designearthquakeresponsespectrumaffectedbyshallow...
TRANSCRIPT
Research ArticleDesign Earthquake Response Spectrum Affected by ShallowSoil Deposit
Dong-Kwan Kim 1 Hong-Gun Park2 and Chang-Guk Sun3
1Department of Architectural Engineering Cheongju University Cheongju 28503 Republic of Korea2Department of Architectural and Architectural Engineering Seoul National University Seoul 08826 Republic of Korea3Earthquake Research Centre Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources Daejeon 34132 Republic of Korea
Correspondence should be addressed to Dong-Kwan Kim dkkim17cjuackr
Received 23 October 2018 Revised 2 February 2019 Accepted 19 February 2019 Published 19 March 2019
Academic Editor Jorge Branco
Copyright copy 2019 Dong-Kwan Kim et al is is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons AttributionLicense which permits unrestricted use distribution and reproduction in any medium provided the original work isproperly cited
Site response analyses were performed to investigate the earthquake response of structures with shallow soil depth conditions inKorea e analysis parameters included the properties of soft soil deposits at 487 sites input earthquake accelerations and peakground-acceleration levels e response spectra resulting from numerical analyses were compared with the design responsespectra (DRS) specified in the 2015 International Building Code e results showed that the earthquake motion of shallow softsoil was significantly different from that of deep soft soil which was the basis of the IBC DRSe responses of the structures wereamplified when their dynamic periods were close to those of the site In the case of sites with dynamic periods less than 04 s thespectral accelerations of short-period structures were greater than those of the DRS corresponding to the site class specified in IBC2015 On the basis of these results a new form of DRS and soil factors are proposed
1 Introduction
e 1985 Mexico City earthquake clearly showed that theearthquake responses of buildings can be significantly am-plified by soft subsoils us in current design codes sitecoefficients are used to address the effects of the subsoil Inthe Korean Building Code 2016 [1] the design responsespectrum (DRS) and the site coefficients are similar to thosein the International Building Code 2015 [2] e site co-efficients in IBC 2015 were based on earthquake groundmotions measured at sites located on the West Coast of theUnited States that have deep soil depths (depth tobedrock 150ndash300m) [3] e site class in IBC 2015 isspecified by the average shear-wave velocity VS30 of the top30m of soil
In Korea however the soil depth to the bedrock isrelatively shallow ranging from 6 to 100m (mostlylt 30m)us in most cases the properties of the entire soil depthcan be investigated More importantly the shallow soil depthsignificantly affects the responses of structures Previous
studies and other design codes [4 5] have shown that thedynamic periods of the soil vary significantly with soil deptheven for the same soil shear-wave velocity (ie shear stiff-ness) is result indicates that the response spectrum andsite coefficients for the earthquake design of structuresshould be defined by the dynamic period of the subsoilwhich includes the effects of the soil depth as well as the soilmaterial properties
In EUROCODE-8 [6] recognizing the effect of shallowsoil depth when the soil depth to bedrock is less than 20mand the property of the stiff bedrock is included in theestimation of VS30 the site class is categorized as a specialsoil class SE e New York City Department of Trans-portation [7] developed a new DRS for their metro areaconsidering the effect of the shallow soil depth in the regione Mid-America Earthquake Center (MAE) proposeduniform hazard ground motions and response spectra formid-American cities that are located in regions withmoderate seismicity Hwang et al [8] proposed site co-efficients for the Eastern United States with shallow soil
HindawiAdvances in Civil EngineeringVolume 2019 Article ID 4079217 18 pageshttpsdoiorg10115520194079217
depths In Korea Kim and Yoon [9] proposed a new siteclassification and new site coefficients for regions withshallow soil depths
In the present study site response numerical analyseswere performed using an equivalent linear analysis methodfor 487 sites in Korea considering the local geological anddynamic site properties In total 18 earthquake motionswith three acceleration levels were used as the input for thenumerical analysis Based on the analyses a new form ofDRS and site classification were developed to describe theeffects of shallow soil depth on the responses of structuresFor this purpose the following three steps were studied Inthe first step maintaining the definitions of the site factors inIBC 2015 the values of the site factors were modified on thebasis of the numerical analyses for shallow soil depths eresulting response spectrum is denoted as DRS-1 In thesecond step the site class was defined by the site period andamplification factors Fa and Fv were defined as a function ofthe site period (DRS-2) In the third step the shape of theDRS and the site coefficients were modified considering theeffect of the site period (DRS-3)
2 Numerical Analyses of Site Response
21 Site Conditions In the present study 487 sites in Koreawere considered Among them the properties of 378 sites inFigure 1 were obtained from the geotechnical informationsystem (GTIS) developed by Sun et al [10] Using existingdata from boring tests and topographical surveys the GTISwith 100times100m grids was developed for the Seoul city area(390times 340 km) From the GTIS the thicknesses of four soilrock strata (fill soil alluvial soil weathered soil andweathered rock) above the bedrock were obtained erepresentative shear-wave velocities of the fill soil alluvialsoil weathered soil and weathered rock were determined as190 280 350 and 650ms respectively based on the staticsof the shear-wave velocity profiles measured at the sitesAdditionally in Figure 2 109 shear-wave velocity profilespreviously reported by Lee et al [11] were used for siteconditions
Table 1 summarizes the soil properties of the 487 sitesAccording to the site classification VS30 [2] the soil prop-erties are classified as SB SC SD and SE corresponding to 9302 161 and 15 sites respectively At the SB sites themaximum depth to bedrock was 10m the site periods rangefrom 0047 s to 0075 s when an elastic soil property is as-sumed At the SC sites the depth to bedrock and the siteperiods range from 53 to 916m and from 0058 to 066 srespectively At the SD sites the depth to bedrock rangesfrom 122 to 841m which is close to that of the SC sitesHowever the site period at the SD sites was in the range of024 to 096 s which is greater than that of the SC sites At theSE sites the site periods were much greater even for ex-tremely shallow soil depths ese results indicate that evenfor the same site class the site period vary significantly andboth the shear-wave velocities and the soil depth to bedrockshould be considered to accurately define the dynamicproperties of the site Figure 3 clearly shows the relationshipbetween the soil depth and the site period Even for the same
site class the site period increased in proportion to the soildepth us the dynamic properties of the soil should bedefined by the site period because the acceleration ofstructures is amplified by resonance with a subsoil having asimilar period e dynamic period of the sites can becalculated by the first-mode frequency f1 of the wave-propagation transfer function When the soil is subjectedto a large inelastic deformation the soil stiffness decreasesus the actual soil period is greater than the elastic soilperiod To consider the nonlinear properties of the soil androck in Figure 4 the effective shear modulus proposed byKim and Choo [12] was used for an equivalent linear analysisof the subsoil
