Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 54
54 From these plots, the trend of increasing PGV with S1 is very Earthquake ground motion studies described in this chap- evident; however, there is no discernible trend for PGA. ter are based on an earthquake with a 7 percent probability of In addition to presenting the median PGV equation, Fig- exceedance in 75 years (that is, the 1,000-year return period), ures 5-20 through 5-24 show the mean-plus and the mean- consistent with the recommendations adopted by AASHTO minus one standard deviations. These lines use the standard in July of 2007. The 1,000-year earthquake ground motions deviation coefficient of 0.38 as suggested by the Abrahamson are available in maps and from an implementation CD de- PGV equation. The use of the standard deviation coefficient veloped by the USGS for AASHTO. As shown in this chapter, of 0.38 implies that the mean-plus one standard deviation the recommended 1,000-year return period is a significant and the mean-minus one standard deviation will be 1.46 and change from the existing AASHTO Specifications, in terms of 0.68 of the median PGV values. PGA and spectral shape for WUS and CEUS locations. These From the five figures presented in this section, the follow- differences need to be considered when conducting seismic ing relationship was selected for estimating PGV for design analysis and design for retaining walls, slopes and embank- analyses, with the equation reduced to the following expres- ments, and buried structures, and therefore these ground sion in log10 units rather than natural log basis: motion discussions form an important component of the overall NCHRP 12-70 Project. PGV = 0.3937 × 100.434C 1 (5-10) The information from ground motion review also was used to update Newmark displacement correlations, as also de- where scribed in this chapter. Newmark displacement correlations PGV = inches/sec and will be used for estimating the displacement of retaining walls, slopes and embankments, and buried structures, as discussed C1 = 4.82 + 2.16 log10 S1 + 0.013[ 2.30 log10 S1 + 2.93] 2 in later chapters. The update in the displacement correlations For design purposes Equation (5-10) was later simplified considered ground motions that will typically occur in CEUS to the following equation. as well as WUS. Again both the PGA and spectral shape were important considerations during the development of these PGV ( in sec ) = 55 Fv S1 (5-11) correlations. Results of the Newmark displacement studies led to two equations [Equation (5-6) for CEUS rock sites and Equation (5-10) was developed by using the mean-plus Equation (5-8) for WUS soil and rock sites and CEUS soil one standard deviation prediction (shown in heavy thick lines sites] and two charts (Figures 5-18 and 5-19) for use in design. in the five figures for an M = 7.5 event). As a final component of the ground motion studies, a cor- relation between PGV and spectral acceleration at 1 second (S1) was developed. This information is needed within the 5.4 Conclusions Newmark displacement correlations developed for this Proj- The work presented in this chapter forms the basis of the ect, as well as for evaluating the transient response of buried ground motion determination used during the seismic analy- structures. Equation (5-10) presents the correlation. Results sis and design of retaining walls, slopes and embankments, of the equation are compared with records from the USNRC and buried structures. The results of the ground motion stud- strong motion database to show the reasonableness of the rec- ies were developed by interpreting existing strong motion ommended equation. For design purposes Equation (5-10) data relative to recommendations that were made for the up- was later simplified to Equation (5-11). The simplified equa- date of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. tion provided a reasonable approximation of the data.