration time-history database developed for use with the
permanent displacement regression analysis involved selecting, documen-
ting, processing, and archiving engineering significant data from rock or
stiff soil sites. One goal was to collect sufficient data to capture the inher-
ent variability of earthquake ground response. Practically, this goal is not
fully realizable due to the limited data set compared to an ideal complete
set of data which would represent all combinations of tectonic settings,
earthquake sizes, source to site distances, and site conditions. For exam-
ple, large magnitude earthquake data at near distances, while increasing as
strong ground motion monitoring is improving, is still limited resulting
from the rareness of large earthquakes coupled with near field recording
sites. This limited data aspect is the rationale for including stiff soil site
records to build a sufficiently large rock site data set to support robust
analyses applicable to a reasonable range of engineering significant situ-
ations with insight into its variability. Conversely, since the effort to build
a large data set from a limited basis may tend to create bias, in order to
counteract this data from different earthquakes, in different regions at a
spread of ranges were selected.
To manage the data collection and follow-on analysis, three data sets were
developed applicable for nominally small (Magnitude 5), medium (Magni-
tude 6), and large (Magnitude 7) earthquake sizes. The overall size range
for the three sets was set at Mw = 4.9 at the low end and open ended for
large size earthquakes. These three datasets are completely described
within Tables 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3, respectively. The largest earthquake mag-
nitude is Mw = 8.1 for these data. Table 4.4 describes the classifications of
the three data sets. This cutoff on the low end was necessary based on the
number of available records from the more frequent small magnitude
events and the engineering significance of strong ground motions.
ERDC TR-09-2 78
Important to the documentation and use of these data are the definitions
for the parameters of earthquake magnitude and site conditions. Inter-
estingly, earthquake magnitude is not a simple data parameter because of
the historical development of various earthquake magnitude scales and
now backwards application of new magnitude scales to historical events.
Earthquake magnitude scale to assess the size of an earthquake was ini-
tially based on resulting levels of damage before seismic instrumentation
was developed to measure ground motions. The initial use of the damage-
based Mercali Intensity scale had evolved to determinations based on
measured response of earthquake accelerographs and most recently to
current use of a magnitude scale based on a mechanical concept based
energy released, estimated on the area of the ruptured crust and the
strength of crust. This current preferred scale in engineering seismology is
the moment magnitude scale (Mw) and necessarily involves backwards
assignment to historical data collected prior to its accepted and now rou-
tine use. Table 4.5 is provided to illustrate this backward application and
how the assigned earthquake magnitudes have changed for a few histori-
cally significant earthquakes.
1 1 101_lpg1_090a.dat 7.0 33 0.442 -0.418 27.0 -33.8 8.50 -2.90 24.1 31.8 5.04 1.04 151 9.7 Rock(a) WUS H1 90 XX-RO-17 Loma Prieta 10/18/1989 Gilroy Array #1
2 102_lpg1_000a.dat 7.0 33 0.435 -0.375 32.5 -11.2 4.28 -9.49 29.4 11.8 1.73 27.71 95 13.2 Rock(a) WUS H2 0 XX-RO-17 Loma Prieta 10/18/1989 Gilroy Array #1
3 103_lpg1_0upa.dat 7.0 33 0.178 -0.210 8.3 -15.3 8.29 -3.79 18.4 28.6 20.99 3.36 26 4.3 Rock(a) WUS V UP XX-RO-17 Loma Prieta 10/18/1989 Gilroy Array #1
2 4 104_hmjt_360a.dat 7.1 52 0.168 -0.190 14.0 -23.2 5.40 -5.00 32.8 48.1 4.54 1.73 56 13.1 Rock(w/s) WUS H1 360 MF-SS-05 Hector Mine 10/16/1999 Joshua Tree Fire Sta
5 105_hmjt_090a.dat 7.1 52 0.102 -0.146 17.6 -17.1 7.00 -5.00 68.1 46.1 2.25 2.46 31 12.5 Rock(w/s) WUS H2 90 MF-SS-05 Hector Mine 10/16/1999 Joshua Tree Fire Sta
6 106_hmjt_0upa.dat 7.1 52 0.102 -0.121 9.0 -8.0 4.12 -4.16 34.7 25.9 5.10 7.77 27 14.0 Rock(w/s) WUS V UP MF-SS-05 Hector Mine 10/16/1999 Joshua Tree Fire Sta
3 7 107_lpld_000a.dat 7.1 26 0.388 -0.442 38.0 -84.3 12.03 -16.01 38.6 75.1 3.17 0.98 168 6.7 Rock WUS H1 0 XX-RO-17 Loma Prieta 10/18/1989 Lexington Dam -Abut
8 108_lpld_090a.dat 7.1 26 0.297 -0.409 31.9 -95.5 32.44 -10.98 42.3 91.9 9.27 0.48 158 7.1 Rock WUS H2 90 XX-RO-17 Loma Prieta 10/18/1989 Lexington Dam -Abut
9 109_lpld_0upa.dat 7.1 26 0.117 -0.133 25.9 -16.8 11.86 -16.77 87.1 49.8 2.03 7.74 18 5.2 Rock WUS V UP XX-RO-17 Loma Prieta 10/18/1989 Lexington Dam -Abut
4 10 110_inut_075a.dat 7.0 34 0.310 -0.224 15.8 -18.7 1.57 -2.32 20.1 32.8 1.90 1.46 87 8.3 Rock India H1 0 XX-XX-10 Uttarakshi, India 10/19/1991 IIT Roorkee, India
11 111_inut_345a.dat 7.0 34 0.227 -0.242 17.1 -9.6 1.82 -3.51 29.6 15.6 1.38 9.06 68 8.9 Rock India H2 345 XX-XX-10 Uttarakshi, India 10/19/1991 IIT Roorkee, India
12 112_inut_0upa.dat 7.0 34 0.189 -0.197 13.2 -7.6 2.93 -2.12 27.6 15.2 3.10 7.04 48 10.4 Rock India V V XX-XX-10 Uttarakshi, India 10/19/1991 IIT Roorkee, India
5 13 113_dz65_00xa.dat 7.1 23 0.496 -0.332 15.5 -16.5 1.58 -2.24 12.3 19.6 3.22 2.67 180 21.2 Rock Turkey H1 EW XX-SS-10 Duzce, Turkey 11/12/1999 LEDO Sta 6500
14 114_dz65_00ya.dat 7.1 23 0.619 -0.920 39.0 -27.1 2.76 -3.05 24.8 11.6 1.10 3.74 885 23.8 Rock Turkey H2 NS XX-SS-10 Duzce, Turkey 11/12/1999 LEDO Sta 6501
15 115_dz65_0upa.dat 7.1 23 0.182 -0.151 5.0 -5.3 1.32 -1.55 10.8 13.8 9.36 8.23 39 17.3 Rock Turkey V V XX-SS-10 Duzce, Turkey 11/12/1999 LEDO Sta 6502
6 16 116_kbku_000a.dat 6.9 31 0.290 -0.239 42.3 -54.8 8.92 -13.59 57.5 90.2 1.41 1.06 110 9.5 Rock Japan H1 0 XX-SS-18 Kobe, Japan 1/16/1995 Kobe University
17 117_kbku_090a.dat 6.9 31 0.310 -0.196 34.2 -20.2 7.17 -6.21 43.5 40.6 1.86 2.92 74 7.4 Rock Japan H2 90 XX-SS-18 Kobe, Japan 1/16/1995 Kobe University
18 118_kbku_0upa.dat 6.9 31 0.380 -0.324 16.5 -20.2 5.17 -6.55 17.1 24.5 7.06 5.12 59 6.8 Rock Japan V UP XX-SS-18 Kobe, Japan 1/16/1995 Kobe University
7 19 119_kbch_000a.dat 6.9 65 0.079 -0.093 5.9 -4.8 1.83 -2.90 29.4 20.3 4.08 11.51 11 6.2 Rock Japan H1 0 XX-SS-18 Kobe, Japan 1/20/1995 Chihaya
20 120_kbch_090a.dat 6.9 65 0.102 -0.108 3.4 -4.7 0.83 -1.08 13.0 17.1 7.25 5.19 14 8.5 Rock Japan H2 90 XX-SS-18 Kobe, Japan 1/20/1995 Chihaya
21 121_kbch_0upa.dat 6.9 65 0.067 -0.080 2.0 -2.4 1.14 -1.52 11.5 12.0 19.46 20.35 8 8.7 Rock Japan V UP XX-SS-18 Kobe, Japan 1/20/1995 Chihaya
8 22 122_lpuc_000a.dat 7.0 66 0.120 -0.157 17.2 -13.1 6.78 -5.20 56.6 33.1 2.68 4.62 26 9.8 Rock WUS H1 0 XX-RO-17 Loma Prieta 10/18/1989 Up. Crystal Spr Pulgas
23 123_lpuc_090a.dat 7.0 66 0.083 -0.086 10.3 -14.1 4.54 -5.85 48.9 64.3 3.46 2.49 16 7.8 Rock WUS H2 90 XX-RO-17 Loma Prieta 10/18/1989 Up. Crystal Spr Pulgas
24 124_lpuc_0upa.dat 7.0 66 0.041 -0.061 6.2 -4.3 2.51 -2.22 58.9 27.9 2.67 7.14 5 2.9 Rock WUS V UP XX-RO-17 Loma Prieta 10/18/1989 Up. Crystal Spr Pulgas
9 25 125_saak_090a.dat 7.1 79 0.208 -0.173 5.0 -4.6 0.70 -0.57 9.5 10.5 5.69 4.53 22 9.2 Rock Alaska H1 90 XX-XX-43 Southeast Alaska 5/2/1971 Adak AK Naval Base
26 126_saak_180a.dat 7.1 79 0.099 -0.117 3.2 -2.2 0.38 -0.57 13.0 7.5 3.48 13.10 6 3.7 Rock Alaska H2 180 XX-XX-43 Southeast Alaska 5/2/1971 Adak AK Naval Base
27 127_saak_0upa.dat 7.1 79 0.065 -0.063 2.0 -2.6 0.77 -0.51 12.4 16.3 11.75 4.61 4 1.1 Rock Alaska V UP XX-XX-43 Southeast Alaska 5/2/1971 Adak AK Naval Base
10 28 128_cmpt_090a.dat 7.0 16 1.040 -1.017 37.5 -42.4 12.59 -25.15 14.2 16.4 9.11 13.96 217 34.2 Rock WUS H2 90 XX-RV-10 Cape Mendocino 4/25/1992 Cape Mendocino - Petrolia
29 129_cmpt_000a.dat 7.0 16 1.498 -0.494 38.2 -129.2 11.80 -54.21 10.0 103.0 11.89 1.57 543 37.9 Rock WUS H1 180 XX-RV-10 Cape Mendocino 4/25/1992 Cape Mendocino - Petrolia
30 130_cmpt_0upa.dat 7.0 16 0.514 -0.755 70.0 -54.7 133.42 -13.94 53.6 28.5 13.73 3.45 125 7.9 Rock WUS V UP XX-RV-10 Cape Mendocino 4/25/1992 Cape Mendocino - Petrolia
11 31 131_lnbb_360a.dat 7.3 46 0.170 -0.192 14.0 -10.9 7.86 -9.44 32.3 22.4 6.71 14.89 56.64 25.1 Rock WUS H1 360 XX-SS-05 Landers 6/28/1992 Big Bear Lake - Civic Center
32 132_lnbb_270a.dat 7.3 46 0.165 -0.116 7.2 -7.6 3.43 -3.31 17.3 25.8 10.55 6.52 50.35 21.6 Rock WUS H2 270 XX-SS-05 Landers 6/28/1992 Big Bear Lake - Civic Center
33 133_lnbb_0upa.dat 7.3 46 0.064 -0.081 4.0 -4.1 1.18 -1.54 24.3 20.2 4.72 7.10 13.29 15.6 Rock WUS V UP XX-SS-05 Landers 6/28/1992 Big Bear Lake - Civic Center
12 34 134_tbir_190a.dat 7.4 18 0.401 -0.277 16.5 -25.0 9.86 -8.78 16.2 35.5 14.30 3.83 152.85 36.9 Rock Iran H1 190 XX-XX-XX Tabas, Iran 9/16/1978 Ministry of Housing & Urban Dev.
35 135_tbir_080a.dat 7.4 18 0.371 -0.290 24.5 -24.4 22.29 -23.32 25.9 33.1 13.58 11.15 160.34 36.8 Rock Iran H2 80 XX-XX-XX Tabas, Iran 9/16/1978 Ministry of Housing & Urban Dev.
36 136_tbir_0upa.dat 7.4 18 0.180 -0.189 12.1 -10.7 10.22 -6.28 26.4 22.3 12.38 10.17 84.9 35.7 Rock Iran V UP XX-XX-XX Tabas, Iran 9/16/1978 Ministry of Housing & Urban Dev.