22 InputAccelerations For the one-dimensional equivalentlinear analysis [13] 12 actual earthquake accelerations and 6artificial accelerations were used for the input e 12 actualaccelerations recorded at rock sites were selected from thePEER Ground Motion Database [14] Table 2 shows theproperties of the actual earthquake accelerations themagnitude the mechanism and the distance In the KoreanBuilding Code [1] the reference effective ground accelera-tions for the 500- 1000- and 2400-year return periods weredefined as 011 g 0154 g and 022 g respectively eexisting earthquake-acceleration records were scaled to thereference effective ground-acceleration levels as followsFirst a response spectrum was calculated from the time-history analysis of the existing records assuming the SB siteclass By comparing the response spectrum with the DRS ofthe KBC (same as the spectrum in IBC 2015) the scale factorfor each earthquake record was determined e scalingfactor α in equation (1) was determined such that the dif-ference Ds in equation (2) (between the response spectrumof the earthquake accelerations and the DRS) was minimizedusing the condition of d(Ds)dα 0 [15]
α 1113936
TbTTa
SRa (T)ST
a (T)( 1113857
1113936TbTTa
SRa (T)( 1113857
2 (1)
Ds 1113946Tb
Ta
αSRa (T)minus S
Ta (T)1113960 1113961
2dT (2)
where SRa and ST
a are the response spectral accelerationsobtained from the earthquake records and the design coderespectively T is the period of the structure and Ta and Tbare the lower and upper periods for the scaling In this studyTa and Tb were assumed as 01 s and 15 s respectively forthe DRS of SB [16] In this study the constant scale factorsfor the reference effective ground accelerations were cal-culated and used Because the constant scale factor mightcause large differences for particular period ranges thescaled accelerations with the large differences were not usedFigure 5 shows time histories and response spectra of se-lected 12 actual accelerations
e artificial earthquake accelerations were generatedaccording to Gasparini and Vanmarche [17] e envelopeof the acceleration time history that controls the superpo-sition of the harmonic functions was assumed as a
2 Advances in Civil Engineering
trapezoidal function e starting time and duration of theacceleration time history were defined as Trise and Tlevelrespectively In the ASCE standard 4-98 [18] 15 s and 10 swere recommended for Trise and Tlevel respectively forregions that have an expected maximum earthquake mag-nitude of 65ndash70 However the Ministry of Constructionand Transportation in Korea [19] recommended 2 s and6ndash7 s for Trise and Tlevel respectively based on the earth-quake accelerations measured in Korea In the present studysix artificial earthquakes were generated using 15 s and 25 sfor Trise and 60 s 80 s and 100 s for Tlevel Figure 6compares the DRS of the KBC (site class SB) the re-sponse spectra from the scaled-input accelerations and theaverage response spectrum e average response spectrumwas close to the DRS indicating that the scaling method wasacceptable
3 Parametric Study and Results
31 Results for All 487 Sites Figure 7 shows the numericalanalysis results for 487 sites in the case of reference effectivepeak ground acceleration (EPGA) 022 g In the figureeach response spectrum indicates the average of the resultscalculated from 18 input accelerations (ie the number ofactual response spectra is 18 times the results shown in thefigure) e results were classified by the site-class criteriaVS30 of IBC 2015 For the SB to SD sites (Figures 7(a)ndash7(c))the maximum spectral accelerations of the short-periodstructures were significantly greater than the DRS valuesof IBC 2015 For the SE sites on the other hand the spectralaccelerations of the short-period structures were signifi-cantly less than the SE DRS values of IBC 2015 as shown inFigure 7(d)
32 Response of Each Site Class Figures 8ndash11 show the re-sponse spectra for each site class SB to SE e gray linesindicate the numerical analysis results of each site for the 18earthquake accelerations e blue line indicates the average
of the analysis results TG indicates the period of the sites Tindicates the period of the structure models e site period(TG) was calculated from the first-mode frequency f1 of thewave-propagation transfer functione reference EPGA forthe 2400-year return period was 022 g
Figure 8 shows the results for four SB sitese periods ofthe soils (TG) ranged from 0048 to 0075 s (Table 1) In therange of very short periods (Tlt 02 s) the maximum spectralaccelerations of the numerical analyses were significantlygreater than the IBC SB design spectrum e maximumresponse amplification occurred when the structure period(T) was the same as the site period (TG) is result indicatesthat the response amplification was caused by resonancebetween the soil and the structure However in the ranges ofstructure periods (ie Tgt 02 s) the spectral accelerationswere equivalent to the SB design response spectrum of IBC2015
Figure 9 shows the results for four SC sites e averageshear-wave velocities (VS30) of the four sites were similar(453 454 456 and 469ms respectively) but the soil depthto bedrock values were significantly different (112 260435 and 609m respectively) us site periods weresignificantly different TG 013 022 032 and 044 s re-spectively when the elastic soil property was assumedAccordingly the trend of the response amplification variedsignificantly In the case of short site periods (whereTG 013 022 and 032 s in Figures 9(a)ndash9(c) respectively)the peak spectral accelerations were greater than the SC DRSvalues of IBC 2015 However the spectral accelerations forthe longer periods (Tge10 s) were lower than the SC DRSvalues of IBC 2015 and were close to the SB DRS values ofIBC 2015 For the longer site period of 044 s (Figure 9(d))the spectral accelerations for the short periods (T) wereequivalent to the SC DRS values of IBC 2015 whereas thespectral accelerations for the long-period structures (T) wereclose to the SB DRS values of IBC 2015
Figure 10 shows the response spectra for four SD sitesespectral accelerations for the short site periods (TG 025 and
10
ndash20
ndash40
ndash60Dep
th (m
)
ndash80
ndash100
51 101 151 201 251 301 351 378
Fill soilAlluvial soil
Weathered soilWeathered rock
Figure 1 378 soil strata from GTIS
Advances in Civil Engineering 3
039 s in Figures 10(a) and 10(b) respectively) were close tothe results of the SC sites (TG 022 and 032 s in Figures 9(b)and 9(c) respectively) is result again confirms that the
primary parameter for response amplification is the siteperiod (TG) rather than the material properties of the soilFigures 10(c) and 10(d) shows the response spectra for the site
0 250 500 750 1000
ndash60
ndash45
ndash30
ndash15
0
Shear-wave velocity Vs (ms)
Dep
th (m
)
Site class SCNumber of sites 71
(a)
0 250 500 750 1000
ndash60
ndash45
ndash30
ndash15
0
Shear-wave velocity Vs (ms)
Dep
th (m
)
Site class SDNumber of sites 23
(b)
0 250 500 750 1000
ndash60
ndash45
ndash30
ndash15
0
Shear-wave velocity Vs (ms)
Dep
th (m
)
Site class SENumber of sites 23
(c)
Figure 2 109 shear-wave velocity profiles 378 soil strata from Lee et al [11] Site class (a) SC (b) SD and (c) SE
Table 1 Summary of the soil properties of 487 sites
Site class VS30 SB SC SD SE
Number of sites9 302 161 15
Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max MeanDepth to bedrock (m) 603 101 706 53 916 287 122 841 461 280 540 406VS30 (ms) 765 835 793 360 754 480 238 359 339 114 179 160Site period (s) 005 008 006 006 066 024 024 096 048 053 114 083
4 Advances in Civil Engineering
