PRENOLIN project. Results of the validation phase at sendai site

One of the objectives of the PRENOLIN project is the assessment of uncertainties associated with non-linear simulation of 1D site effects. An international benchmark is underway to test several numerical codes, including various non-linear soil constitutive models, to compute the non-linear seismic site response. The preliminary verification phase (i.e. comparison between numerical codes on simple, idealistic cases) is now followed by the validation phase, which compares predictions of such numerical estimations with actual strong motion data recorded from well-known sites. The benchmark presently involves 21 teams and 21 different non-linear computations. Extensive site characterization was performed at three sites of the Japanese KiK-net and PARI networks. This paper focuses on SENDAI site. The first results indicate that a careful analysis of the data for the lab measurement is required. The linear site response is overestimated while the non-linear effects are underestimated in the first iteration. According to these observations, a first set of recommendations for defining the non-linear soil parameters from lab measurements is proposed. PRENOLIN is part of two larger projects: SINAPS@, funded by the ANR (French National Research Agency) and SIGMA, funded by a consortium of nuclear operators (EDF, CEA, AREVA, ENL)

LEAP-2017 Simulation Exercise: Calibration of Constitutive Models and Simulation of the Element Tests

This paper presents a summary of the element test simulations (calibration simulations) submitted by 11 numerical simulation (prediction) teams that participated in the LEAP-2017 prediction exercise. A significant number of monotonic and cyclic triaxial (Vasko, An investigation into the behavior of Ottawa sand through monotonic and cyclic shear tests. Masters Thesis, The George Washington University, 2015; Vasko et al., LEAP-GWU-2015 Laboratory Tests. DesignSafe-CI, Dataset, 2018; El Ghoraiby et al., LEAP 2017: Soil characterization and element tests for Ottawa F65 sand. The George Washington University, Washington, DC, 2017; El Ghoraiby et al., LEAP-2017 GWU Laboratory Tests. DesignSafe-CI, Dataset, 2018; El Ghoraiby et al., Physical and mechanical properties of Ottawa F65 Sand. In B. Kutter et al. (Eds.), Model tests and numerical simulations of liquefaction and lateral spreading: LEAP-UCD-2017. New York: Springer, 2019) and direct simple shear tests (Bastidas, Ottawa F-65 Sand Characterization. PhD Dissertation, University of California, Davis, 2016) are available for Ottawa F-65 sand. The focus of this element test simulation exercise is to assess the performance of the constitutive models used by participating team in simulating the results of undrained stress-controlled cyclic triaxial tests on Ottawa F-65 sand for three different void ratios (El Ghoraiby et al., LEAP 2017: Soil characterization and element tests for Ottawa F65 sand. The George Washington University, Washington, DC, 2017; El Ghoraiby et al., LEAP-2017 GWU Laboratory Tests. DesignSafe-CI, Dataset, 2018; El Ghoraiby et al., Physical and mechanical properties of Ottawa F65 Sand. In B. Kutter et al. (Eds.), Model tests and numerical simulations of liquefaction and lateral spreading: LEAP-UCD-2017. New York: Springer, 2019). The simulated stress paths, stress strain responses, and liquefaction strength curves show that majority of the models used in this exercise are able to provide a reasonably good match to liquefaction strength curves for the highest void ratio (0.585) but the differences between the simulations and experiments become larger for the lower void ratios (0.542 and 0.515)

LEAP-2017: Comparison of the Type-B Numerical Simulations with Centrifuge Test Results

This paper presents comparisons of 11 sets of Type-B numerical simulations with the results of a selected set of centrifuge tests conducted in the LEAP-2017 project. Time histories of accelerations, excess pore water pressures, and lateral displacement of the ground surface are compared to the results of nine centrifuge tests. A number of numerical simulations showed trends similar to those observed in the experiments. While achieving a close match to all measured responses (accelerations, pore pressures, and displacements) is quite challenging, the numerical simulations show promising capabilities that can be further improved with the availability of additional high-quality experimental results

Development of Numerical Tools For the Evaluation of Pile Response to Laterally Spreading Soil