ERDC TR-09-2 80
13 37 137_elob_180a.dat 7.6 109 0.428 -0.404 35.7 -38.4 8.68 -4.12 32.8 37.4 2.86 1.11 346.19 33.7 Rock El Salvador H1 180 XX-XX-60 El Salvador 1/13/2001 Observatorio
38 138_elob_090a.dat 7.6 109 0.349 -0.379 24.6 -26.1 4.63 -5.82 27.7 27.1 2.62 3.17 225.96 31.0 Rock El Salvador H2 90 XX-XX-60 El Salvador 1/13/2001 Observatorio
39 139_elob_0upa.dat 7.6 109 0.253 -0.306 13.0 -11.6 6.33 -5.38 20.2 14.9 9.28 12.07 156.2 33.9 Rock El Salvador V UP XX-XX-60 El Salvador 1/13/2001 Observatorio
14 40 140_elsm_360a.dat 7.6 80 0.581 -0.881 26.6 -27.8 4.06 -5.95 18.0 12.4 3.26 6.65 866.49 33.3 Rock El Salvador H1 360 XX-XX-60 El Salvador 1/13/2001 Santiago de Maria
41 141_elsm_090a.dat 7.6 80 0.646 -0.716 40.4 -40.1 8.41 -6.70 24.6 22.0 3.27 2.93 1057.8 35.2 Rock El Salvador H2 90 XX-XX-60 El Salvador 1/13/2001 Santiago de Maria
42 142_elsm_0upa.dat 7.6 80 0.440 -0.402 14.0 -16.1 6.88 -4.66 12.5 15.7 15.18 7.10 302 31.1 Rock El Salvador V UP XX-XX-60 El Salvador 1/13/2001 Santiago de Maria
15 43 143_itst_000a.dat 6.9 32 0.251 -0.231 36.4 -27.7 10.61 -11.37 57.2 47.2 1.97 3.36 107.28 17.3 Rock Iprina, Italy H1 0 XX-XX-9.5 Iprina, Italy 11/23/1980 ENEL, Struno, Italy
44 144_itst_270a.dat 6.9 32 0.287 -0.358 49.2 -51.8 17.54 -32.36 67.5 57.0 2.04 4.23 127.08 23.7 Rock Iprina, Italy H2 270 XX-XX-9.5 Iprina, Italy 11/23/1980 ENEL, Struno, Italy
45 145_itst_0upa.dat 6.9 32 0.260 -0.166 16.7 -25.6 10.29 -6.36 25.3 60.8 9.41 1.58 46.52 11.6 Rock Iprina, Italy V UP XX-XX-9.5 Iprina, Italy 11/23/1980 ENEL, Struno, Italy
16 46 146_itba_000a.dat 6.9 25 0.133 -0.139 22.1 -15.8 7.96 -9.24 65.2 44.6 2.14 5.07 30.35 9.1 Rock Iprina, Italy H1 0 XX-XX-9.5 Iprina, Italy 11/23/1980 ENEL, Bagnoli, Italy
47 147_itba_270a.dat 6.9 25 0.202 -0.177 31.9 -17.8 9.59 -9.24 62.1 39.5 1.87 5.07 38.97 10.6 Rock Iprina, Italy H2 270 XX-XX-9.5 Iprina, Italy 11/23/1980 ENEL, Bagnoli, Italy
48 148_itba_0upa.dat 6.9 25 0.108 -0.090 11.8 -14.1 4.80 -5.75 43.0 61.9 3.65 2.54 15.66 7.2 Rock Iprina, Italy V UP XX-XX-9.5 Iprina, Italy 11/23/1980 ENEL, Bagnoli, Italy
17 49 149_itbi_000a.dat 6.9 25 0.061 -0.100 23.4 -14.4 14.03 -12.65 152.2 56.7 1.52 5.96 16.91 9.9 Rock Iprina, Italy H1 0 XX-XX-9.5 Iprina, Italy 11/23/1980 ENEL, Bisaccia, Italy
50 150_itbi_270a.dat 6.9 25 0.083 -0.057 11.9 -12.5 2.89 -2.93 56.6 86.9 1.65 1.04 12.46 2.1 Rock Iprina, Italy H2 270 XX-XX-9.5 Iprina, Italy 11/23/1980 ENEL, Bisaccia, Italy
51 151_itbi_0upa.dat 6.9 25 0.055 -0.067 14.1 -11.6 11.12 -9.09 100.9 68.1 3.02 4.46 10.49 0.8 Rock Iprina, Italy V UP XX-XX-9.5 Iprina, Italy 11/23/1980 ENEL, Bisaccia, Italy
18 52 152_tasm_0ewa.dat 7.3 73 0.112 -0.136 13.5 -9.5 5.90 -4.77 47.3 27.4 3.57 7.11 28.95 9.1 Rock Taiwan H1 EW XX-XX-15 Smart, Taiwan 11/14/1986 Smart, Taiwan
53 153_tasm_0nsa.dat 7.3 73 0.139 -0.143 12.4 -10.5 3.43 -6.06 35.2 29.0 3.02 7.67 33.87 37.6 Rock Taiwan H2 NS XX-XX-15 Smart, Taiwan 11/14/1986 Smart, Taiwan
54 154_tasm_0dna.dat 7.3 73 0.042 -0.052 4.8 -5.4 1.96 -3.05 45.3 40.8 3.49 5.33 6.44 0.0 Rock Taiwan V DN XX-XX-15 Smart, Taiwan 11/14/1986 Smart, Taiwan
19 55 155_tach_45ea.dat 7.6 78 0.401 -0.474 36.6 -32.7 21.51 -50.39 35.9 27.1 6.32 21.95 125.55 21.7 Rock Taiwan H1 E XX-XX-6.8 ChiChi 9/20/1999 ChiChi, Taiwan
56 156_tach_45na.dat 7.6 78 0.512 -0.250 27.8 -39.1 13.59 -14.20 21.4 61.5 8.81 2.28 105.88 14.2 Rock Taiwan H2 N XX-XX-6.8 ChiChi 9/20/1999 ChiChi, Taiwan
57 157_tach_45va.dat 7.6 78 0.181 -0.361 21.4 -15.9 12.43 -22.90 46.6 17.3 4.81 32.27 33.95 12.6 Rock Taiwan V V XX-XX-6.8 ChiChi 9/20/1999 ChiChi, Taiwan
20 58 158_tach_71ea.dat 7.6 17 0.567 -0.524 37.6 -44.5 13.76 -12.62 26.1 33.4 5.40 3.28 839.55 58.2 Rock Taiwan H1 E XX-XX-6.8 ChiChi 9/20/1999 ChiChi, Taiwan
59 159_tach_71na.dat 7.6 17 0.567 -0.655 47.0 -69.4 48.34 -49.53 32.6 41.7 12.17 6.60 855.32 58.7 Rock Taiwan H2 N XX-XX-6.8 ChiChi 9/20/1999 ChiChi, Taiwan
60 160_tach_71va.dat 7.6 17 0.449 -0.348 31.3 -34.8 23.33 -31.34 27.4 39.4 10.50 8.83 248.74 30.0 Rock Taiwan V V XX-XX-6.8 ChiChi 9/20/1999 ChiChi, Taiwan
21 61 261_mhlu_000a.dat 8.1 84 0.164 -0.169 21.6 -21.0 22.52 -14.68 51.8 48.9 7.78 5.53 91.67 31.8 Rock Mexico H1 N00W Su-IT-27 Michoacan 9/19/1985 La Union, Mexico
62 262_mhli_090a.dat 8.1 84 0.151 -0.141 10.3 -13.2 8.59 -5.23 27.0 36.8 11.88 4.16 81.12 31.8 Rock Mexico H2 N90W Su-IT-27 Michoacan 9/19/1985 La Union, Mexico
63 263_mhlu_0upa.dat 8.1 84 0.107 -0.132 14.4 -15.0 13.15 -16.03 52.8 44.8 6.69 9.20 36.94 23.7 Rock Mexico V V Su-IT-27 Michoacan 9/19/1985 La Union, Mexico
22 64 264_pich_000a.dat 7.8 84 0.259 -0.205 9.6 -11.7 3.72 -2.76 14.6 22.5 10.31 4.06 140.48 23.2 Rock Chile H1 0 Su-IT-33 Valparaiso 3/3/1985 Pichemu, Chile
65 265_pich_090a.dat 7.8 84 0.151 -0.178 12.4 -12.4 3.63 -3.92 32.5 27.5 3.47 4.43 76.65 22.5 Rock Chile H2 90 Su-IT-33 Valparaiso 3/3/1985 Pichemu, Chile
66 266_pich_0upa.dat 7.8 84 0.107 -0.121 5.1 -5.9 1.95 -1.77 18.8 19.3 7.81 5.95 24.04 18.2 Rock Chile V UP Su-IT-33 Valparaiso 3/3/1985 Pichemu, Chile
23 67 267_pach_140a.dat 7.8 84 0.231 -0.230 12.4 -11.3 1.67 -1.88 21.1 19.4 2.47 3.31 254.62 59.1 Rock Chile H 140 Su-IT-33 Valparaiso 3/3/1985 Papudo Chile
68 268_pach_0upa.dat 7.8 84 0.197 -0.177 6.2 -5.2 1.17 -1.12 12.5 11.6 5.79 7.22 93.93 50.3 Rock Chile V UP Su-IT-33 Valparaiso 3/3/1985 Papudo Chile
ERDC TR-09-2 81
Table 4.4. Sets of earthquake time-history data classified by moment magnitude ranges.
Earthquake Magnitude Magnitude 7 Magnitude 6 Magnitude 5
Moment Magnitude range (Mw) 6.90 – 8.10 6.90 – 8.10 4.85 – 6.06
Average Moment Magnitude (Mw) 7.25 7.25 5.57
No. sets (set id range) 23 (1-23) 23 (1-23) 61 (48-108)
H or H1 23 23 61
H2 22 22 61
V 23 23 58
TOTAL TH's 68 68 180
Table 4.5. Comparison between the Richter and Moment Magnitude Scales.
Earthquake Richter Scale Moment Magnitude
New Madrid, MO, 1812 8.7 8.1
San Francisco, CA, 1906 8.3 7.7
Prince William, AK, 1964 8.4 9.2
Northridge, CA, 1994 6.4 6.7
The criteria for selection of “rock” data were records that were assigned a
rock site classification, and where more site information was available, the
site’s Vs30 (average shear wave velocity (Vs) in the upper 30 m). Records
were accepted if Vs30 exceeded 600 meters per second (m/s) to insure
"rock" records using an upper bound site class C to avoid stiff soil sites. A
Vs30 of 760 m/s is an unweathered rock and including only down to
600 m/s allows weathered rock, but voids highly weathered rock or stiff
soil sites which start at 360 m/s. Also, records were selected based on
instrument housing as free-field, or less preferred, but acceptable, one-
story structures.
The records selected were all instrument corrected records. The further
processing included a baseline correction based on the procedure,
“baseline,” a PC-based algorithm developed by Norm Abrahamson that
uses a polynomial fit to remove any baseline shift from the earthquake
acceleration time-history. The baseline shift is usually an artifact intro-
duced by the data collection process. Since the application of this data is to
estimate permanent displacements, it was important that this artifact be
removed so that the data doesn’t include an initial undesirable permanent
ERDC TR-09-2 90
This section will discuss the results from regression analyses of the non-
dimensionalized displacement relationships described by Equations 3.20,
3.39, and 3.58 previously derived in Chapter 3. The values for the coeffi-
cients summarized by the above mentioned equations and the standard
error terms, as well as the probabilistic measures of Equation Forms One,
Two and Three as shown in Table 4.6, will be discussed in Sections 4.2.1,
4.2.2, and 4.2.3. These regression analyses were performed for baseline
corrected acceleration time histories recorded on rock with a Mw range of
6.9 to 8.1 and an average Mw of 7.3.
Table 4.6. Values for the regression equations constants for Moment Magnitude (Mw) range
of 6.9 – 8.1 (Magnitude 7).
Coefficients and Std. Error Equation Form One Equation Form Two Equation Form Three
β1 70.146 66.727
β2 -9.200 -9.134
β3 -0.018
β4 -0.124
β5 -2.076
Std. Error 1.428 0.932 0.932
The standard error term (Std. error) for this regression analysis was deter-
mined to be 0.93 for both the non-dimensionalized displacement as well
as the standardized displacement for earthquakes of Magnitude 7. This
non-dimensionalized three-term displacement equation is identified as
ERDC TR-09-2 91
Equation Form Three with the coefficients and Std. error terms summa-
rized in column four of Table 4.6.
−0.018
dm • km g ⎛ kc ⎟⎞ ⎛⎜ kc ⎟⎞
⎜
= 66.7 • exp⎜−9.13 • ⎟⎟ • ⎜ ⎟⎟ (4.1)
vm2 ⎜⎝ km ⎟⎠ ⎝⎜ km ⎟⎠
where:
dm = permanent displacement
kmg = peak (positive) rock acceleration expressed in units of length
per sec2, consistent with units of dm (length) and vm (length
per sec)
vm = peak (positive) ground velocity of the earthquake
kc = critical acceleration expressed as a fraction of g
km = peak (positive) rock acceleration expressed as a fraction of g.
−0.018
⎛ k ⎟⎟⎞ • ⎛⎜⎜ kc ⎟⎟⎞
ds = 309.5 • exp⎜⎜⎜−9.13 • c ⎟⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎟ (4.2)
⎝ k m ⎠ ⎝ km ⎠
⎡⎛ k ⎞ ⎛ v 2 ⎞⎤
dm = ds • ⎢⎢⎜⎜⎜ s2 ⎟⎟⎟ • ⎜⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟⎟⎥⎥ (4.3)
⎢⎣⎜⎝ vs ⎠⎟ ⎝⎜ km ⎠⎟⎥⎦
ERDC TR-09-2 92
H1-
100
H2+
H2-
10
mean
0.01
dm • km g ⎛ k ⎞⎟ ⎛ k ⎞⎟−0.018
= 66.7 • exp ⎜⎜−9.13 • c ⎟⎟ • ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟
0.001 vm2 ⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟ ⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟
0.0001
0.01 0.1 1
critical acceleration ratio (kc/km)
Figure 4.1. Non-dimensionalized displacements with the mean, 68 percent prediction intervals and 95 percent
probability of non-exceedance curves.
where:
−0.018
⎛ kc ⎞⎟ ⎛⎜ kc ⎟⎞ ⎡ ⎛ v 2 ⎞⎤
⎜
dm = 309.5 • exp⎜−9.13 • ⎟⎟ • ⎜ ⎟⎟ • ⎢⎢0.216 •⎜⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟⎟⎥⎥ (4.4)
⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟ ⎝⎜ km ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ km • g ⎠⎟⎥
⎢⎣ ⎦
where the right-hand-side term kmg is the peak (positive) rock acceleration
expressed in units of length per sec2.
Note that Equation 4.4 is the same as Equation 4.1, indicating consistent
results from both regression analyses.