periodsTG 079 and 097 s respectively In the range of long-period structures (Tgt 10 s) the spectral accelerations wereclose to or less than the SD DRS However for the short-
period structures (Tlt 10 s) the spectral accelerations wereclose to or less than the SB DRS indicating that responseamplification did not occur
0
05
1
15
0 20 40 60 80 100
Site
per
iod
(sec
)
Soil depth (m)
SBSC
SDSE
Figure 3 Site periods of 487 sites
00
02
04
06
08
10
12
GG m
ax
00001 0001 001 01 1Shear strain ()
Fill soilAlluvial soil
Weathered soilWeathered rock
(a)
0
5
10
15
20
00001 0001 001 01 1
Dam
ping
ratio
Shear strain ()
Fill soilAlluvial soil
Weathered soilWeathered rock
(b)
Figure 4 Nonlinear properties of the soil and rock (a) Shear modulus (b) Damping ratio
Table 2 Properties of 12 recorded accelerations
Event Year Nation Station Magnitude Mechanism Rrup (km)lowast
Irpinia-01 1980 Italy Auletta 69 Normal 96Denali 2002 USA Carlo 79 Strike-slip 509San Fernando 1971 USA Cedar Springs 66 Reverse 897Tabas 1978 Iran Tabas 74 Reverse 20Loma Prieta 1989 USA So San Francisco 69 Reverse 631Chi-Chi 1999 Taiwan HWA003 62 Reverse 504Northridge-01 1994 USA Vasquez Rocks Park 67 Reverse 236Northridge-01 1994 USA Antelope Buttes 67 Reverse 469Duzce 1999 Turkey Lamont 1060 71 Strike-slip 259Irpinia-02 1980 Italy Bagnoli Irpino 62 Normal 196Kocaeli 1999 Turkey Izmit 75 Strike-slip 72Big Bear-01 1992 USA Rancho Cucamonga 65 Strike-slip 594lowastRrup closest distance to rupture plane
Advances in Civil Engineering 5
0 10 20 30 40
larr 0065g Irpinia-01
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
Time (s)
ndash008
ndash004
0
004
008
Time (s)
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20 30 40
larr 0161g Northridge-01ndash02
ndash01
0
01
02A
ccel
erat
ion
(g)
0 10 20 30 40larr 0100g Denali
Time (s)
ndash012
ndash006
0
006
012
Time (s)
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20 30larr 0053g Northridge-01
ndash006
ndash003
0
003
006
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10
larr 0019gSan Fernando
Time (s)
ndash004
ndash002
0
002
004
Time (s)
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20 30 40
larr 0245g
Duzcendash04
ndash02
0
02
04
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20 30 40
larr 0814g
Tabas
Time (s)
ndash1
ndash05
0
05
1
Time (s)
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20 30 40larr 0052g Irpinia-02
ndash006
ndash003
0
003
006
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20 30 40
larr 0107g
Loma Prieta
Time (s)
ndash014
ndash007
0
007
014
Time (s)
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20 30
larr 0221g
Kocaelindash04
ndash02
0
02
04
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20Time (s)
30
larr 0030g
Chi-Chindash004
ndash002
0
002
004
Time (s)
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20 30ndash008
ndash004
0
004
008larr 0056g
Big Bear-01
(a)
Figure 5 Continued
6 Advances in Civil Engineering
0 1 2 3
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)
0
005
01
015
02
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)0 1 2 3
0
025
05
075
1
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 1 2 3Period Tn (s)
0
01
02
03
04
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)0 1 2 3
0
005
01
015
02
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 1 2 3Period Tn (s)
0
002
004
006
008
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)0 1 2 3
0
03
06
09
12
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 1 2 3Period Tn (s)
0
1
2
3
4
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)0 1 2 3
0
003
006
009
012
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 1 2 3Period Tn (s)
0
01
02
03
04
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)0 1 2 3
0
03
06
09
12
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 1Period Tn (s)
2 30
003
006
009
012
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)0 1 2 3
0
01
02
03
04
(b)
Figure 5 12 actual and unscaled earthquake accelerations (a) Acceleration time history (b) Response spectrum
Advances in Civil Engineering 7
Figure 11 shows the response spectra for four SE sitesFor the long-period structures the spectral accelerationswere close to the SE DRS For the short-period structures thespectral accelerations were greater than the SB DRS but weresignificantly less than the SE DRS
321 Step-1 Site Classification and Site Coefficients Based onVS30 (DRS-1) In IBC 2015 the DRS acceleration is definedas two-thirds of the maximum considered earthquake (MCE)
spectral acceleration with a return period of 2400 years espectral accelerations are defined as follows [2]
Sa 06SDS
T0T + 04SDS 0leTleT0 (3)
Sa SDS T0 leTleTs (4)
Sa SD1T
Ts leT (5)
0 05 1 15 20
04
08
12
Period T (s)Sp
ectr
al ac
cele
ratio
n (g
)
Figure 6 Average response spectra of input accelerations
0 05 1 15 20
04
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
08
12
Period T (s)
Site class SBNumber of sites 9
IBC 2015 (SB)
(a)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
08
16
24Site class SC
Number of sites 302
IBC 2015 (SC)IBC 2015 (SB)
(b)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SD)
IBC 2015 (SB)0
08
16
24Site class SD
Number of sites 161
(c)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SE)
IBC 2015 (SB)0
08
16
24Site class SE
Number of sites 15
(d)
Figure 7 Response spectrum resulting from numerical analysis for 487 sites (reference effective peak ground acceleration (EPGA) 022 g)for (a) SB (b) SC (c) SD (d) SE
8 Advances in Civil Engineering
0 05 1 15 20
04
08
12
Period T (s)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
larr Site period TG = 0048s
Depth to bedrock = 61mVS30 = 8010ms
(a)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
04
08
12
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
Depth to bedrock = 65mVS30 = 8356ms
larr Site period TG = 0048s
(b)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
04
08
12
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
Depth to bedrock = 80mVS30 = 7652ms
larr Site period TG = 0063s
(c)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
04
08
12
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
Depth to bedrock = 101mVS30 = 7694ms
larr Site period TG = 0075s
(d)
Figure 8 Response spectrum resulting from numerical analysis of four SB sites with depth to bedrock (a) 61m (b) 65m (c) 80m (d) 101m
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
06
12
18
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SC)IBC 2015 (SB)
larr Site period TG = 013s
Depth to bedrock = 112mVS30 = 4536ms
(a)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
06
12
18
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)IBC 2015 (SC)
larr Site period TG = 022s
Depth to bedrock = 260mVS30 = 4542ms
(b)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
06
12
18
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)IBC 2015 (SC)
larr Site period TG = 032s
Depth to bedrock = 435mVS30 = 4562ms
(c)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
06
12
18
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)IBC 2015 (SC)
larr Site period TG = 044s
Depth to bedrock = 609mVS30 = 4700ms
(d)
Figure 9 Response spectrum resulting fromnumerical analysis of four SC sites with depth to bedrock (a) 112m (b) 260m (c) 435m (d) 609m
Advances in Civil Engineering 9
where SDS and SD1 are the design spectral accelerationsfor short periods and 1 s period respectively SDS Stimes
25 times Fa times (23) and SD1 S times Fv times (23) S is the referenceeffective ground acceleration for the rock site Ts SD1SDSand T0 02 (SD1SDS) Equations (4) and (5) indicate thedesign spectral accelerations for the constant-accelerationrange and the constant-velocity range respectively