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Washington, 2018Problems in geotechnical earthquake engineering often involve complex geometries and boundary conditions prohibiting the use of simple models. Although very useful, empirical models are sometimes not applicable to the problem at hand and performing experimental tests is costly and difficult. Improvements in computer technology have made advanced numerical modeling an essential tool for analysis and design of systems in the field of geotechnical earthquake engineering. In this context, there is a need for a robust numerical framework capable of handling different aspects of the engineering problems in this field. In this study, several of these aspects for 3D dynamic finite element analysis of such engineering problems are addressed. Particularly, constitutive modeling of granular soil to capture liquefaction, and soil-pile interaction are considered and tools are developed and implemented in OpenSees to address the problem of bridge foundations subjected to liquefaction induced lateral spreading loads. Several 3D static, quasi-static and dynamic examples are included for verification and validation of the tools implemented as part of this research

International Benchmark on Numerical Simulations for 1D, Nonlinear Site Response (PRENOLIN): Verification Phase Based on Canonical CasesInternational Benchmark on Numerical Simulations for 1D, Nonlinear Site Response (PRENOLIN)

PREdiction of NOn-LINear soil behavior (PRENOLIN) is an international benchmark aiming to test multiple numerical simulation codes that are capable of predicting nonlinear seismic site response with various constitutive models. One of the objectives of this project is the assessment of the uncertainties associated with nonlinear simulation of 1D site effects. A first verification phase (i.e., comparison between numerical codes on simple idealistic cases) will be followed by a validation phase, comparing the predictions of such numerical estimations with actual strongmotion recordings obtained at well-known sites. The benchmark presently involves 21 teams and 23 different computational codes. We present here the main results of the verification phase dealing with simple cases. Three different idealized soil profiles were tested over a wide range of shear strains with different input motions and different boundary conditions at the sediment/bedrock interface. A first iteration focusing on the elastic and viscoelastic cases was proved to be useful to ensure a common understanding and to identify numerical issues before pursuing the nonlinear modeling. Besides minor mistakes in the implementation of input parameters and output units, the initial discrepancies between the numerical results can be attributed to (1) different understanding of the expression “input motion” in different communities, and (2) different implementations of material damping and possible numerical energy dissipation. The second round of computations thus allowed a convergence of all teams to the Haskell–Thomson analytical solution in elastic and viscoelastic cases. For nonlinear computations, we investigate the epistemic uncertainties related only to wave propagation modeling using different nonlinear constitutive models. Such epistemic uncertainties are shown to increase with the strain level and to reach values around 0.2 (log10 scale) for a peak ground acceleration of 5 m=s2 at the base of the soil column, which may be reduced by almost 50% when the various constitutive models used the same shear strength and damping implementation

International Benchmark on Numerical Simulations for 1D, Nonlinear Site Response (PRENOLIN): Verification Phase Based on Canonical Cases

International audienc

Prenolin: International benchmark on 1D nonlinear: Site-response analysis—validation phase exercise

This article presents the main results of the validation phase of the PRENOLIN project. PRENOLIN is an international benchmark on 1D nonlinear (NL) site-response analysis. This project involved 19 teams with 23 different codes tested. It was divided into two phases; with the first phase verifying the numerical solution of these codes on idealized soil profiles using simple signals and real seismic records. The second phase described in this article referred to code validation for the analysis of real instrumented sites. This validation phase was performed on two sites (KSRH10 and Sendai) of the Japanese strong-motion networks KiK-net and Port and Airport Research Institute (PARI), respectively, with a pair of accelerometers at surface and depth. Extensive additional site characterizations were performed at both sites involving in situ and laboratory measurements of the soil properties. At each site, sets of input motions were selected to represent different peak ground acceleration (PGA) and frequency content. It was found that the code-to-code variability given by the standard deviation of the computed surface-response spectra is around 0.1 (in log10 scale) regardless of the site and input motions. This indicates a quite large influence of the numerical methods on site-effect assessment and more generally on seismic hazard. Besides, it was observed that sitespecific measurements are of primary importance for defining the input data in siteresponse analysis. The NL parameters obtained from the laboratory measurements should be compared with curves coming from the literature. Finally, the lessons learned from this exercise are synthesized, resulting also in a few recommendations for future benchmarking studies, and the use of 1D NL, total stress site-response analysis. © 2018, Seismological Society of America. All rights reserved