ERDC TR-09-2 93
−0.018
dm • km g ⎛ kc ⎞⎟ ⎛⎜ kc ⎟⎞
⎜
= 66.7 • exp⎜−9.13 • ⎟⎟ • ⎜ ⎟⎟ • 4.64 (4.5)
vm2 ⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟ ⎝⎜ km ⎟⎠
⎛ k ⎞⎟ ⎛ k ⎟⎞−0.018
ds = 309.5 • exp⎜⎜−9.13 • c ⎟⎟ • ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ • 4.64 (4.6)
⎜⎝ k ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
m ⎠ ⎝ km ⎠
−0.018
⎛ kc ⎞⎟ ⎛⎜ kc ⎟⎞ ⎡ ⎛ v 2 ⎞⎤
⎜
dm = 309.5 • exp⎜−9.13 • ⎟⎟ • ⎜ ⎟⎟ • 4.64 • ⎢⎢0.216 •⎜⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟⎟⎥⎥ (4.7)
⎜⎝ km ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ km ⎟⎠ ⎢⎣ ⎜⎝ km • g ⎟⎠⎥
⎦
Note that Equation 4.7 is the same as Equation 4.5, indicating consistent
results from both regression analyses,
−0.018
dm • km g ⎛ kc ⎞⎟ ⎛⎜ kc ⎟⎞
⎜
= 66.7 • exp⎜−9.13 • ⎟⎟ • ⎜ ⎟⎟ • 2.53 (4.8a)
vm2 ⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟ ⎝⎜ km ⎟⎠
−0.018
dm • km g ⎛ kc ⎞⎟ ⎛⎜ kc ⎟⎞
⎜
= 66.7 • exp⎜−9.13 • ⎟⎟ • ⎜ ⎟⎟ • 0.39 (4.8b)
vm2 ⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟ ⎝⎜ km ⎟⎠
ERDC TR-09-2 94
⎛ k ⎞⎟ ⎛ k ⎟⎞−0.018
ds = 309.5 • exp⎜⎜−9.13 • c ⎟⎟ • ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ • 2.53 (4.9a)
⎜⎝ k ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
m ⎠ ⎝ km ⎠
⎛ k ⎞⎟ ⎛ k ⎟⎞−0.018
ds = 309.5 • exp⎜⎜−9.13 • c ⎟⎟ • ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ • 0.39 (4.9b)
⎜⎝ k m
⎟
⎠ ⎜
⎝ km
⎟
⎠
⎛ k ⎞⎟ ⎛ k ⎟⎞−0.018 ⎡ ⎛ v 2 ⎞⎟⎤
dm = 309.5 • exp ⎜⎜⎜−9.13 • c ⎜
⎟⎟ • ⎜ ⎟⎟ c
⎜⎜⎝ k ⎟⎠ • 2.53 • ⎢0.216 •⎜⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟⎥⎥ (4.10a)
⎢
⎜⎝ k ⎟
⎠ ⎢⎣ ⎜⎝ km • g ⎟⎠⎥
m m ⎦
⎛ k ⎞⎟ ⎛ k ⎟⎞−0.018 ⎡ ⎛ 2 ⎞⎤
dm = 309.5 • exp ⎜⎜⎜−9.13 • c ⎟⎟ • ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ • 0 .39 • ⎢0.216 •⎜⎜ vm ⎟⎟⎥ (4.10b)
⎜⎝ k ⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟ ⎢ ⎜⎜ k • g ⎟⎟⎥
m ⎠ ⎝ km ⎠ ⎣⎢ ⎝ m ⎠⎦⎥
where the right-hand-side term kmg is the peak (positive) rock acceleration
expressed in units of length per sec2.
Note that Equations 4.10a and 4.10b are the same as Equations 4.8a and
4.8b, indicating consistent results from both regression analyses.
The standard error term (Std. error) for this regression analysis was deter-
mined to be 0.93 for both the non-dimensionalized displacement as well
as the standardized displacement for earthquakes of Magnitude 7. This
non-dimensionalized two-term displacement equation is identified as
Equation Form Two with the coefficients and Std. error terms sum-
marized in column three of Table 4.6.
ERDC TR-09-2 95
dm • km g ⎛ k ⎞
= 70.1 • exp ⎜⎜⎜−9.2 • c ⎟⎟⎟ (4.11)
vm 2 ⎜⎝ km ⎟⎠
where the left-hand-side term kmg is the peak (positive) rock acceleration
expressed in units of length per sec2, consistent with units of dm(length)
and vm (length per sec) in which dm is the permanent displacement, vm is
the peak (positive) ground velocity of the earthquake and kc is the critical
acceleration expressed as a fraction of g. The right hand side term km is the
peak (positive) rock acceleration expressed as a fraction of g.
H1-
100
H2+
H2-
10
mean
0.01
dm • km g ⎛ ⎞
= 70 . 1 • exp ⎜⎜−9.2 • kc ⎟⎟
0.001 vm 2 ⎜⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟⎟
0.0001
0.01 0.1 1
Figure 4.2. Non-dimensionalized displacements with the mean, 68 percent prediction intervals and 95 percent
probability of non-exceedance curves.
ERDC TR-09-2 96
⎛ k ⎞
ds = 325.3 • exp ⎜⎜⎜−9.2 • c ⎟⎟⎟ (4.12)
⎜⎝ km ⎟⎠
⎡⎛ k ⎞ ⎛ v 2 ⎞⎤
dm = ds • ⎢⎢⎜⎜⎜ s2 ⎟⎟⎟ • ⎜⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟⎟⎥⎥ (bis 4.3)
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎣⎢⎝ vs ⎠ ⎝ km ⎠⎦⎥
where:
⎛ k ⎞ ⎡ ⎛ v 2 ⎞⎤
dm = 325.3 • exp⎜⎜−9.2 • c ⎟⎟⎟ • ⎢⎢0.216 •⎜⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟⎟⎥⎥ (4.13)
⎜⎝ km ⎟⎠ ⎢⎣ ⎜⎝ km • g ⎟⎠⎥
⎦
where the right-hand-side term kmg is the peak (positive) rock acceleration
expressed in units of length per sec2.
Note that Equation 4.13 is the same as Equation 4.11, indicating consistent
results from both regression analyses.
dm • km g ⎛ k ⎞
= 70.1 • exp ⎜⎜⎜−9.2 • c ⎟⎟⎟ • 4.64 (4.14)
vm 2 ⎜⎝ km ⎟⎠
ERDC TR-09-2 97
⎛ k ⎞
ds = 325.3 • exp⎜⎜⎜−9.2 • c ⎟⎟⎟ • 4.64 (4.15)
⎝ km ⎟⎠
⎛ k ⎞ ⎡ ⎛ v 2 ⎞⎤
dm = 325.3 • exp⎜⎜−9.2 • c ⎟⎟⎟ • 4.64 • ⎢⎢0.216 •⎜⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟⎟⎥⎥ (4.16)
⎜⎝ km ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ km • g ⎠⎟⎥
⎣⎢ ⎦
where the right-hand-side term kmg is the peak (positive) rock acceleration
expressed in units of length per sec2.
Note that Equation 4.16 is the same as Equation 4.14, indicating consistent
results from both regression analyses.
dm • km g ⎛ k ⎞
= 70.1 • exp ⎜⎜⎜−9.2 • c ⎟⎟⎟ • 2.53 (4.17a)
vm 2 ⎜⎝ km ⎟⎠
dm • km g ⎛ k ⎞
= 70.1 • exp ⎜⎜⎜−9.2 • c ⎟⎟⎟ • 0.39 (4.17b)
vm 2 ⎜⎝ km ⎟⎠
⎛ k ⎞
ds = 325.3 • exp⎜⎜−9.2 • c ⎟⎟⎟ • 2.53 (4.18a)
⎜⎝ km ⎟⎠
⎛ k ⎞
ds = 325.3 • exp⎜⎜−9.2 • c ⎟⎟⎟ • 0.39 (4.18b)
⎜⎝ km ⎟⎠
⎛ k ⎞ ⎡ ⎛ v 2 ⎞⎤
dm = 325.3 • exp⎜⎜−9.2 • c ⎟⎟⎟ • 2.53 • ⎢⎢0.216 •⎜⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟⎟⎥⎥ (4.19a)
⎜⎝ km ⎟⎠ ⎢⎣ ⎜⎝ km • g ⎠⎟⎥
⎦
⎛ k ⎞ ⎡ ⎛ v 2 ⎞⎤
dm = 325.3 • exp⎜⎜−9.2 • c ⎟⎟⎟ • 0.39 • ⎢⎢0.216 •⎜⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟⎟⎥⎥ (4.19b)
⎝⎜ km ⎠⎟ ⎣⎢ ⎝⎜ km • g ⎠⎟⎦⎥
where the right-hand-side term kmg is the peak (positive) rock acceleration
expressed in units of length per sec2.
Note that Equations 4.19a and 4.19b are the same as Equations 4.17a and
4.17b, indicating consistent results from both regression analyses.
The standard error term (Std. error) for this regression analysis was deter-
mined to be 1.43 for both the non-dimensionalized displacement as well as
the standardized displacement for earthquakes of Magnitude 7. This non-
dimensionalized two-term displacement equation is identified as Equation
Form One with the coefficients and Std. error terms summarized in
column two of Table 4.6.
dm • km g ⎛ k ⎞⎟−2.08
= 0.124 • ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ (4.20)
vm 2 ⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟
where:
dm = permanent displacement
kmg = peak (positive) rock acceleration expressed in units of length
per sec2, consistent with units of dm (length) and vm (length
per sec)
vm = peak (positive) ground velocity of the earthquake
kc = critical acceleration expressed as a fraction of g
km = peak (positive) rock acceleration expressed as a fraction of g.
H1-
1000
H2+
100
H2-
mean
10
68% upper bound
prediction
1 68% lower bound
prediction interval
95% probability of
0.1 non exceedance
0.01
dm • km g ⎛ k ⎞⎟−2.08
= 0.124 • ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟
0.001
vm 2 ⎜⎝ k ⎠⎟
m
0.0001
0.01 0.1 1
Figure 4.3. Non-dimensionalized displacements with the mean, 68 percent prediction intervals and 95 percent
probability of non-exceedance curves.
ERDC TR-09-2 100
⎛k ⎞⎟−2.08
ds = 0.573 • ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ (4.21)
⎜⎝ k m⎠
⎟
⎡⎛ k ⎞ ⎛ v 2 ⎞⎤
dm = ds • ⎢⎢⎜⎜⎜ s2 ⎟⎟⎟ • ⎜⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟⎟⎥⎥ (bis 4.3)
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎣⎢⎝ vs ⎠ ⎝ km ⎠⎦⎥
where:
−2.08
⎛k ⎡ ⎛ 2 ⎞⎤
dm = 0.573 • ⎜⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟⎞ • ⎢0.216 •⎜⎜ vm ⎟⎟⎥ (4.22)
⎝k
⎟⎟ ⎢ ⎜⎜⎝ k • g ⎠⎟⎟⎥
m⎠ ⎢⎣ m ⎥⎦
where the right-hand-side term kmg is the peak (positive) rock acceleration
expressed in units of length per sec2.
Note that Equation 4.22 is the same as Equation 4.20, indicating con-
sistent results from both regression analyses.
dm • km g ⎛ k ⎞⎟−2.08
= 0.124 • ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ • 2.78 (4.23)
vm 2 ⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟
⎛k ⎞⎟−2.08
ds = 0.573 • ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ • 2.78 (4.24)
⎜⎝ k ⎠ ⎟
m
⎛ k ⎟⎞−2.08 ⎡ ⎛ v 2 ⎞⎤
⎜
dm = 0.573 • ⎜ c ⎟⎟ • 2.78 • ⎢⎢0.216 •⎜⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟⎟⎥⎥ (4.25)
⎜⎝ k ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ km • g ⎟⎠⎥
m ⎢⎣ ⎦
where the right-hand-side term kmg is the peak (positive) rock acceleration
expressed in units of length per sec2.
Note that Equation 4.25 is the same as Equation 4.23, indicating con-
sistent results from both regression analyses.
dm • km g ⎛ k ⎞⎟−2.08
= 0.124 • ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ • 1.86 (4.26a)
vm2 ⎜⎝ k ⎠⎟
m
dm • km g ⎛ k ⎞⎟−2.08
= 0.124 • ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ • 0.538 (4.26b)
vm 2 ⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟
⎛ k ⎞
ds = 325.3 • exp⎜⎜⎜−9.2 • c ⎟⎟⎟ • 1.86 (4.27a)
⎝ km ⎟⎠
⎛ k ⎞
ds = 325.3 • exp⎜⎜−9.2 • c ⎟⎟⎟ • 0.538 (4.27b)
⎜⎝ km ⎟⎠
⎛ k ⎞ ⎡ ⎛ v 2 ⎞⎤
dm = 325.3 • exp⎜⎜−9.2 • c ⎟⎟⎟ • 1.86 • ⎢⎢0.216 •⎜⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟⎟⎥⎥ (4.28a)
⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟ ⎢⎣ ⎜⎝ km • g ⎟⎠⎥
⎦
⎛ k ⎞ ⎡ ⎛ v 2 ⎞⎤
dm = 325.3 • exp⎜⎜−9.2 • c ⎟⎟⎟ • 0.538 • ⎢⎢0.216 •⎜⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟⎟⎥⎥ (4.28b)
⎝⎜ km ⎠⎟ ⎣⎢ ⎝⎜ km • g ⎠⎟⎦⎥
where the right-hand-side term kmg is the peak (positive) rock acceleration
expressed in units of length per sec2.
Note that Equations 4.28a and 4.28b are the same as Equations 4.26a and
4.26b, indicating consistent results from both regression analyses.
100
10
0.1
0.01
0.0001
0.01 0.1 1
critical acceleration ratio (kc/km)
Figure 4.4. Non-dimensionalized displacements and comparisons of the means of the three regression
analysis equations for Magnitude 7 earthquakes.
One method of comparison will be the Std. error term determined from
the error in the estimates. The Std. error for eqn3 is 0.93, for eqn2, 0.93
and for eqn1, equal to 1.43 when transformed to a natural logarithm from
a common logarithm standard error value of 0.62. These results show that
eqn3 and eqn2 have a more accurate estimate as compared to eqn1, and
that eqn3 and eqn2 have practically equal values.
Lastly, given the small value of the exponent for the (kc/km) term of eqn3
(-0.018), this explains the comparable results of eqn2 and eqn3.