To address the numerical analysis results in the DRS andsoil factors the short-period (constant acceleration-related)amplification factor Fa and themidperiod (constant velocity-related) amplification factor Fv were evaluated e ampli-fication factors were calculated as the ratio (RRS) of theresponse spectral value for the soil to the spectral value forthe outcropping rock According to FEMA 1997 Fa and Fvare defined as follows
Fa(RRS) Rsoil
Rrock
104
111394605
01
RSsoil(T)
RSrock(T)dT (6)
Fv(RRS) Rsoil
Rrock
116
111394620
04
RSsoil(T)
RSrock(T)dT (7)
where RSsoil(T) and RSrock(T) are the spectral accelerationscorresponding to the soil and rock respectively at a givenstructure period T and Rsoil and Rrock are the hypocentral
distances from the soil and rock stationse ratio RsoilRrockwas assumed to be 10 in this study
e calculated Fa and Fv are presented in Tables 3 and 4according to the level of the EPGA In the tables ldquoIBC 2015rdquorefers to the amplification factors specified in IBC 2015 andldquoAnalysis resultrdquo refers to the amplification factors (fromequations (6) and (7)) based on the results of numericalanalyses e constant acceleration-related amplificationfactor Fa in IBC 2015 continues to increase as the site classchanges from SB to SE However in the proposed DRS-1 theFa value of SC is greater than those of the SD and SE sites Forthe SE site because the increased damping ratio due to thenonlinearity of soil reduced the site responses of higherorders the mean value of Fa is less than 10
In the case of the proposed Fv values the responseamplification increases as the site class changes from SB toSE However the amplification is less than that of IBC 2015As the EPGA increases the proposed Fv values decreases toclose to those of IBC 2015 which is attributed to the de-creased stiffness and increased damping of the nonlinear soilbehavior
Figure 12 compares the response spectra from (1) nu-merical analysis (2) the proposed amplification factor (DRS-1) and (3) IBC 2015 e EPGA was 022 g For the am-plification factors of DRS-1 the mean (+) standard deviation
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
larr Site period TG = 026s
Depth to bedrock = 205mVS30 = 3454ms
(a)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
larr Site period TG = 038s
Depth to bedrock = 320mVS30 = 3427ms
(b)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
larr Site period TG = 058s
Depth to bedrock = 508mVS30 = 3428ms
(c)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
larr Site period TG = 095s
Depth to bedrock = 800mVS30 = 3308ms
(d)
Figure 10 Response spectrum resulting from numerical analysis of four SD sites with depth to bedrock (a) 205m (b) 320m (c) 508m (d)800m
10 Advances in Civil Engineering
in Tables 3 and 4 was used Figure 12 shows the responsespectra obtained from the numerical analysis results for the487 sites in Korea A response spectrum curve in the figureindicates the average of the response spectra for 18 input
accelerations for a site conditione numerical results wereclassified as SB to SE by the site class criterion VS30 enumber of sites that belonged to SB SC SD and SE were 9302 161 and 15 respectively
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
larr Site period TG = 054s
Depth to bedrock = 305mVS30 = 1723ms
(a)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
larr Site period TG = 069s
Depth to bedrock = 370mVS30 = 1790ms
(b)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
larr Site period TG = 091s
Depth to bedrock = 403mVS30 = 1747ms
(c)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
Site period TG = 114s rarr
Depth to bedrock = 507mVS30 = 1710ms
(d)
Figure 11 Response spectrum resulting from numerical analysis of four SE sites with depth to bedrock (a) 305m (b) 370m (c) 403m (d)507m
Table 3 Short-period amplification factor (DRS-1)
500-year return period (011 g) 1000-year return period (0154 g) 2400-year return period (022 g)
IBC 2015Analysis result
IBC 2015Analysis result
IBC 2015Analysis result
Mean σlowast Mean σ Mean σSB 100 106 0019 100 106 0019 100 106 0024SC 120 158 0296 120 155 0307 118 151 0320SD 158 150 0328 149 142 0337 136 127 0359SE 244 106 0336 218 098 0338 178 082 0316lowastStandard deviation
Table 4 Midperiod amplification factor (DRS-1)
500-year return period (011 g) 1000-year return period (0154 g) 2400-year return period (022 g)
IBC 2015Analysis result
IBC 2015Analysis result
IBC 2015Analysis result
Mean σlowast Mean σ Mean σSB 100 100 0001 100 101 0001 100 100 0021SC 169 115 0123 165 117 0130 158 121 0148SD 236 149 0141 218 151 0141 196 156 0126SE 347 201 0265 334 197 0300 312 185 0384
Advances in Civil Engineering 11
In Figure 12(a) for the SB sites the site coefficients Faand Fv estimated from numerical analysis were close to 10(Tables 3 and 4) e proposed response spectrum of DRS-1is similar to the DRS in IBC 2015 except for the very short-period range For the SB sites in Korea (based on VS30)because the depth of the soil deposits was very shallowranging from 60 to 100m the dynamic period of the soil isvery short For this reason in the numerical results thestructure responses in the range of very short periods wereamplified significantly due to resonance between the soil andthe structure However because Fa is defined in a relativelylarge range of short periods (01ndash05 s (equation (6))) thehigh response amplification for very short periods less than02 s was not properly captured by the definition of Fa
In the case of the SC sites (Figure 12(b)) the proposed Favalue (mean + σ) is greater than that of the SC class in IBC2015 whereas the Fv value (mean + σ) is smaller As the siteperiods of the SC class range from 006 to 066 s the max-imum response amplification occurred in this range istrend agrees with the results from previous studies ([9 11])for the shallow soil conditions in Korea When the proposed
site coefficients were used in the range of 02ndash07 s theresponse spectral values of DRS-1 underestimated themaximum values obtained from the numerical analysis InFigure 12(c) the trend of the DRS-1 for the SD sites wassimilar to that for the SC sitese response spectral values ofDRS-1 underestimated the maximum numerical results inthe range of 03ndash08 s For the SE sites having VS30 values lessthan 180ms (Figure 12(d)) the proposed Fa value(mean + σ) was 113 In the short-period range the DRS-1was significantly less than the SE DRS values in IBC 2015 andwas close to the SB DRS values e proposed Fv value(mean + σ) was close to that of the SD DRS values in IBC2015 ese results indicate that response amplificationoccurred only for the long-period structures and that theamplification was not significant
In terms of the trends of the response amplificationdesign response spectra using the proposed site coefficients(DRS-1) differ from the analysis results Particularly for theSC and SD site classes the DRS-1 does not accurately capturethe maximum spectral accelerations and the amplificationranges affected by the site periods ese results indicate that
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 Site class SB Fa = 108 Fv = 102
TG
(a)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 Site class SC Fa = 184 Fv = 135
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)IBC 2015 (SC)
TG
(b)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
DRS-1 Site class SD Fa = 163 Fv = 168
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
TG
(c)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
DRS-1 Site class SE Fa = 113 Fv = 224
TG
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
(d)
Figure 12 Comparison between numerical analysis results and DRS-1 (a) SB (b) SC (c) SD (d) SE sites
12 Advances in Civil Engineering
when the definitions for Fa and Fv coefficients of IBC areused the DRS-1 can lead to unsafe seismic designs ofstructures
As shown in Figures 8ndash11 although the site classes(VS30) are identical the site periods can differ significantlydepending on the stiffness and depth of the soil deposits Forexample for the SC site class (VS30) the site periods varyfrom 0058 to 066 s in Table 1 us it is unreasonable todefine the dynamic properties of the soils with the VS30values alone
322 Step-2 Site Classification and Site Coefficients Based onSite Period (DRS-2) As mentioned in the previous sectionsite classification based on the VS30 does not accuratelydescribe the characteristics of the site responses Furtherwhen the depth to bedrock is less than 30m the properties ofthe bedrock are included in the definition of VS30 Howeverwhen the depth to bedrock is greater than 30m the entiresoil strata are not included in the site classification
us in DRS-2 the site period was used as the site classcriterion and the short-period and midperiod site ampli-fication factors were defined according to the site period asproposed in Figure 13 e amplification factors are sum-marized in Tables 5 and 6 e proposed amplificationfactors according to the site periods were calculated asfollows
Fa 1
Ta minusTb1113946
Ta
Tb
RSsoil(T)
RSrock(T)dT (8a)
Ta min 13TG 065( 1113857 (8b)
Tb min 03TG 02( 1113857 (8c)
Fv 105
111394615
10
RSsoil(T)
RSrock(T)dT (9)
In equations (8a)ndash(8c) for Fa the ranges Ta and Tb ofthe integration are defined by the site period TG and themaximum period is limited to 065 s For Fv the range of theintegration in equation (9) is reduced to safely define theamplification factors in the constant-velocity range
In Figure 13(a) when the site periods are shorter than03 s the short-period amplification factors are greater thanthe amplification of 184 for the SC site in Figure 12(b)calculated from equation (6) When the site period is outsidethe integration range the amplification by the first mode ofthe soil deposits does not occur in the integration rangeus as the site periods increase beyond the integrationrange the short-period amplification factors decreasegradually
For the midperiod amplification factors as the site pe-riods increase the amplification by the first mode of the soildeposits is included in the integration range us themidperiod amplification factors increase gradually
When the sites are classified by the site period Figure 14shows the design response spectra (DRS-2) resulting fromthe site amplification factors depending on the site period
eDRS-2 was compared with the numerical analysis resultsand the response spectra of the IBC 2015 e EPGA was022 g
In Figures 14(a)ndash14(d) when the site periods were in therange of 005ndash04 s the short-period spectral accelerations ofthe DRS-2 calculated from equation (8a)ndash(8c) were close tothe maximum spectral accelerations corresponding to thefirst-mode period of the soil deposits
When the site periods range from 04 to 06 s(Figures 14(e) and 14(f )) the site period was increased bythe nonlinear properties of the soil deposits and the am-plification range was between the constant-accelerationrange and the constant-velocity range However themidperiod amplification factor Fv was defined at theperiod of 10 s us in Figures 14(e) and 14(f ) themidperiod site amplification factor of DRS-2 un-derestimates the response amplification by the in-termediate site period
Figures 14(g) and 14(h) show the DRS-2 of the sites withperiods greater than 06 s e responses of the long-periodstructures affected by the first mode site periods and theresponses of the short period structures affected by thehigher modes of the soil deposits are described well by themidperiod and the short-period site amplification factors
As shown in Figures 14(b)ndash14(e) the response ampli-fication occurred in the range of the site period Howeveralthough the site amplification factors were defined with thesite period DRS-2 did not describe the response amplifi-cation is is because the constant-acceleration range didnot capture the range of the site amplification is resultindicates that when the site period is used for the site classcriterion the form of the design response spectrum as well asthe site amplification factors should be defined by the siteperiod
323 Step-3 Proposed Design Response Spectrum-3 (DRS-3)e numerical analysis results showed that response am-plification occurred due to resonance between the soil andstructure and that the site periods varied with soil depth Toaddress these results a new form of design response spec-trum with three site classes is proposed
First the sites are classified into three site classes (1)short-period sites (TGlt 04 s) (2) midperiod sites(04ltTGlt 07 s) and (3) long-period sites (07 sltTG) Onthe basis of the amplification factors in Figure 13 ampli-fication factors corresponding to the three site classes areproposed in Table 7 In the case of IBC 2015 the constant-acceleration range is determined by Ts (Fv25Fa) andT0 02Ts
Figure 15 shows the proposed design response spectrum(DRS-3) that is defined by the site period TG To include thefirst-mode periods of short-period sites or second-modeperiods of midperiod and long-period sites the constant-acceleration ranges are extended to T1 T2 is a corner periodto include the response amplifications by the higher modesof soil deposits To define the constant-velocity range thespectral accelerations are moved horizontally by(T1 minusTs) Sa SD1(Tminus (T1 minusTs)) in Figure 15
Advances in Civil Engineering 13
In Figure 16 the proposed DRS-3 is compared with thenumerical analysis results and the DRS of IBC 2015 DRS-3agrees with the maximum accelerations and the constant-acceleration range calculated by the numerical analysesUnlike DRS-1 and DRS-2 DRS-3 provides a better de-scription of the range and magnitude of the maximumspectral values in the constant-acceleration range and lessamplified spectral accelerations in the constant-velocityrange
4 Conclusions
Numerical studies were performed to investigate the re-sponse spectra for 487 site conditions in Korea which is amoderate seismic zone with shallow soil depths e mag-nitudes of the earthquake accelerations were scaled to theEPGAs of moderate seismic zones (011 0154 and 022 g)Twelve existing earthquake records and six artificial accel-erations which were adjusted to the target EPGAs wereused for the input ground accelerations e numericalanalysis results were compared with design response spec-trum (DRS) values of IBC 2015 e results of the presentstudy can be summarized as follows
(1) Even within the same site class (VS30 in IBC 2015)the (elastic) periods of the sites varied significantlywith soil depth
(2) e spectral accelerations of structures were sig-nificantly amplified when the site period was close tothe structure period is result indicates that toaccurately predict the effects of soil the response-amplification factor (ie the soil factor) needs to bedefined by the site period rather than by the soilshear modulus (or soil shear velocity)
(3) e responses of structures were amplified by thehigher modes as well as by the first mode of the soildeposite higher modes amplified the responses ofshort-period structures
(4) When the site periods were less than 04 s thespectral accelerations were greater than the DRSvalues corresponding to the site class VS30 in IBC2015 When the site periods ranged from 04 to 06 sthe spectral accelerations were close to the DRSvalues of IBC 2015 When the site periods weregreater than 07 s the spectral accelerations were lessthan the DRS values of IBC 2015
(5) In particular in the case of SE soil (VS30lt 180ms)the spectral accelerations were significantly less thanthe SE DRS values and were close to the unamplifiedDRS values of SB