ERDC TR-09-2 104
Table 4.7. Values for the regression equations constants for Moment Magnitude (Mw) range
of 6.1 – 6.8 (Magnitude 6).
Coefficients and Std. Error Equation Form One Equation Form Two Equation Form Three
β1 78.618 71.851
β2 -9.121 -9.003
β3 -0.032
β4 -0.146
β5 -2.060
Std. Error 1.328 0.792 0.792
The standard error term (Std. error) for this regression analysis was deter-
mined to be 0.79 for both the non-dimensionalized displacement as well as
the standardized displacement for earthquakes of Magnitude 6. This non-
dimensionalized three-term displacement equation is identified as
Equation Form Three with the coefficients and Std. error terms sum-
marized in column four of Table 4.7.
−0.032
dm • km g ⎛ kc ⎞⎟ ⎛⎜ kc ⎟⎞
⎜
= 71.9 • exp⎜−9.00 • ⎟⎟ • ⎜ ⎟⎟ (4.29)
vm2 ⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟ ⎜⎝ km ⎟⎠
where:
dm = permanent displacement
kmg = peak (positive) rock acceleration expressed in units of length
per sec2, consistent with units of dm (length) and vm (length
per sec)
vm = peak (positive) ground velocity of the earthquake
kc = critical acceleration expressed as a fraction of g
km = peak (positive) rock acceleration expressed as a fraction of g.
H1-
100
H2+
H2-
10
mean
0.01
−0.032
dm • km g ⎛ kc ⎞⎟ ⎛⎜ kc ⎞⎟
⎜
= 71.9 • exp ⎜−9.00 • ⎟•⎜ ⎟
km ⎠⎟⎟ ⎝⎜ km ⎠⎟⎟
0.001
vm 2 ⎜⎝
0.0001
0.01 0.1 1
critical acceleration ratio (kc/km)
Figure 4.5. Non-dimensionalized displacements with the mean, 68 percent prediction intervals and 95 percent
probability of non-exceedance curves.
ERDC TR-09-2 106
⎛ k ⎞⎟ ⎛ k ⎟⎞−0.032
ds = 333.22 • exp⎜⎜−9.00 • c ⎟⎟ • ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ (4.30)
⎜⎝ k ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
m ⎠ ⎝ km ⎠
⎡⎛ k ⎞ ⎛ v 2 ⎞⎤
dm = ds • ⎢⎢⎜⎜⎜ s2 ⎟⎟⎟ • ⎜⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟⎟⎥⎥ (bis. 4.3)
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎣⎢⎝ vs ⎠ ⎝ km ⎠⎦⎥
where:
⎛ k ⎞⎟ ⎛ k ⎞⎟−0.032 ⎡ ⎛ 2 ⎞⎤
dm = 333.22 • exp⎜⎜⎜−9.00 • c ⎟⎟ • ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ • ⎢0.216 •⎜⎜ vm ⎟⎟⎥ (4.31)
⎢ ⎟⎥
⎝ k ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
m ⎠ ⎝ km ⎠ ⎢⎣ ⎝⎜⎜ km • g ⎠⎟⎥⎦
where the right-hand-side term kmg is the peak (positive) rock acceleration
expressed in units of length per sec2.
Note that Equation 4.31 is the same as Equation 4.29, indicating con-
sistent results from both regression analyses.
−0.032
dm • km g ⎛ kc ⎞⎟ ⎜⎛ kc ⎞⎟
⎜
= 71.9 • exp⎜−9.00 • ⎟⎟ • ⎜ ⎟⎟ • 3.68 (4.32)
vm2 ⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟ ⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟
⎛ k ⎞⎟ ⎛ k ⎟⎞−0.032
ds = 333.2 • exp⎜⎜−9.00 • c ⎟⎟ • ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ • 3.68 (4.33)
⎜⎝ k ⎟
⎠ ⎜⎝ k ⎟⎠
m m
−0.032
⎛ kc ⎞⎟ ⎜⎛ kc ⎟⎞ ⎡ ⎛ v 2 ⎞⎤
⎜
dm = 333.2 • exp⎜−9.00 • ⎟⎟ • ⎜ ⎟⎟ • 3.68 • ⎢⎢0.216 •⎜⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟⎟⎥⎥ (4.34)
⎜⎝ km ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ km ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ km • g ⎟⎠⎥
⎢⎣ ⎦
where the right-hand-side term kmg is the peak (positive) rock acceleration
expressed in units of length per sec2.
Note that Equation 4.34 is the same as Equation 4.32, indicating con-
sistent results from both regression analyses,
−0.032
dm • km g ⎛ kc ⎞⎟ ⎜⎛ kc ⎞⎟
⎜
= 71.9 • exp⎜−9.00 • ⎟⎟ • ⎜ ⎟⎟ • 2.20 (4.35a)
vm2 ⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟ ⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟
−0.032
dm • km g ⎛ kc ⎞⎟ ⎜⎛ kc ⎞⎟
⎜
= 71.9 • exp⎜−9.00 • ⎟⎟ • ⎜ ⎟⎟ • 0.45 (4.35b)
vm2 ⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟ ⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟
⎛ k ⎞⎟ ⎛ k ⎟⎞−0.032
ds = 333.2 • exp⎜⎜−9.00 • c ⎟⎟ • ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ • 2.20 (4.36a)
⎜⎝ k ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
m ⎠ ⎝ km ⎠
⎛ k ⎞⎟ ⎛ k ⎟⎞−0.032
ds = 333.2 • exp⎜⎜−9.00 • c ⎟⎟ • ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ • 0.454 (4.36b)
⎜⎝ k ⎟
⎠ ⎜⎝ k ⎟⎠
m m
−0.032
⎛ kc ⎞⎟ ⎜⎛ kc ⎟⎞ ⎡ ⎛ v 2 ⎞⎤
⎜
dm = 333.2 • exp⎜−9.00 • ⎟⎟ • ⎜ ⎟⎟ • 2.20 • ⎢⎢0.216 •⎜⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟⎟⎥⎥ (4.37a)
⎜⎝ km ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ km ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ km • g ⎟⎠⎥
⎢⎣ ⎦
⎛ k ⎞⎟ ⎛ k ⎟⎞−0.032 ⎡ ⎛ v 2 ⎞⎤
dm = 333.2 • exp⎜⎜−9.00 • c ⎟⎟ • ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ • 0.454 • ⎢⎢0.216 •⎜⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟⎟⎥⎥ (4.37b)
⎜⎝ k ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
m ⎠ ⎝ km ⎠ ⎣⎢ ⎝⎜ km • g ⎠⎟⎦⎥
where the right-hand-side term kmg is the peak (positive) rock acceleration
expressed in units of length per sec2.
Note that Equations 4.37a and 4.37b are the same as Equations 4.35a and
4.35b, indicating consistent results from both regression analyses.
The standard error term (Std. error) for this regression analysis was deter-
mined to be 0.79 for both the non-dimensionalized displacement as well as
the standardized displacement for earthquakes of Magnitude 6. This non-
dimensionalized two-term displacement equation is identified as Equation
Form Two with the coefficients and Std. error terms summarized in
column three of Table 4.7.
ERDC TR-09-2 109
dm • km g ⎛ k ⎞
= 78.6 • exp ⎜⎜⎜−9.12 • c ⎟⎟⎟ (4.38)
vm 2 ⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟
where:
dm = permanent displacement
kmg = peak (positive) rock acceleration expressed in units of length
per sec2, consistent with units of dm (length) and vm (length
per sec)
vm = peak (positive) ground velocity of the earthquake
kc = critical acceleration expressed as a fraction of g
km = peak (positive) rock acceleration expressed as a fraction of g.
⎛ k ⎞
ds = 364.6 • exp⎜⎜−9.12 • c ⎟⎟⎟ (4.39)
⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟
⎡⎛ k ⎞ ⎛ v 2 ⎞⎤
dm = ds • ⎢⎢⎜⎜⎜ s2 ⎟⎟⎟ • ⎜⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟⎟⎥⎥ (bis 4.3)
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎣⎢⎝ vs ⎠ ⎝ km ⎠⎦⎥
ERDC TR-09-2 110
H1-
100
H2+
H2-
10
mean
0.01
dm • km g ⎛ ⎞
= 78 .6 • exp ⎜ ⎜−9.12 • kc ⎟⎟
0.001 vm 2 ⎜⎜⎝ km ⎟⎟⎠
0.0001
0.01 0.1 1
Figure 4.6. Non-dimensionalized displacements with the mean, 68 percent prediction intervals and 95 percent
probability of non-exceedance curves.
where:
⎛ k ⎞⎟ ⎡ ⎛ v 2 ⎟⎞⎤
dm = 364.6 • exp⎜⎜−9.12 • c ⎢ ⎜ m ⎥
⎜⎝ k ⎟⎟ • ⎢0.216 •⎜⎜⎜ k • g ⎟⎟⎟⎥
⎟
(4.40)
m ⎠ ⎣⎢ ⎝ m ⎠⎦⎥
where the right-hand-side term kmg is the peak (positive) rock acceleration
expressed in units of length per sec2.
Note that Equation 4.40 is the same as Equation 4.38, indicating con-
sistent results from both regression analyses.
ERDC TR-09-2 111
dm • km g ⎛ k ⎞
= 78.6 • exp ⎜⎜⎜−9.12 • c ⎟⎟⎟ • 3.68 (4.41)
vm 2 ⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟
⎛ k ⎞
ds = 364.6 • exp⎜⎜⎜−9.12 • c ⎟⎟⎟ • 3.68 (4.42)
⎝ km ⎠⎟
⎛ k ⎞ ⎡ ⎛ v 2 ⎞⎤
dm = 364.6 • exp⎜⎜−9.12 • c ⎟⎟⎟ • 3.68 • ⎢⎢0.216 •⎜⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟⎟⎥⎥ (4.43)
⎝⎜ km ⎠⎟ ⎣⎢ ⎝⎜ km • g ⎠⎟⎦⎥
where the right-hand-side term kmg is the peak (positive) rock acceleration
expressed in units of length per sec2.
Note that Equation 4.43 is the same as Equation 4.41, indicating con-
sistent results from both regression analyses.
dm • km g ⎛ k ⎞
= 78.6 • exp ⎜⎜⎜−9.12 • c ⎟⎟⎟ • 2.20 (4.44a)
vm 2 ⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟
ERDC TR-09-2 112
dm • km g ⎛ k ⎞
= 78.6 • exp ⎜⎜⎜−9.12 • c ⎟⎟⎟ • 0.454 (4.44b)
vm 2 ⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟
⎛ k ⎞
ds = 364.6 • exp⎜⎜−9.12 • c ⎟⎟⎟ 2.20 (4.45a)
⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟
⎛ k ⎞
ds = 325.3 • exp⎜⎜−9.2 • c ⎟⎟⎟ • 0.454 (4.45b)
⎜⎝ km ⎟⎠
⎛ k ⎞ ⎡ ⎛ v 2 ⎞⎤
dm = 364.6 • exp⎜⎜−9.12 • c ⎟⎟⎟ • 2.20 • ⎢⎢0.216 •⎜⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟⎟⎥⎥ (4.46a)
⎝⎜ km ⎠⎟ ⎣⎢ ⎝⎜ km • g ⎠⎟⎦⎥
⎛ k ⎞ ⎡ ⎛ v 2 ⎞⎤
dm = 364.6 • exp⎜⎜−9.12 • c ⎟⎟⎟ • 0.454 • ⎢⎢0.216 •⎜⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟⎟⎥⎥ (4.46b)
⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟ ⎢⎣ ⎜⎝ km • g ⎠⎟⎥
⎦
where the right-hand-side term kmg is the peak (positive) rock acceleration
expressed in units of length per sec2.
Note that Equations 4.46a and 4.46b are the same as Equations 4.44a and
4.44b, indicating consistent results from both regression analyses.
The standard error term (Std. error) for this regression analysis was deter-
mined to be 1.33 for both the non-dimensionalized displacement as well as
the standardized displacement for earthquakes of Magnitude 6. This non-
dimensionalized two-term displacement equation is identified as Equation
Form One with the coefficients and Std. error terms summarized in
column two of Table 4.7.
ERDC TR-09-2 113
dm • km g ⎛ k ⎞⎟−2.06
= 0.146 • ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ (4.47)
vm2 ⎜⎝ k ⎠⎟
m
where:
dm = permanent displacement
kmg = peak (positive) rock acceleration expressed in units of length
per sec2, consistent with units of dm(length) and vm(length per
sec)
vm = peak (positive) ground velocity of the earthquake
kc = critical acceleration expressed as a fraction of g
km = peak (positive) rock acceleration expressed as a fraction of g.
⎛k ⎞⎟−2.06
ds = 0.676 • ⎜⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ (4.48)
⎝k m⎠
⎟
⎡⎛ k ⎞ ⎛ v 2 ⎞⎤
dm = ds • ⎢⎢⎜⎜⎜ s2 ⎟⎟⎟ • ⎜⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟⎟⎥⎥ (bis 4.3)
⎢⎣⎜⎝ vs ⎟⎠ ⎝⎜ km ⎠⎟⎥⎦
ERDC TR-09-2 114
H1-
1000
H2+
100 H2-
mean
10
68% upper bound
prediction
1 68% lower bound
prediction interval
95% probability of
0.1 non exceedance
0.01
dm • km g ⎛ ⎞
= 78 .6 • exp ⎜ ⎜−9.12 • kc ⎟⎟
0.001 vm 2 ⎜⎜⎝ km ⎟⎠⎟
0.0001
0.01 0.1 1
critical acceleration ratio (kc/km)
Figure 4.7. Non-dimensionalized displacements with the mean, 68 percent prediction intervals and 95 percent
probability of non-exceedance curves.
where:
⎛k ⎞⎟−2.06 ⎡ ⎛ v 2 ⎞⎤
dm = 0.676 • ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ • ⎢⎢0.216 •⎜⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟⎟⎥⎥ (4.49)
⎜⎝ k ⎟ ⎜⎝ km • g ⎟⎠⎥
m⎠ ⎢⎣ ⎦
where the right-hand-side term kmg is the peak (positive) rock acceleration
expressed in units of length per sec2.