In this study three steps for the design response spec-trum (DRS) were performed to address the effect of shallowsoil deposits (in Korea) on structure responses In the firststep DRS-1 following the definitions of the site classifica-tion and the site coefficient of IBC 2015 themagnitude of thesite coefficient was estimated based on the numericalanalysis results In the second step DRS-2 the site periodwas used for the site classification and the integration rangesfor the amplification factors were modified In the third stepDRS-3 to enhance the accuracy of the DRS both themagnitude and ranges of the response amplification weredefined by the site period Results of the three steps aresummarized as follows
0 02 04 06 08 1 1205
1
15
2
25
Site period TG (s)
Am
plifi
catio
n fa
ctor
Fa
Mean + σProposed Fa
(a)
Am
plifi
catio
n fa
ctor
Fv
Mean + σProposed Fv
0 02 04 06 08 1 1205
1
15
2
25
3
Site period TG (s)
(b)
Figure 13 Site amplification factors according to site period (DRS-2) (a) Fa (b) Fv
Table 5 Short-period amplification factor according to site period(DRS-2)
TG (s) 00 03 10leTG
Fa 22 22 11
Table 6 Midperiod amplification factor according to site period(DRS-2)
TG (s) 00 04 07leTG
Fv 10 14 24
14 Advances in Civil Engineering
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-2 005 lt TG lt 01s Fa = 220 Fv = 110
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18Sp
ectr
al ac
cele
ratio
n (g
)
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Period T (s)
(a)
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-2 01 lt TG lt 02s Fa = 220 Fv = 115
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(b)
DRS-2 02 lt TG lt 03s Fa = 220 Fv = 125
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(c)
DRS-2 03 lt TG lt 04s Fa = 212 Fv = 135
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TGSp
ectr
al ac
cele
ratio
n (g
)
Period T (s)
(d)
DRS-2 04 lt TG lt 05s Fa = 196 Fv = 157
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(e)
DRS-2 05 lt TG lt 06s Fa = 161 Fv = 207
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2012 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(f )
Figure 14 Continued
Advances in Civil Engineering 15
(1) e DRS of the IBC was developed with theanalysis of seismic ground motions measured atsites located on the West Coast of the United Statesthat have deep soil deposits However in thisstudy DRS-1 underestimated the short-periodspectral accelerations resulting from numericalstudies with a large deviation is indicates thatthe site classification based on VS30 and theconstant-acceleration range did not rationallydescribe the responses of structures affected byshallow soil depth
(2) In DRS-2 the constant-acceleration range of theshort period sites did not accurately predict the rangeof the maximum responses resulting from the nu-merical analysis results us DRS-2 showed unsafevalues for sites with periods of 01ndash05 s
(3) DRS-3 generally agreed with the numerical resultsand described the characteristics of the responsespectrum affected by shallow soil deposits well Forshort site periods the constant-acceleration rangewas narrow and the magnitude was greater than thatof IBC 2015 As the site period increased the range of
DRS-2 06 lt TG lt 07s Fa = 165 Fv = 223
SCSD
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2012 (SB)
SE
(g)
DRS-2 07 lt TG lt 12s Fa = 126 Fv = 240
SCSD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2012 (SB)
(h)
Figure 14 Comparison between numerical analysis results and DRS-2
Table 7 Properties of the proposed DRS-3
TG Fa Fv
Constant-acceleration rangeis study IBC 2015
T2 T1 T0 TS
TGlt 04 s 22 14 01 04 0056 02804 sleTGlt 07 s 17 16 02 06 008 03807 sleTG 14 24 03 09 014 069
TT2 T1
Sa
SDS
Sa = SD1T ndash (T1 ndash TS)
10
SD1
TST0
Figure 15 New form of design response spectrum (DRS-3)
16 Advances in Civil Engineering
the constant acceleration increased being shifted togreater periods and the peak acceleration decreased
Data Availability
e Excel file data used to support the findings of this studyare available from the corresponding author upon request
Conflicts of Interest
e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest
Acknowledgments
is research was supported by the Korea Agency for In-frastructure Technology Advancement (KAIA) funded bythe Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Transport (No18AUDP-B106327-04) and the Basic Science ResearchProgram through the National Research Foundation of
Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education(NRF-2018R1A6A1A07025819)
References
[1] Architectural Institute of Korea (AIK) Korean Building CodeArchitectural Institute of Korea (AIK) Seoul Republic ofKorea 2016
[2] International Code Council (ICC) International BuildingCode International Code Council (ICC) 2015
[3] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) ldquoNEHRPrecommended provisions for seismic regulations for newbuildings and other structuresrdquo Report No FEMA-302Building Seismic Safety CouncilWashington DC USA 1997
[4] GB50011-2001 Code for Seismic Design of Buildings ChinaBuilding Industry Press Beijing China 2001
[5] A Tena-Colunga U Mena-Hernandez L Perez-RochaJ Aviles M Ordaz and J Vilar ldquoUpdated seismic designguidelines for model building code of Mexicordquo EarthquakeSpectra vol 25 no 4 pp 869ndash898 2009
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 TG lt 04s Fa = 220 Fv = 140
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
(a)
05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 04 lt TG lt 07s Fa = 170 Fv = 160
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0
(b)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 07s lt TG Fa = 140 Fv = 240
TG
(c)
Figure 16 Comparison between numerical analysis results and DRS-3 (a) short-period sites (b) Midperiod sites (c) Long-period sites
Advances in Civil Engineering 17
[6] European Committee for Standardization Eurocode 8 Designof Structures for Earthquake Resistance British StandardLondon UK 2003
[7] Mid-America Earthquake Center (MAE Center) ldquoUniformhazard ground motion and response spectra for mid-Americacitiesrdquo MAE Center Report 03-07 Mid-America EarthquakeCenter (MAE Center) Urbana IL USA 2003
[8] H H M Hwang H Lin and J-R Huo ldquoSite coefficients fordesign of buildings in eastern United Statesrdquo Soil Dynamicsand Earthquake Engineering vol 16 no 1 pp 29ndash40 1997
[9] D-S Kim and J-K Yoon ldquoDevelopment of new site classi-fication system for the regions of shallow bedrock in KoreardquoJournal of Earthquake Engineering vol 10 no 3 pp 331ndash3582006
[10] C-G Sun H-S Kim C-K Chung and H-C Chi ldquoSpatialzonations for regional assessment of seismic site effects in theSeoul metropolitan areardquo Soil Dynamics and EarthquakeEngineering vol 56 pp 44ndash56 2014
[11] S-H Lee C-G Sun J-K Yoon and D-S Kim ldquoDevelop-ment and verification of a new site classification system andsite coefficients for regions of shallow bedrock in KoreardquoJournal of Earthquake Engineering vol 16 no 6 pp 795ndash8192012
[12] D S Kim and Y W Choo ldquoDynamic deformation charac-teristics of cohesionless soils in Korea using resonant columntestsrdquo Journal of the Korean Geotechnical Society vol 17 no 5pp 115ndash138 2001
[13] I M Idriss and J I Sun A Computer Program for ConductingEquivalent Linear Seismic Response Analysis of HorizontallyLayered Soil Deposits Civil Engineering Department Centerfor Geotechnical Modelling UC Davis Davis CA USA1992
[14] httpngawest2berkeleyedu[15] S A Nikolaou A GIS Platform for Earthquake Risk Analysis
PhD dissertation State University of New York Buffalo NYUSA 1998
[16] F Naeim A Alimoradi and S Pezeshk ldquoSelection and scalingof ground motion time histories for structural design usinggenetic algorithmsrdquo Earthquake Spectra vol 20 no 2pp 413ndash426 2004