Note that Equation 4.49 is the same as Equation 4.47, indicating con-
sistent results from both regression analyses.
ERDC TR-09-2 115
dm • km g ⎛ k ⎞⎟−2.06
= 0.146 • ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ • 2.60 (4.50)
vm2 ⎜⎝ k ⎠⎟
m
⎛k ⎞⎟−2.06
ds = 0.676 • ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ • 2.60 (4.51)
⎜⎝ km⎠
⎟
⎛ k ⎟⎞−2.06 ⎡ ⎛ v 2 ⎞⎤
⎜
dm = 0.676 • ⎜ c ⎟⎟ • 2.60 • ⎢⎢0.216 •⎜⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟⎟⎥⎥ (4.52)
⎜⎝ km ⎟⎠ ⎢⎣ ⎜⎝ km • g ⎟⎠⎥
⎦
where the right-hand-side term kmg is the peak (positive) rock acceleration
expressed in units of length per sec2.
Note that Equation 4.52 is the same as Equation 4.50, indicating con-
sistent results from both regression analyses.
dm • km g ⎛ k ⎞⎟−2.06
= 0.146 • ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ • 1.79 (4.53a)
vm 2 ⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟
ERDC TR-09-2 116
dm • km g ⎛ k ⎞⎟−2.06
= 0.146 • ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ • 0.560 (4.53b)
vm 2 ⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟
⎛k ⎞⎟−2.06
ds = 0.676 • ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ 1.79 (4.54a)
⎜⎝ k m ⎠ ⎟
⎛k ⎞⎟−2.06
ds = 0.676 • ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ • 0.560 (4.54b)
⎜⎝ k ⎟
m⎠
⎛k ⎞⎟−2.06 ⎡ ⎛ v 2 ⎞⎤
dm = 0.676 • ⎜⎜⎜ c⎟⎟ • 1.79 • ⎢⎢0.216 •⎜⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟⎟⎥⎥ (4.55a)
⎝km⎠
⎟ ⎢⎣ ⎜⎝ km • g ⎟⎠⎥
⎦
⎛k ⎞⎟−2.06 ⎡ ⎛ v 2 ⎞⎟⎤
dm = 0.676 • ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟⎟ • 0.560 • ⎢0.216 •⎜⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟⎥⎥
⎢ (4.55b)
⎜⎝ k ⎠ ⎜⎝ km • g ⎠⎟⎥
m ⎣⎢ ⎦
where the right-hand-side term kmg is the peak (positive) rock acceleration
expressed in units of length per sec2.
Note that Equations 4.55a and 4.55b are the same as Equations 4.53a and
4.53b, indicating consistent results from both regression analyses.
100
10
0.1
0.01
0.0001
0.01 0.1 1
critical acceleration ratio (kc/km)
Figure 4.8. Non-dimensionalized displacements and comparisons of the means of the three regression
analysis equations for Magnitude 6 earthquakes.
One method of comparison will be the Std. error term determined from
the error in the estimates. The Std. error for eqn3 is 0.79, for eqn2, 0.79
and for eqn1, equal to 1.34 when transformed to a natural logarithm from
a common logarithm standard error value of 0.58. These results show that
eqn3 and eqn2 have a more accurate estimate as compared to eqn1, and
that eqn3 and eqn2 have practically equal values.
Lastly, given the small value of the exponent for the (kc/km) term of eqn3
(-0.032), this explains the comparable results of eqn2 and eqn3.
ERDC TR-09-2 118
Table 4.8. Values for the regression equations constants for Moment Magnitude (Mw) range
of 4.9 – 6.1 (Magnitude 5).
Coefficients and Std. Error Equation Form One Equation Form Two Equation Form Three
β1 56.980 51.077
β2 -8.579 -8.436
β3 -0.039
β4 -0.153
β5 -1.940
Std. Error 1.242 0.738 0.738
The standard error term (Std. error) for this regression analysis was
determined to be 0.74 for both the non-dimensionalized displacement as
well as the standardized displacement for earthquakes of Magnitude 5.
This non-dimensionalized three-term displacement equation is identified
as Equation Form Three with the coefficients and Std. error terms
summarized in column four of Table 4.8.
−0.039
dm • km g ⎛ kc ⎞⎟ ⎛⎜ kc ⎟⎞
⎜
= 51.1 • exp⎜−8.44 • ⎟⎟ • ⎜ ⎟⎟ (4.56)
vm2 ⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟ ⎜⎝ km ⎟⎠
where:
dm = permanent displacement
kmg = peak (positive) rock acceleration expressed in units of length
per sec2, consistent with units of dm (length) and vm (length
per sec)
vm = peak (positive) ground velocity of the earthquake
kc = critical acceleration expressed as a fraction of g
km = peak (positive) rock acceleration expressed as a fraction of g.
H1-
100
H2+
H2-
10
mean
0.01
−0.039
dm • km g ⎛ kc ⎟⎞ ⎜⎛ kc ⎟⎞
⎜
= 51.1 • exp ⎜−8.44 • ⎟•⎜ ⎟
⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟⎟ ⎜⎝ km ⎟⎟⎠
0.001
vm2
0.0001
0.01 0.1 1
critical acceleration ratio (kc/km)
Figure 4.9. Non-dimensionalized displacements with the mean, 68 percent prediction intervals and 95 percent
probability of non-exceedance curves.
ERDC TR-09-2 120
⎛ k ⎞⎟ ⎛ k ⎟⎞−0.039
ds = 236.9 • exp⎜⎜−8.44 • c ⎟⎟ • ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ (4.57)
⎜⎝ k ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
m ⎠ ⎝ km ⎠
⎡⎛ k ⎞ ⎛ v 2 ⎞⎤
dm = ds • ⎢⎢⎜⎜⎜ s2 ⎟⎟⎟ • ⎜⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟⎟⎥⎥ (bis 4.3)
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎣⎢⎝ vs ⎠ ⎝ km ⎠⎦⎥
where:
⎛ k ⎞⎟ ⎛ k ⎟⎞−0.039 ⎡ ⎛ 2 ⎞⎤
dm = 236.9 • exp⎜⎜⎜−8.44 • c ⎟⎟ • ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ • ⎢0.216 •⎜⎜ vm ⎟⎟⎥ (4.58)
⎢ ⎟⎥
⎝ k ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
m ⎠ ⎝ km ⎠ ⎢⎣ ⎝⎜⎜ km • g ⎠⎟⎥⎦
where the right-hand-side term kmg is the peak (positive) rock acceleration
expressed in units of length per sec2.
Note that Equation 4.58 is the same as Equation 4.56, indicating con-
sistent results from both regression analyses.
−0.039
dm • km g ⎛ kc ⎞⎟ ⎛⎜ kc ⎟⎞
⎜
= 51.1 • exp⎜−8.44 • ⎟⎟ • ⎜ ⎟⎟ • 3.39 (4.59)
vm2 ⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟ ⎜⎝ km ⎟⎠
⎛ k ⎞⎟ ⎛ k ⎟⎞−0.039
ds = 236.9 • exp⎜⎜−8.44 • c ⎟⎟ • ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ • 3.39 (4.60)
⎜⎝ k ⎟
⎠ ⎜⎝ k ⎟⎠
m m
−0.039
⎛ kc ⎞⎟ ⎜⎛ kc ⎟⎞ ⎡ ⎛ v 2 ⎞⎤
⎜
dm = 236.9 • exp⎜−8.44 • ⎟⎟ • ⎜ ⎟⎟ • 3.39 • ⎢⎢0.216 •⎜⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟⎟⎥⎥ (4.61)
⎜⎝ km ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ km ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ km • g ⎟⎠⎥
⎢⎣ ⎦
where the right-hand-side term kmg is the peak (positive) rock acceleration
expressed in units of length per sec2.
Note that Equation 4.61 is the same as Equation 4.59, indicating con-
sistent results from both regression analyses.
−0.039
dm • km g ⎛ kc ⎞⎟ ⎛⎜ kc ⎟⎞
⎜
= 51.1 • exp⎜−8.44 • ⎟⎟ • ⎜ ⎟⎟ • 2.10 (4.62a)
vm2 ⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟ ⎜⎝ km ⎟⎠
−0.039
dm • km g ⎛ kc ⎞⎟ ⎛⎜ kc ⎟⎞
⎜
= 51.1 • exp⎜−8.44 • ⎟⎟ • ⎜ ⎟⎟ • 0.477 (4.62b)
vm2 ⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟ ⎜⎝ km ⎟⎠
⎛ k ⎞⎟ ⎛ k ⎟⎞−0.039
ds = 236.9 • exp⎜⎜−8.44 • c ⎟⎟ • ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ • 2.10 (4.63a)
⎜⎝ k ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
m ⎠ ⎝ km ⎠
⎛ k ⎞⎟ ⎛ k ⎟⎞−0.039
ds = 236.9 • exp⎜⎜−8.44 • c ⎟⎟ • ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ • 0.477 (4.63b)
⎜⎝ k ⎟
⎠ ⎜⎝ k ⎟⎠
m m
−0.039
⎛ kc ⎞⎟ ⎜⎛ kc ⎟⎞ ⎡ ⎛ v 2 ⎞⎤
⎜
dm = 236.9 • exp⎜−8.44 • ⎟⎟ • ⎜ ⎟⎟ • 2.10 • ⎢⎢0.216 •⎜⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟⎟⎥⎥ (4.64a)
⎜⎝ km ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ km ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ km • g ⎟⎠⎥
⎢⎣ ⎦
⎛ k ⎞⎟ ⎛ k ⎟⎞−0.039 ⎡ ⎛ v 2 ⎞⎤
dm = 236.9 • exp⎜⎜−8.44 • c ⎟⎟ • ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ • 0.477 • ⎢⎢0.216 •⎜⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟⎟⎥⎥ (4.64b)
⎜⎝ k ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
m ⎠ ⎝ km ⎠ ⎣⎢ ⎝⎜ km • g ⎠⎟⎦⎥
where the right-hand-side term kmg is the peak (positive) rock acceleration
expressed in units of length per sec2
Note that Equations 4.64a and 4.64b are the same as Equations 4.62a and
4.62b, indicating consistent results from both regression analyses.
The standard error term (Std. error) for this regression analysis was deter-
mined to be 0.74 for both the non-dimensionalized displacement as well as
the standardized displacement for earthquakes of Magnitude 5. This non-
dimensionalized two-term displacement equation is identified as Equation
Form Two with the coefficients and Std. error terms summarized in
column three of Table 4.8.
ERDC TR-09-2 123
dm • km g ⎛ k ⎞
= 57.0 • exp ⎜⎜⎜−8.58 • c ⎟⎟⎟ (4.65)
vm 2 ⎜⎝ km ⎟⎠
where:
dm = permanent displacement
kmg = peak (positive) rock acceleration expressed in units of length
per sec2, consistent with units of dm (length) and vm (length
per sec)
vm = peak (positive) ground velocity of the earthquake
kc = critical acceleration expressed as a fraction of g
km = peak (positive) rock acceleration expressed as a fraction of g.
⎛ k ⎞
ds = 264.3 • exp⎜⎜−8.58 • c ⎟⎟⎟ (4.66)
⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟
⎡⎛ k ⎞ ⎛ v 2 ⎞⎤
dm = ds • ⎢⎢⎜⎜⎜ s2 ⎟⎟⎟ • ⎜⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟⎟⎥⎥ (bis 4.3)
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎣⎢⎝ vs ⎠ ⎝ km ⎠⎦⎥
where:
H1-
100
H2+
H2-
10
mean
0.01
dm • km g ⎛ ⎞
= 57 . 0 • exp ⎜⎜−8.58 • kc ⎟⎟
0.001
vm 2 ⎜⎜⎝ km ⎟⎟⎠
0.0001
0.01 0.1 1
critical acceleration ratio (kc/km)
Figure 4.10. Non-dimensionalized displacements with the mean, 68 percent prediction intervals and
95 percent probability of non-exceedance curves.
⎛ ⎡ ⎛ 2 ⎞⎤
k
dm = 264.3 • exp⎜⎜−8.58 • c ⎟⎟⎞ • ⎢0.216 •⎜⎜ vm ⎟⎟⎥ (4.67)
⎟⎟ ⎢ ⎟⎥
⎜⎝ k m ⎠ ⎣⎢ ⎝⎜⎜ km • g ⎠⎟⎦⎥
where the right-hand-side term kmg is the peak (positive) rock acceleration
expressed in units of length per sec2.
Note that Equation 4.67 is the same as Equation 4.65, indicating con-
sistent results from both regression analyses.
dm • km g ⎛ k ⎞
= 57.0 • exp ⎜⎜⎜−8.58 • c ⎟⎟⎟ • 3.39 (4.68)
vm 2 ⎜⎝ km ⎟⎠
⎛ k ⎞
ds = 264.3 • exp⎜⎜−8.58 • c ⎟⎟⎟ • 3.39 (4.69)
⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟
⎛ k ⎞ ⎡ ⎛ v 2 ⎞⎤
dm = 264.3 • exp⎜⎜−8.58 • c ⎟⎟⎟ • 3.39 • ⎢⎢0.216 •⎜⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟⎟⎥⎥ (4.70)
⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟ ⎢⎣ ⎜⎝ km • g ⎠⎟⎥
⎦
where the right-hand-side term kmg is the peak (positive) rock acceleration
expressed in units of length per sec2.
Note that Equation 4.70 is the same as Equation 4.68, indicating con-
sistent results from both regression analyses.
dm • km g ⎛ k ⎞
= 57.0 • exp ⎜⎜⎜−8.58 • c ⎟⎟⎟ • 2.10 (4.71a)
vm 2 ⎜⎝ km ⎟⎠
dm • km g ⎛ k ⎞
= 57.0 • exp ⎜⎜⎜−8.58 • c ⎟⎟⎟ • 0.477 (4.71b)
vm 2 ⎜⎝ km ⎟⎠
⎛ k ⎞
ds = 264.3 • exp⎜⎜⎜−8.58 • c ⎟⎟⎟ • 2.10 (4.72a)
⎝ km ⎠⎟
⎛ k ⎞
ds = 264.3 • exp⎜⎜−8.58 • c ⎟⎟⎟ • 0.477 (4.72b)
⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟
⎛ k ⎞ ⎡ ⎛ v 2 ⎞⎤
dm = 264.3 • exp⎜⎜−8.58 • c ⎟⎟⎟ • 2.10 • ⎢⎢0.216 •⎜⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟⎟⎥⎥ (4.73a)
⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟ ⎢⎣ ⎜⎝ km • g ⎠⎟⎥
⎦
⎛ k ⎞ ⎡ ⎛ v 2 ⎞⎤
dm = 264.3 • exp⎜⎜−8.58 • c ⎟⎟⎟ • 0.477 • ⎢⎢0.216 •⎜⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟⎟⎥⎥ (4.73b)
⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟ ⎣⎢ ⎝⎜ km • g ⎠⎟⎦⎥
where the right-hand-side term kmg is the peak (positive) rock acceleration
expressed in units of length per sec2.
Note that Equations 4.73a and 4.73b are the same as Equations 4.71a and
4.71b, indicating consistent results from both regression analyses.
The standard error term (Std. error) for this regression analysis was deter-
mined to be 1.24 for both the non-dimensionalized displacement as well as
the standardized displacement for earthquakes of Magnitude 5. This non-
dimensionalized two-term displacement equation is identified as Equation
Form One with the coefficients and Std. error terms summarized in
column two of Table 4.8.
ERDC TR-09-2 127
dm • km g ⎛ k ⎞⎟−1.94
= 0.153 • ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ (4.74)
vm2 ⎜⎝ k ⎠⎟
m
where:
dm = permanent displacement
kmg = peak (positive) rock acceleration expressed in units of length
per sec2, consistent with units of dm (length) and vm (length
per sec)
vm = peak (positive) ground velocity of the earthquake
kc = critical acceleration expressed as a fraction of g
km = peak (positive) rock acceleration expressed as a fraction of g.
⎛k ⎞⎟−1.94
ds = 0.71 • ⎜⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ (4.75)
⎝k m⎠
⎟
⎡⎛ k ⎞ ⎛ v 2 ⎞⎤
dm = ds • ⎢⎢⎜⎜⎜ s2 ⎟⎟⎟ • ⎜⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟⎟⎥⎥ (bis 4.3)
⎢⎣⎜⎝ vs ⎟⎠ ⎝⎜ km ⎠⎟⎥⎦
where:
H1-
1000
H2+
100 H2-
mean
10
68% upper bound
prediction
1 68% lower bound
prediction interval
95% probability of
0.1 non exceedance
0.01
dm • km g ⎛ k ⎟⎞−1.94
= 0.153 • ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟
vm 2 ⎜⎝ k ⎟⎠
0.001 m
0.0001
0.01 0.1 1
critical acceleration ratio (kc/km)
Figure 4.11. Non-dimensionalized displacements with the mean, 68 percent prediction intervals and
95 percent probability of non-exceedance curves.
⎛k ⎞⎟−1.94 ⎡ ⎛ v 2 ⎞⎤
dm = 0.71 • ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ • ⎢⎢0.216 •⎜⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟⎟⎥⎥ (4.76)
⎜⎝ k ⎟ ⎜⎝ km • g ⎟⎠⎥
m⎠ ⎢⎣ ⎦
where the right-hand-side term kmg is the peak (positive) rock acceleration
expressed in units of length per sec2.
Note that Equation 4.76 is the same as Equation 4.74, indicating con-
sistent results from both regression analyses.
dm • km g ⎛ k ⎞⎟−1.94
= 0.153 • ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ • 2.44 (4.77)
vm 2 ⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟
⎛k ⎞⎟−1.94
ds = 0.71 • ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ • 2.44 (4.78)
⎜⎝ k ⎠ ⎟
m
⎛ k ⎟⎞−1.94 ⎡ ⎛ v 2 ⎞⎤
⎜
dm = 0.71 • ⎜ c ⎟⎟ • 2.44 • ⎢⎢0.216 •⎜⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟⎟⎥⎥ (4.79)
⎜⎝ k ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ km • g ⎟⎠⎥
m ⎢⎣ ⎦
where the right-hand-side term kmg is the peak (positive) rock acceleration
expressed in units of length per sec2.
Note that Equation 4.79 is the same as Equation 4.77, indicating con-
sistent results from both regression analyses.
dm • km g ⎛ k ⎞⎟−1.94
= 0.153 • ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ • 1.72 (4.80a)
vm2 ⎜⎝ k ⎠⎟
m
dm • km g ⎛ k ⎞⎟−1.94
= 0.153 • ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ • 0.583 (4.80b)
vm 2 ⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟
⎛k ⎞⎟−1.94
ds = 0.71 • ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ • 1.72 (4.81a)
⎜⎝ km⎠
⎟
⎛k ⎞⎟−1.94
ds = 0.71 • ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ • 0.583 (4.81b)
⎜⎝ k ⎠ ⎟
m
⎛ k ⎟⎞−1.94 ⎡ ⎛ v 2 ⎞⎤
⎜
dm = 0.71 • ⎜ c ⎟⎟ • 1.72 • ⎢⎢0.216 •⎜⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟⎟⎥⎥ (4.82a)
⎝⎜ km ⎠⎟ ⎢⎣ ⎝⎜ km • g ⎠⎟⎥⎦
⎛k ⎞⎟−1.94 ⎡ ⎛ v 2 ⎞⎤
dm = 0.71 • ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ • 0.583 • ⎢⎢0.216 •⎜⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟⎟⎥⎥ (4.82b)
⎜⎝ k ⎟ ⎝⎜ km • g ⎠⎟⎦⎥
m⎠ ⎣⎢
where the right-hand-side term kmg is the peak (positive) rock acceleration
expressed in units of length per sec2.
Note that Equations 4.82a and 4.82b are the same as Equations 4.80a and
4.80b, indicating consistent results from both regression analyses.
100
10
0.1
0.01
0.001
mean - eqn3 mean - eqn2 mean - eqn1
0.0001
0.01 0.1 1
critical acceleration ratio (kc/km)
Figure 4.12. Non-dimensionalized displacements and comparisons of the means of the three regression
analysis equations for Magnitude 5 earthquakes.
One method of comparison will be the Std. error term determined from
the error in the estimates. The Std. error for eqn3 is 0.74, for eqn2, 0.74
and for eqn1, equal to 1.24 when transformed to a natural logarithm from
a common logarithm standard error value of 0.54. These results show that
eqn3 and eqn2 have a more accurate estimate as compared to eqn1, and
that eqn3 and eqn2 have practically equal values.
Lastly, given the small value of the exponent for the (kc/km) term of eqn3
(-0.039), this explains the comparable results of eqn2 and eqn3.
ERDC TR-09-2 132
of the non-dimensionalized displace- Coefficients and Std. Error Equation Form Two
ment relationships described by β1 64.439
Equation 3.39, previously derived in β2 -8.862
Chapter 3. The values for the coeffi-
β3
cients summarized by the above-
β4
mentioned equation and the standard
error terms as well as the probabil- β5
The standard error term (Std. error) for this regression analysis was deter-
mined to be 0.80 for both the non-dimensionalized displacement as well
as the standardized displacement. This non-dimensionalized two-term
displacement equation is identified as Equation Form Two with the coeffi-
cients and Std. error terms summarized in column two of Table 4.9.
dm • km g ⎛ k ⎞
= 65.44 • exp ⎜⎜⎜−8.86 • c ⎟⎟⎟ (4.83)
vm 2 ⎜⎝ km ⎟⎠
where:
dm = permanent displacement
kmg = peak (positive) rock acceleration expressed in units of length
per sec2, consistent with units of dm (length) and vm (length
per sec)
vm = peak (positive) ground velocity of the earthquake
ERDC TR-09-2 133
1000
100
Non-Dimensionalized Permanent Disp.
10
0.1
H1+
H1-
0.01 H2+
H2-
68% upper bound prediction interval
0.001 68% lower bound prediction interval
95% probability of non exceedance
mean
0.0001
0.01 0.1 1
⎛ k ⎞
ds = 303.484 • exp ⎜⎜⎜−8.862 • c ⎟⎟⎟ (4.84)
⎜⎝ km ⎟⎠
⎡⎛ k ⎞ ⎛ v 2 ⎞⎤
dm = ds • ⎢⎢⎜⎜⎜ s2 ⎟⎟⎟ • ⎜⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟⎟⎥⎥ (bis 4.3)
⎢⎣⎜⎝ vs ⎟⎠ ⎝⎜ km ⎠⎟⎥⎦
where:
⎛ k ⎞ ⎡ ⎛ v 2 ⎞⎤
dm = 303.484 • exp⎜⎜−8.862 • c ⎟⎟⎟ • ⎢⎢0.216 •⎜⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟⎟⎥⎥ (4.86)
⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟ ⎣⎢ ⎝⎜ km • g ⎠⎟⎦⎥
where the right-hand-side term kmg is the peak (positive) rock acceleration
expressed in units of length per sec2.
Note that Equation 4.83 is the approximately the same as Equation 4.86,
indicating consistent results from both regression analyses.
dm • km g ⎛ k ⎞
= 65.44 • exp ⎜⎜⎜−8.86 • c ⎟⎟⎟ • 3.75 (4.87)
vm 2 ⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟
⎛ k ⎞
ds = 303.484 • exp⎜⎜−8.86 • c ⎟⎟⎟ • 3.75 (4.88)
⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟
ERDC TR-09-2 135
⎛ k ⎞ ⎡ ⎛ v 2 ⎞⎤
dm = 303.484 • exp⎜⎜−8.86 • c ⎟⎟⎟ • 3.75 • ⎢⎢0.216 •⎜⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟⎟⎥⎥ (4.89)
⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟ ⎜⎝ km • g ⎠⎟⎥
⎢⎣ ⎦
where the right-hand-side term kmg is the peak (positive) rock acceleration
expressed in units of length per sec2.
Note that Equation 4.89 is the approximately the same as Equation 4.87,
indicating consistent results from both regression analyses.
dm • km g ⎛ k ⎞
= 65.44 • exp ⎜⎜⎜−8.86 • c ⎟⎟⎟ • 2.23 (4.90a)
vm 2 ⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟
dm • km g ⎛ k ⎞
= 65.44 • exp ⎜⎜⎜−8.86 • c ⎟⎟⎟ • 0.449 (4.90b)
vm 2 ⎜⎝ km ⎟⎠
⎛ k ⎞
ds = 303.484 • exp⎜⎜−8.86 • c ⎟⎟⎟ • 2.23 (4.91a)
⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟
⎛ k ⎞
ds = 303.484 • exp⎜⎜−8.86 • c ⎟⎟⎟ • 0.449 (4.91b)
⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟
⎛ k ⎞ ⎡ ⎛ v 2 ⎞⎤
dm = 303.484 • exp⎜⎜−8.86 • c ⎟⎟⎟ • 2.23 • ⎢⎢0.216 •⎜⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟⎟⎥⎥ (4.92a)
⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟ ⎢⎣ ⎜⎝ km • g ⎠⎟⎥
⎦
⎛ k ⎞ ⎡ ⎛ v 2 ⎞⎤
dm = 303.484 • exp⎜⎜−8.86 • c ⎟⎟⎟ • 0.449 • ⎢⎢0.216 •⎜⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟⎟⎥⎥ (4.92b)
⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟ ⎣⎢ ⎝⎜ km • g ⎠⎟⎦⎥
where the right-hand-side term kmg is the peak (positive) rock acceleration
expressed in units of length per sec2.
Note that Equations 4.92a and 4.92b are approximately the same as Equa-
tions 4.90a and 4.90b, indicating consistent results from both regression
analyses.
ERDC TR-09-2 137
Figure 5.1. The Introduction tab features the process of a multiple analysis.
With a single analysis, the input data to Newmark falls into three different
groups and NewmarkVM displays these groups with the following tabs
available for user input
Input data for a multiple or regression analyses falls into six different
groups and the NewmarkVM displays these groups as tabs and available for
user input
The following subsections of Section 5.2 are listed in the order as shown in
the NewmarkVM tabs. Each subsection describes the function of each tab
and identifies whether each tab relates to a single analysis, multiple
analyses or both.
The user data entry within this tab will be described in a top-down
manner. Data within this tab can be divided into subgroups and is
described in the following two sections.
ERDC TR-09-2 140
Figure 5.2. The Multiple Horizontal Time-History Selections tab ready for user input.
From the list of previously selected acceleration time-history files, the user
can start matching the sets, i.e. the horizontal components of these earth-
quake time histories need to belong to the same set. It is important to
correctly pick the files that pertain to horizontal component 1 (group 1)
and the files for horizontal component 2 (group 2). This is accomplished
by the Assign File to frame or container located to the left in Figure 5.2
which contains 3 buttons. To select a set, use the following steps
1. Choose a file for group 1, by selecting the file listed in the center box and
then pressing the Group#1 button
2. This file will appear in the File (H1) to Group #1: box within the New
Time-History File Set frame
3. If file in step 2 is incorrect, select Clear H1 and start over with step 1
4. Choose a file for group 2, by selecting the file listed in the center box and
then pressing the Group#2 button
5. This group 2 file will appear in the File (H1) to Group #2: box within
the New Time-History File Set frame
6. If file in step 5 is incorrect, select Clear H2 and start over with step 4 for
selection of group 2 files.
7. Select the Add Set button located in the Assign File to frame to create
the set
Note: If there is no file pertaining to either group 1 or group 2, the user can
take the default of N/A found within the New Time-History File Set
frame.
After selecting the Add Set button, the new set will be added to a scroll-
down list with a gray background, and each file will be located within its
respective group number.
ERDC TR-09-2 142
The first set is given a set number of 1 or the value of the Initial Set No#
box. The addition of more sets will require the user to go over the above
seven steps for each set. As a useful means for the management of these
sets, buttons are included for inserting, editing and deleting sets.
The Initial Set No# box located above the gray scroll-down list allows
the user to enter the set number of interest. This feature will automatically
place that particular set at the top of the list.