[17] D A Gasparini and E H Vanmarche Simulated EarthquakeMotions Compatible with Prescribed Response Spectra ReportNo R76-4 MIT Department of Civil Engineering Cam-bridge MA USA 1976
[18] American Society of Civil Engineers Standard (ASCE) SeismicAnalysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures and Commen-tary ASCE 4-98 Reston VA USA 2000
[19] Ministry of Construction and Transportation (MCT) SeismicDesign Standard Research Ministry of Construction andTransportation (MCT) Seoul Korea 1997
18 Advances in Civil Engineering
International Journal of
AerospaceEngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
RoboticsJournal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Active and Passive Electronic Components
VLSI Design
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Shock and Vibration
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Civil EngineeringAdvances in
Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Journal of
Advances inOptoElectronics
Hindawiwwwhindawicom
Volume 2018
Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013Hindawiwwwhindawicom
The Scientific World Journal
Volume 2018
Control Scienceand Engineering
Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom
Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2018
SensorsJournal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
International Journal of
RotatingMachinery
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Modelling ampSimulationin EngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and
Propagation
International Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Navigation and Observation
International Journal of
Hindawi
wwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in
Multimedia
Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom
depths In Korea Kim and Yoon [9] proposed a new siteclassification and new site coefficients for regions withshallow soil depths
In the present study site response numerical analyseswere performed using an equivalent linear analysis methodfor 487 sites in Korea considering the local geological anddynamic site properties In total 18 earthquake motionswith three acceleration levels were used as the input for thenumerical analysis Based on the analyses a new form ofDRS and site classification were developed to describe theeffects of shallow soil depth on the responses of structuresFor this purpose the following three steps were studied Inthe first step maintaining the definitions of the site factors inIBC 2015 the values of the site factors were modified on thebasis of the numerical analyses for shallow soil depths eresulting response spectrum is denoted as DRS-1 In thesecond step the site class was defined by the site period andamplification factors Fa and Fv were defined as a function ofthe site period (DRS-2) In the third step the shape of theDRS and the site coefficients were modified considering theeffect of the site period (DRS-3)
2 Numerical Analyses of Site Response
21 Site Conditions In the present study 487 sites in Koreawere considered Among them the properties of 378 sites inFigure 1 were obtained from the geotechnical informationsystem (GTIS) developed by Sun et al [10] Using existingdata from boring tests and topographical surveys the GTISwith 100times100m grids was developed for the Seoul city area(390times 340 km) From the GTIS the thicknesses of four soilrock strata (fill soil alluvial soil weathered soil andweathered rock) above the bedrock were obtained erepresentative shear-wave velocities of the fill soil alluvialsoil weathered soil and weathered rock were determined as190 280 350 and 650ms respectively based on the staticsof the shear-wave velocity profiles measured at the sitesAdditionally in Figure 2 109 shear-wave velocity profilespreviously reported by Lee et al [11] were used for siteconditions
Table 1 summarizes the soil properties of the 487 sitesAccording to the site classification VS30 [2] the soil prop-erties are classified as SB SC SD and SE corresponding to 9302 161 and 15 sites respectively At the SB sites themaximum depth to bedrock was 10m the site periods rangefrom 0047 s to 0075 s when an elastic soil property is as-sumed At the SC sites the depth to bedrock and the siteperiods range from 53 to 916m and from 0058 to 066 srespectively At the SD sites the depth to bedrock rangesfrom 122 to 841m which is close to that of the SC sitesHowever the site period at the SD sites was in the range of024 to 096 s which is greater than that of the SC sites At theSE sites the site periods were much greater even for ex-tremely shallow soil depths ese results indicate that evenfor the same site class the site period vary significantly andboth the shear-wave velocities and the soil depth to bedrockshould be considered to accurately define the dynamicproperties of the site Figure 3 clearly shows the relationshipbetween the soil depth and the site period Even for the same
site class the site period increased in proportion to the soildepth us the dynamic properties of the soil should bedefined by the site period because the acceleration ofstructures is amplified by resonance with a subsoil having asimilar period e dynamic period of the sites can becalculated by the first-mode frequency f1 of the wave-propagation transfer function When the soil is subjectedto a large inelastic deformation the soil stiffness decreasesus the actual soil period is greater than the elastic soilperiod To consider the nonlinear properties of the soil androck in Figure 4 the effective shear modulus proposed byKim and Choo [12] was used for an equivalent linear analysisof the subsoil
22 InputAccelerations For the one-dimensional equivalentlinear analysis [13] 12 actual earthquake accelerations and 6artificial accelerations were used for the input e 12 actualaccelerations recorded at rock sites were selected from thePEER Ground Motion Database [14] Table 2 shows theproperties of the actual earthquake accelerations themagnitude the mechanism and the distance In the KoreanBuilding Code [1] the reference effective ground accelera-tions for the 500- 1000- and 2400-year return periods weredefined as 011 g 0154 g and 022 g respectively eexisting earthquake-acceleration records were scaled to thereference effective ground-acceleration levels as followsFirst a response spectrum was calculated from the time-history analysis of the existing records assuming the SB siteclass By comparing the response spectrum with the DRS ofthe KBC (same as the spectrum in IBC 2015) the scale factorfor each earthquake record was determined e scalingfactor α in equation (1) was determined such that the dif-ference Ds in equation (2) (between the response spectrumof the earthquake accelerations and the DRS) was minimizedusing the condition of d(Ds)dα 0 [15]
α 1113936
TbTTa
SRa (T)ST
a (T)( 1113857
1113936TbTTa
SRa (T)( 1113857
2 (1)
Ds 1113946Tb
Ta
αSRa (T)minus S
Ta (T)1113960 1113961
2dT (2)
where SRa and ST
a are the response spectral accelerationsobtained from the earthquake records and the design coderespectively T is the period of the structure and Ta and Tbare the lower and upper periods for the scaling In this studyTa and Tb were assumed as 01 s and 15 s respectively forthe DRS of SB [16] In this study the constant scale factorsfor the reference effective ground accelerations were cal-culated and used Because the constant scale factor mightcause large differences for particular period ranges thescaled accelerations with the large differences were not usedFigure 5 shows time histories and response spectra of se-lected 12 actual accelerations
e artificial earthquake accelerations were generatedaccording to Gasparini and Vanmarche [17] e envelopeof the acceleration time history that controls the superpo-sition of the harmonic functions was assumed as a
2 Advances in Civil Engineering