ERDC TR-09-2 143
To work with the appropriate EQTH data file, the user must first specify a
file to be read in. The user can type a specific filename or select a file using
the Find button that exists on the Earthquake Time-History Horz
Comp. 1 tab in a single analysis case.
For multiple analyses there will be a dropdown menu next to the file name
that allows the user to select which file to work with. The listed files can
also be found in the gray shaded area within the Multiple Horizontal
Time-History Selections tab. These time histories will be listed in
Group#1 or Group#2 depending on whether the user is currently working
in the Earthquake Time Horz Comp. 1 or Earthquake Time-
History Horz Comp. 2 tabs. When working with the Set # combo box,
located at the top right of the tab, the user can either enter the set number
of interest or use the arrow buttons to increase/decrease the set number.
ERDC TR-09-2 144
Figure 5.4. Horizontal earthquake time-history ground motion shown in the Earthquake Time-
History Horz Comp. 1 tab.
This set number matches the Set # found in the gray area within the
Multiple Horizontal Time-History Selections tab. Selection of a
particular set will update all relevant data within the current earthquake
time-history tab, including the graph at the bottom of the form.
ERDC TR-09-2 145
When a file has been selected, a format must be built. All specifications for
reading a file are grouped in a frame labeled EQTH Format. To know
what information to enter for reading the file, it will be beneficial to select
the View Text File button and peruse the file to find each section of data.
The first block of data in each EQTH file is the number of header lines.
Entering how many header lines there are allows the program to skip
those lines. It is also important to know how many data samples are on
each line. Entering the Number of Values/Line keeps the program
from entering blank samples or ignoring samples. The value entered for
Time Step should be the amount of time that occurs between samples,
establishing the sampling frequency and the total time for the earthquake
data.
There is a combo box that allows the user to specify the units that the data
were recorded in. NOTE: The horizontal component 1 EQTH file uses the
same units as the Horizontal component 2 EQTH file. There is no way to
mix and match EQTH units.
There is a second combo box that shows several options for a data format.
These formats are displayed as if they were in a FORTRAN FORMAT
statement. These are especially important in areas where data text may
run together. In the Data Format pull-down menu, the Delimited
option is the space.
After an EQTH format has been built for a particular file, the user can read
in the Earthquake Time-History. After the button is pressed, the actual
values of the maximum and minimum values for that file are displayed in
the Orig. Acc. sub-frame of the EQTH Format frame. A plot of the
input data is also displayed at the bottom of the tab. The Edit EQTH
Data frame will also be enabled.
The Edit EQTH Data frame is a tool that allows the user to scale the
EQTH data to values more appropriate for modeling the problem at hand.
There is a combo-box that allows the user to invert the user specified
ERDC TR-09-2 146
There are also two possible ways of scaling the input data, either by setting
an absolute scale value to multiply the samples by or by setting an absolute
maximum value for the positive peak value and scaling the other samples
to match. To choose the scale method, click the radio button beside that
option. Then, type in the value desired.
When this is done, the inactive choice will be updated with the related
value. Also, the scaled minimum and maximum values will be displayed,
and the data plot at the bottom of the form will reflect the changes.
If the user desires a hardcopy of the scaled data in the same format as at
the bottom of the tab, there is a button labeled Print Plot.
If the user would like to view the raw data in its original format, there is a
button labeled View Text File.
In a single analysis, the user has the option of providing the maximum
transmissible acceleration (kc) and its units or the ratio of kc and the peak
acceleration (km) as user input.
Figure 5.5. Maximum Transmissible Acceleration tab for multiple analyses data entry.
Figure 5.6. The Selection of Time Histories tab for data entry used for multiple analyses.
The first horizontal acceleration time-history set (i.e. H1 and H2) is dis-
played within the View Earthquake Time-History Set frame and each
labeled by File(H1): and File(H2): for the respective horizontal com-
ponents. If either component was not available there would be an N/A
placed instead of the name of the file. There is also a Choose Set to View
ERDC TR-09-2 149
entry/selection box with a default of 1 that allows the user to specify which
set to list. This can be used to verify the files being used and is by no
means a way of sorting the entire set of lists.
About the center of this tab, there is the Global Select frame which
allows the user an easy way to select any of the possible four horizontal
components in a vertical sense (i.e. the selection of the H1(+) button will
mark all the H1(+) buttons listed vertically in the sub-frame directly
below). This feature also applies for the H1(-), H2(+), H2(-) buttons.
There is an All button, which accepts all files, and a None button, which
clears out the files previous selected and un-marks all of the buttons.
The sub-frame located beneath the Global Select frame is used for
selecting time histories on a set-by-set basis. For set 1, the user can mark
or unmark any of the 4 buttons, i.e., H1(+), H1(-), H2(+), H2(-). There
is an All button which accepts all files in this set and a None button which
un-marks all the buttons of the current set. The sliding bar to the right
allows the user to view which sets are marked or unmarked.
The Figure 5.7 Analysis tab can be divided into three sections: Input
Parameters, Run Newmark Analyzer and View Output. The Input
Parameters section allows the user to select the regression analysis type
and also set the output units from an execution of Newmark. The Run
Newmark Analyzer section is a button that will execute the Newmark
program. The View Output section contains options for viewing the
many outputs of the Newmark Analysis, including the Regression
Analysis subsection that allows the user to view the data and the statistic
parameters derived from a multiple analysis.
ERDC TR-09-2 150
In the Input Parameters frame of the Analysis tab, the user can select
inputs from two combo boxes. The Regression Analysis Type combo
box shows the option of no regression, performing regression analyses
with three different forms of equations and the combinations of these
equations.
ERDC TR-09-2 151
A display will show (Figure 5.9) the stability analysis being performed by
Newmark for each set of time histories. Note: A set of time histories repre-
sent two horizontal acceleration time histories, namely H1 and H2. With
each being represented as two separate calculations; namely; H1(+),
H1(-) and H2(+), H2(-). This process could take a minute or two,
depending on the number of sets being evaluated (and the speed of the
computer). Upon completion, the execution window disappears and a pop-
up window waits for the user to select the OK button.
ERDC TR-09-2 152
The focus now returns to the Analysis Tab and the View Output section.
The user has many options available for viewing and evaluating the data
by the selection of any particular button. There are logs of input and run-
time data for the user to examine. The scaled horizontal time-history
results of acceleration, velocity and displacement are readily available for
inspection. A sliding block analysis with the given maximum transmissible
acceleration will report the value of the cumulative (permanent) horizontal
relative wall displacement. In the event where multiple sets were used in
the analysis, another window will appear (Figure 5.10) to allow the user to
view the output data pertaining to any set.
The results for the time-history permanent displacement analysis for this
problem are shown in Figure 5.13. This figure is seen by activating the
Plot Sliding Time-History – H1 button on the Analysis tab. (Note the
Show Sliding Time-History – H1 button (or, equivalently, in the
singlePLOTslideTH11.TMP1 ACSII output file) also reports the value for
the cumulative (permanent) horizontal relative wall displacement). The
first or upper figure is a plot of the horizontal acceleration time-history
and the red line designates the maximum transmissible acceleration (or,
equivalently, the yield acceleration) value of 0.3 g. Permanent structural
displacements start to occur the first time the acceleration trace plots
above this red line. Observe that permanent wall translation starts at
about 3.8 seconds after initial shaking and concludes by about 5 seconds
out of a total of 38 seconds of ground shaking. The cumulative permanent
displacement of the structural block is about 1.625 inches, which occurs
over about 3 significant relative (structural) velocity and displacement
pulses (refer to the second and third figure down from the top,
respectively).
Starting from the File pull-down menu, select Open and accept the file
“multi_10sets_ex2.nmk”. From this input file, the user can browse
through data within tabs two through four. Data entry and information
regarding these tabs are listed within the multiple analyses segment of
Section 5.2.1 and also in Sections 5.2.2 and 5.2.3. Please note that for this
example, standardized displacement computations have not been
requested.
In the Analysis tab, the regression form type two expression is the
equation of choice and the output units will be in inches, as shown in
Figure 5.14.
After this selection, run the analysis by selecting the Run Newmark
Analyzer.
The results for the time-history permanent displacement analysis for this
example 2 can be seen for each individually time-history or set, by
activating the Plot Sliding Time-History – H1 or Plot Sliding Time-
History – H2 button on the Analysis tab. (Note the Show Sliding
Time-History – H1 button (or, equivalently, in the output ASCII texts
file as described in Appendix B) also reports the value for the cumulative
(permanent) horizontal relative structural displacement).
Upon inspection of the regression analysis for this example 2, Figure 5.16,
shows that all of the data below a kc /km value of 0.4 is contained below the
curve representing the 95 percent probability of non-exceedance relation-
ship. Some of the data greater than a kc /km value of 0.4 does fall above the
curve and lies above the 95 percent probability of non-exceedance rela-
tionship. An ideal data set would have a few data points falling above the
95 percent probability of non-exceedance relationship for all kc /km data
point values. This example illustrates the importance of including larger
number of sets of horizontal time histories in order to more efficiently
represent the data when performing a regression analysis. As a final note,
observe the plotted data from the Introduction tab (Figure 5.1).
ERDC TR-09-2 158
The authors of this report believe that the resultant plot from the regres-
sion analysis shows a reasonable data set base which results in reasonable
statistical relationships for the 122 sets of horizontal earthquake time
histories and over the entire range of kc /km data point values.
ERDC TR-09-2 159
Figure 5.16. The mean, 68 percent prediction intervals and 95 percent probability of non-exceedance.
ERDC TR-09-2 160
dm • km g ⎛ ⎞
= 70 . 1 • exp ⎜⎜−9.2 • kc ⎟⎟ • 4.64 (bis 4.14)
⎜⎝ ⎟
km ⎟⎠
vm2
where:
dm = permanent displacement
kmg = peak (positive) rock acceleration expressed in units of length
per sec2, consistent with units of dm (length) and vm (length
per sec)
vm = peak (positive) ground velocity of the earthquake
kc = critical acceleration expressed as a fraction of g
km = peak (positive) rock acceleration expressed as a fraction of g.
⎡ v 2 ⎤ ⎛ k ⎞
dm = 325.4 • ⎢⎢ m ⎥⎥ • exp⎜⎜−9.2 • c ⎟⎟⎟ (6.1)
⎣ km • g ⎦
⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟
where the right-hand-side term kmg is the peak (positive) rock acceleration
expressed in units of length per sec2.
dm • km g ⎛ ⎞
= 78 . 6 • exp ⎜⎜−9.12 • kc ⎟⎟ • 3.68 (bis 4.41)
vm2 ⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟⎟
⎡ v 2 ⎤ ⎛ k ⎞
dm = 289.5 • ⎢⎢ m ⎥⎥ • exp⎜⎜−9.12 • c ⎟⎟⎟ (6.2)
⎣ km • g ⎦
⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟
ERDC TR-09-2 162
where the right-hand-side term kmg is the peak (positive) rock acceleration
expressed in units of length per sec2.
dm • km g ⎛ ⎞
= 57 . 0 • exp ⎜⎜−8.58 • kc ⎟⎟ • 3.39 (bis 4.68)
vm2 ⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟⎟
⎡ v 2 ⎤ ⎛ k ⎞
dm = 193.2 • ⎢⎢ m ⎥⎥ • exp⎜⎜−8.58 • c ⎟⎟⎟ (6.3)
⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟
⎣ km • g ⎦
where the right-hand-side term kmg is the peak (positive) rock acceleration
expressed in units of length per sec2.
The regression analysis of the 122 sets of all Magnitudes 5 - 7 of rock accel-
eration time histories resulted in the non-dimensionalized displacement
for 95 percent probability of non-exceedance of
dm • km g ⎛ ⎞
= 65 . 44 • exp ⎜⎜−8.86 • kc ⎟⎟ • 3.75 (bis 4.87)
vm2 ⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟⎟
⎡ v 2 ⎤ ⎛ k ⎞
dm = 245.4 • ⎢⎢ m ⎥⎥ • exp⎜⎜−8.86 • c ⎟⎟⎟ (6.4)
⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟
⎣ km • g ⎦
ERDC TR-09-2 163
where the right-hand-side term kmg is the peak (positive) rock acceleration
expressed in units of length per sec2.
1000
Magnitude 7
non-dimensionalized displacement [dm*kmg/vm^2]
Magnitude 6
Magnitude 5
100 Magitudes 5 - 7
10
0.1
0.01
0.01 0.1 1
critical acceleration ratio (kc/km)
kc
km Magnitude 5 Magnitude 6 Magnitude 7 Magnitude 5 - 7
0.02 162.2120 242.0580 271.6762 205.30615
0.04 136.6378 201.6964 226.0193 171.95999
0.06 115.0956 168.0649 188.0354 144.02997
0.08 96.9498 140.0412 156.4349 120.63639
0.1 81.6648 116.6902 130.1450 101.04243
0.15 53.1807 73.9574 82.1604 64.87351
0.2 34.6317 46.8736 51.8678 41.65154
0.25 22.5525 29.7081 32.7441 26.74205
0.3 14.6863 18.8288 20.6713 17.16953
0.35 9.5639 11.9335 13.0498 11.02356
0.4 6.2281 7.5634 8.2383 7.07759
0.5 2.6412 3.0382 3.2833 2.91751
0.6 1.1200 1.2204 1.3085 1.20265
0.7 0.4750 0.4902 0.5215 0.49576
0.8 0.2014 0.1969 0.2078 0.05456
0.9 0.0854 0.0791 0.0828 0.02249
dm • km g ⎛ ⎞
= 70 . 1 • exp ⎜⎜−9.2 • kc ⎟⎟ (bis 4.11)
vm2 ⎜⎝ km ⎟⎟⎠
ERDC TR-09-2 165
where:
dm = permanent displacement
kmg = peak (positive) rock acceleration expressed in units of length
per sec2, consistent with units of dm (length) and vm (length
per sec)
vm = peak (positive) ground velocity of the earthquake
kc = critical acceleration expressed as a fraction of g
km = peak (positive) rock acceleration expressed as a fraction of g.
⎡ v 2 ⎤ ⎛ k ⎞
dm = 70.1 • ⎢⎢ m ⎥⎥ • exp⎜⎜−9.2 • c ⎟⎟⎟ (6.5)
⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟
⎣ km • g ⎦
where the right-hand-side term kmg is the peak (positive) rock acceleration
expressed in units of length per sec2.
dm • km g ⎛ ⎞
= 78 . 6 • exp ⎜⎜−9.12 • kc ⎟⎟ (bis 4.38)
vm2 ⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟⎟
⎡ v 2 ⎤ ⎛ k ⎞
dm = 78.6 • ⎢⎢ m ⎥⎥ • exp⎜⎜−9.12 • c ⎟⎟⎟ (6.6)
⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟
⎣ km • g ⎦
where the right-hand-side term kmg is the peak (positive) rock acceleration
expressed in units of length per sec2.
ERDC TR-09-2 166
dm • km g ⎛ ⎞
= 57 . 0 • exp ⎜⎜−8.58 • kc ⎟⎟ (bis 4.65)
vm2 ⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟⎟
⎡ v 2 ⎤ ⎛ k ⎞
dm = 57.0 • ⎢⎢ m ⎥⎥ • exp⎜⎜−8.58 • c ⎟⎟⎟ (6.7)
⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟
⎣ km • g ⎦
where the right-hand-side term kmg is the peak (positive) rock acceleration
expressed in units of length per sec2.
dm • km g ⎛ ⎞
= 65 . 44 • exp ⎜⎜−8.86 • kc ⎟⎟ (bis 4.83)
vm2 ⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟⎟
⎡ v 2 ⎤ ⎛ k ⎞
dm = 65.44 • ⎢⎢ m ⎥⎥ • exp⎜⎜−8.86 • c ⎟⎟⎟ (6.8)
⎜⎝ km ⎠⎟
⎣ km • g ⎦
where the right-hand-side term kmg is the peak (positive) rock acceleration
expressed in units of length per sec2..
ERDC TR-09-2 167
1000
Magnitude 7
non-dimensionalized displacement [ dm * kmg / vm^2]
Magnitude 6
Magnitude 5
100 Magnitudes 5 - 7
10
0.1
0.01
0.01 0.1 1
critical acceleration ratio (kc/km)
Figure 6.2. Mean relationships of non-dimensionalized displacements of all four magnitude groups.
ERDC TR-09-2 168
kc
km Magnitude 5 Magnitude 6 Magnitude 7 Magnitude 5 - 7
0.02 47.9965 65.5091 58.3576 54.81028
0.04 40.4294 54.5859 48.5502 45.9079
0.06 34.0554 45.4841 40.3911 38.45147
0.08 28.6862 37.8999 33.6031 32.20612
0.1 24.1636 31.5803 27.9559 26.97515
0.15 15.7355 20.0154 17.6485 17.31918
0.2 10.2471 12.6856 11.1415 11.11965
0.25 6.6730 8.0400 7.0336 7.13929
0.3 4.3455 5.0957 4.4403 4.58372
0.35 2.8298 3.2296 2.8032 2.94294
0.4 1.8428 2.0469 1.7696 1.88949
0.5 0.7815 0.8222 0.7053 0.77888
0.6 0.3314 0.3303 0.2811 0.32107
0.7 0.1405 0.1327 0.1120 0.13235
0.8 0.0596 0.0533 0.0446 0.05456
0.9 0.0253 0.0214 0.0178 0.02249
6.4 Recommendations
As mentioned previously, the resultant mean non-dimensionalized dis-
placement relationships of both Magnitude 5 and Magnitude 6 earthquake
groups showed reasonable results. However, there was a noticeable magni-
tude influence in the Magnitude 7 earthquake group on the mean relation-
ship. It is speculated that this may be due to an incomplete/limited data
set of only 23 sets of baseline corrected acceleration time histories. Recall
that there were 38 sets of Magnitude 6 and 61 sets of Magnitude 5 rock
acceleration time histories used in this study. A recommendation would be
the addition of supplemental data sets of the Magnitude 7 earthquake
group as recorded rock acceleration time histories become available in the
future with a repeat of the regression analysis for the Magnitude range 7
events.
ERDC TR-09-2 169
References
Ambraseys, N. N., and J. M. Menu. 1988. Earthquake-induced ground displacements.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. 16:985–1006.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Standard. 1986. Seismic analysis of safety-
related nuclear structures and commentary on Standard for Seismic Analysis of
Safety Related Nuclear Structures. 004-98. New York: ASCE.
Cai, Z., and R. J. Bathurst. 1996. Deterministic sliding block methods for estimating
seismic displacements of earth structures. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering 15:255–268.
Clough, G. W., and J. M. Duncan. 1969. Finite element analyses of Port Allen and Old
River Locks. Contract Report S-69-6. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station.
Ebeling, R. M., and E. E. Morrison. 1992. The seismic design of waterfront retaining
structures. Technical Report ITL-92-11. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Waterways
Experiment Station.
Ebeling, R. M., and R. L. Mosher. 1996. Red River U-Frame Lock No. 1, Backfill-
structure-foundation interaction. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
122(3):216–225.
Ebeling, R. M., and B. C. White. 2006. The rotational response of toe-restrained retain-
ing walls to earthquake ground motions. ERDC/ITL TR-06-2. Vicksburg, MS:
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center
Ebeling, R. M., J. F. Peters, and G. W. Clough. 1992. Users Guide for the incremental
construction, soil-structure interaction program SOILSTRUCT. Technical
Report ITL-90-6. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station.
ERDC TR-09-2 170
Ebeling, R. M., M. E. Pace, and E. E. Morrison. 1997b. Evaluating the stability of existing
massive concrete gravity structures founded on rock. Technical Report REMR-
CS-54. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
Ebeling, R. M., J. F. Peters, and R. L. Mosher. 1997c. The role of non-linear deformation
analyses in the design of a reinforced soil berm at Red River U-Frame Lock No. 1.
International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics
21:753–787.
Franklin, A. G., and F. K. Chang. 1977. Earthquake resistance of earth and rockfill dams:
Report 5: Permanent displacement of earth embankments by Newmark sliding
block analysis. Miscellaneous Paper S-71-17. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Water-
ways Experiment Station.
Green, R. A., and R. M. Ebeling. 2002. Seismic analysis of cantilever retaining walls,
Phase I. ERDC/ITL TR-02-3. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center.
Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1989. Retaining and flood walls. EM 1110-
2-2502.Washington, DC.
Headquarters, Department of the Army. 1995. Earthquake design and evaluation for
civil works projects. ER 1110-2-1806. Washington, DC.
Lysmer, J., T. Udaka, C.-F. Tsai, and H. B. Seed. 1975. FLUSH - A computer program for
approximate 3-D analysis of soil-structure interaction problems. Report No.
EERC 75-30. Berkley, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University
of California, Berkeley.
ERDC TR-09-2 171
Makdisi, F. I., and H. B. Seed. 1978. Simplified procedure for estimating dam and
embankment earthquake-induced deformations. Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division, ASCE, 104(GT7):849–867.
Mononobe, N., and H. Matsuo. 1929. On the determination of earth pressures during
earthquakes. In Proceedings, World Engineering Congress 9:177–185.
Okabe, S. 1924. General theory of earth pressures and seismic stability of retaining walls.
Journal Japan Society of Civil Engineering 10(6).
______. 1926. General theory of earth pressures. Journal Japan Society of Civil
Engineering 12(1).
Richards, R., Jr., and D. Elms. 1979. Seismic behavior of gravity retaining walls. Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 105(GT4):449–464.
Schnabel, P. B., J. Lysmer, and H. B. Seed. 1972. SHAKE: A computer program for
earthquake response analysis of horizontally layered sites. Report EERC-72-12.
Berkley, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California,
Berkeley.
Steedman, R. S., and X. Zeng. 1996. Rotation of large gravity walls on rigid foundations
under seismic loading. In Proceedings, Analysis and Design of Retaining Struc-
tures Against Earthquakes. ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 60. ed.,
S. Prakash, 38-56. Soil Dynamics Committee of the Geo-Institute of ASCE.
Strom, R. W., and R. M. Ebeling. 2004. Simplified methods used to estimate the limit
state axial load capacity of spillway invert slabs. ERDC/ITL TR-04-3.
Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
Whitman, R. V., and S. Liao. 1985a. Seismic design of retaining walls. Miscellaneous
Paper GL-85-1. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station.
______. 1985b. Seismic design of gravity retaining walls. Proc. 8th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco 3:533–540.
______. 2000. Fifty years of soil dynamics. Fifteenth Nabor Carrillo Lecture. Delivered
during the XX National Meeting of Soil Mechanics, Oaxaca, Mexico, November
2000. 88 p.
Wong, C. 1982. Seismic analysis and improved seismic design procedure for gravity
retaining walls. Research Report 82-32. Cambridge, MA: Department of Civil
Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
ERDC TR-09-2 172
Zeng, X., and R. S. Steedman. 2000. Rotating block method for seismic displacement of
gravity walls. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
126(8):709–717.
ERDC TR-09-2 173
with
Part 1: Key_GlobalAccVel
1 All references cited in this appendix are included in the Reference section at the end of the main text.
ERDC TR-09-2 174
with
= 1, Standardized displacement
computations performed.
and
Note: Second Row of Part 1 data will not be read when no standardized
displacement computations are to be performed. (Key_GlobalAccVel = 0)
with
Depending on the value of TH_State, the following input will either have
one or two filenames.
The data given in the following two sections list the acceleration time-
history file[s] and summarize the parameters used to characterize each
ERDC TR-09-2 176
H1_TimehistoryFile
with
Units of Intrinsic
Value for GACC Units of Acceleration Units of Velocity Displacement
32.174 ft/sec2 ft/sec feet
386.086 in./sec2 in./sec inches
9.80665 m/sec2 m/sec meters
980.665 cm/sec2 cm/sec centimeters
9806.65 mm/sec2 mm/sec millimeters
32.174 ft/sec2 ft/sec feet
and
Contents of H1_TimehistoryFile
with
The data given in the following two sections list the acceleration time-
history file[s] and summarize the parameters used to characterize each
acceleration time-history. The horizontal component[s] evaluated will be
dependent on the value of TH_State and Nset of information.
H2_TimehistoryFile
with
Units of Intrinsic
Value for GACC Units of Acceleration Units of Velocity Displacement
32.174 ft/sec2 ft/sec feet
386.086 in./sec2 in./sec inches
9.80665 m/sec2 m/sec meters
980.665 cm/sec2 cm/sec centimeters
9806.65 mm/sec2 mm/sec millimeters
32.174 ft/sec2 ft/sec feet
and
with
Part 1: KEY_REGRESSION
with
= 4, combination of KEY_REGRESSION
1&2
= 5, combination of KEY_REGRESSION
1&3
= 6, combination of KEY_REGRESSION
2&3
= 7, combination of KEY_REGRESSION
1&2&3
ERDC TR-09-2 181
with
Note: Part 2 data will not be read when there is no regression analysis.
(KEY_REGRESSION=0)
ERDC TR-09-2 182
with
with
and
or
⎛k ⎞
Crit_Acc_State = 2, value[s] of ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ , the ratio of the
⎝ km ⎠
maximum transmissible acceleration
value for the retaining wall (kc g) and
the peak ground acceleration (km g) .
ERDC TR-09-2 183
with
and
kc
Crit_Acc_Value = 1.0, One value, for single Newmark
km
analysis.
kc
> 1.0, Number of values
km
with
kc
Crit_Acc_Ratio = value[s] of
km
kc
For valid values between 0 ≺ ≺ 1 , and in ascending order, the authors
km
recommend the following,
Values for
Crit_Acc_Ratio
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.15
0.2
ERDC TR-09-2 184
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
with
Table B.1. Output data files used by output buttons in the visual modeler analysis tab.
Robert M. Ebeling, Moira T. Fong, Donald E. Yule, Amos Chase, Sr., 5e. TASK NUMBER
and Raju V. Kala
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
142082
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT
NUMBER
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center
Information Technology Laboratory and Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory ERDC TR-09-2
3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199;
Science Applications International Corporation
3532 Manor Drive, Suite 4, Vicksburg, MS 39180
9. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)
Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington, DC 20314-1000
11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT
NUMBER(S)
14. ABSTRACT
This research report describes the engineering formulation and corresponding software developed for the translational response of
rock-founded structural systems to earthquake ground motions. The PC software Newmark (and NewmarkVM) is developed to perform an
analysis of the permanent sliding displacement response for a structural system founded on rock for a user specified earthquake
acceleration time history via a Complete Time History Analysis, also know as the Newmark sliding block method of analysis. The PC-
based program Newmark performs a permanent sliding block displacement analysis given a baseline corrected rock site-specific
acceleration time history. Newmark can also conduct regression analyses for sets of rock founded acceleration time histories in order to
develop up to three user selected forms of generalized equations of simplified permanent displacement relationships. The rock-founded
structural system can be a variety of structural feature types; a concrete gravity dam, a concrete monolith, a retaining wall, etc.
(Continued)
15. SUBJECT TERMS Newmark sliding block analysis Rock earthquake ground motions Yield Acceleration
Baseline corrected Permanent displacement Seismic
Maximum transmissible acceleration Rock Translation
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE
OF ABSTRACT OF PAGES PERSON
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area
code)
UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 203
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239.18
14. ABSTRACT (Concluded).
The results of the regression analyses discussed in this report resulted in Simplified permanent displacement
relationships that were developed using data generated by Newmark for an extensive data base of 122 sets of
baseline corrected rock acceleration time histories in the moment magnitude 5 to 7 range. The resulting simplified
permanent displacement relationships allow the engineer to rapidly determine the earthquake-induced permanent
displacement for a given rock-founded structural system. This alternative procedure requires only rudimentary
design/analysis ground motion characterization and use of a simplified permanent seismic displacement relationship
for a sliding block (structural) system model. The resulting simplified permanent displacement relationships dis-
cussed in this report are being implemented in other Corps permanent (seismically-induced) displacement software
such as CorpsWallSlip, and CorpsDamSlip.