trapezoidal function e starting time and duration of theacceleration time history were defined as Trise and Tlevelrespectively In the ASCE standard 4-98 [18] 15 s and 10 swere recommended for Trise and Tlevel respectively forregions that have an expected maximum earthquake mag-nitude of 65ndash70 However the Ministry of Constructionand Transportation in Korea [19] recommended 2 s and6ndash7 s for Trise and Tlevel respectively based on the earth-quake accelerations measured in Korea In the present studysix artificial earthquakes were generated using 15 s and 25 sfor Trise and 60 s 80 s and 100 s for Tlevel Figure 6compares the DRS of the KBC (site class SB) the re-sponse spectra from the scaled-input accelerations and theaverage response spectrum e average response spectrumwas close to the DRS indicating that the scaling method wasacceptable
3 Parametric Study and Results
31 Results for All 487 Sites Figure 7 shows the numericalanalysis results for 487 sites in the case of reference effectivepeak ground acceleration (EPGA) 022 g In the figureeach response spectrum indicates the average of the resultscalculated from 18 input accelerations (ie the number ofactual response spectra is 18 times the results shown in thefigure) e results were classified by the site-class criteriaVS30 of IBC 2015 For the SB to SD sites (Figures 7(a)ndash7(c))the maximum spectral accelerations of the short-periodstructures were significantly greater than the DRS valuesof IBC 2015 For the SE sites on the other hand the spectralaccelerations of the short-period structures were signifi-cantly less than the SE DRS values of IBC 2015 as shown inFigure 7(d)
32 Response of Each Site Class Figures 8ndash11 show the re-sponse spectra for each site class SB to SE e gray linesindicate the numerical analysis results of each site for the 18earthquake accelerations e blue line indicates the average
of the analysis results TG indicates the period of the sites Tindicates the period of the structure models e site period(TG) was calculated from the first-mode frequency f1 of thewave-propagation transfer functione reference EPGA forthe 2400-year return period was 022 g
Figure 8 shows the results for four SB sitese periods ofthe soils (TG) ranged from 0048 to 0075 s (Table 1) In therange of very short periods (Tlt 02 s) the maximum spectralaccelerations of the numerical analyses were significantlygreater than the IBC SB design spectrum e maximumresponse amplification occurred when the structure period(T) was the same as the site period (TG) is result indicatesthat the response amplification was caused by resonancebetween the soil and the structure However in the ranges ofstructure periods (ie Tgt 02 s) the spectral accelerationswere equivalent to the SB design response spectrum of IBC2015
Figure 9 shows the results for four SC sites e averageshear-wave velocities (VS30) of the four sites were similar(453 454 456 and 469ms respectively) but the soil depthto bedrock values were significantly different (112 260435 and 609m respectively) us site periods weresignificantly different TG 013 022 032 and 044 s re-spectively when the elastic soil property was assumedAccordingly the trend of the response amplification variedsignificantly In the case of short site periods (whereTG 013 022 and 032 s in Figures 9(a)ndash9(c) respectively)the peak spectral accelerations were greater than the SC DRSvalues of IBC 2015 However the spectral accelerations forthe longer periods (Tge10 s) were lower than the SC DRSvalues of IBC 2015 and were close to the SB DRS values ofIBC 2015 For the longer site period of 044 s (Figure 9(d))the spectral accelerations for the short periods (T) wereequivalent to the SC DRS values of IBC 2015 whereas thespectral accelerations for the long-period structures (T) wereclose to the SB DRS values of IBC 2015
Figure 10 shows the response spectra for four SD sitesespectral accelerations for the short site periods (TG 025 and
10
ndash20
ndash40
ndash60Dep
th (m
)
ndash80
ndash100
51 101 151 201 251 301 351 378
Fill soilAlluvial soil
Weathered soilWeathered rock
Figure 1 378 soil strata from GTIS
Advances in Civil Engineering 3
039 s in Figures 10(a) and 10(b) respectively) were close tothe results of the SC sites (TG 022 and 032 s in Figures 9(b)and 9(c) respectively) is result again confirms that the
primary parameter for response amplification is the siteperiod (TG) rather than the material properties of the soilFigures 10(c) and 10(d) shows the response spectra for the site
0 250 500 750 1000
ndash60
ndash45
ndash30
ndash15
0
Shear-wave velocity Vs (ms)
Dep
th (m
)
Site class SCNumber of sites 71
(a)
0 250 500 750 1000
ndash60
ndash45
ndash30
ndash15
0
Shear-wave velocity Vs (ms)
Dep
th (m
)
Site class SDNumber of sites 23
(b)
0 250 500 750 1000
ndash60
ndash45
ndash30
ndash15
0
Shear-wave velocity Vs (ms)
Dep
th (m
)
Site class SENumber of sites 23
(c)
Figure 2 109 shear-wave velocity profiles 378 soil strata from Lee et al [11] Site class (a) SC (b) SD and (c) SE
Table 1 Summary of the soil properties of 487 sites
Site class VS30 SB SC SD SE
Number of sites9 302 161 15
Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max MeanDepth to bedrock (m) 603 101 706 53 916 287 122 841 461 280 540 406VS30 (ms) 765 835 793 360 754 480 238 359 339 114 179 160Site period (s) 005 008 006 006 066 024 024 096 048 053 114 083
4 Advances in Civil Engineering
periodsTG 079 and 097 s respectively In the range of long-period structures (Tgt 10 s) the spectral accelerations wereclose to or less than the SD DRS However for the short-
period structures (Tlt 10 s) the spectral accelerations wereclose to or less than the SB DRS indicating that responseamplification did not occur
0
05
1
15
0 20 40 60 80 100
Site
per
iod
(sec
)
Soil depth (m)
SBSC
SDSE
Figure 3 Site periods of 487 sites
00
02
04
06
08
10
12
GG m
ax
00001 0001 001 01 1Shear strain ()
Fill soilAlluvial soil
Weathered soilWeathered rock
(a)
0
5
10
15
20
00001 0001 001 01 1
Dam
ping
ratio
Shear strain ()
Fill soilAlluvial soil
Weathered soilWeathered rock
(b)
Figure 4 Nonlinear properties of the soil and rock (a) Shear modulus (b) Damping ratio
Table 2 Properties of 12 recorded accelerations
Event Year Nation Station Magnitude Mechanism Rrup (km)lowast
Irpinia-01 1980 Italy Auletta 69 Normal 96Denali 2002 USA Carlo 79 Strike-slip 509San Fernando 1971 USA Cedar Springs 66 Reverse 897Tabas 1978 Iran Tabas 74 Reverse 20Loma Prieta 1989 USA So San Francisco 69 Reverse 631Chi-Chi 1999 Taiwan HWA003 62 Reverse 504Northridge-01 1994 USA Vasquez Rocks Park 67 Reverse 236Northridge-01 1994 USA Antelope Buttes 67 Reverse 469Duzce 1999 Turkey Lamont 1060 71 Strike-slip 259Irpinia-02 1980 Italy Bagnoli Irpino 62 Normal 196Kocaeli 1999 Turkey Izmit 75 Strike-slip 72Big Bear-01 1992 USA Rancho Cucamonga 65 Strike-slip 594lowastRrup closest distance to rupture plane
Advances in Civil Engineering 5
0 10 20 30 40
larr 0065g Irpinia-01
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
Time (s)
ndash008
ndash004
0
004
008
Time (s)
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20 30 40
larr 0161g Northridge-01ndash02
ndash01
0
01
02A
ccel
erat
ion
(g)
0 10 20 30 40larr 0100g Denali
Time (s)
ndash012
ndash006
0
006
012
Time (s)
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20 30larr 0053g Northridge-01
ndash006
ndash003
0
003
006
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10
larr 0019gSan Fernando
Time (s)
ndash004
ndash002
0
002
004
Time (s)
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20 30 40
larr 0245g
Duzcendash04
ndash02
0
02
04
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20 30 40
larr 0814g
Tabas
Time (s)
ndash1
ndash05
0
05
1
Time (s)
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20 30 40larr 0052g Irpinia-02
ndash006
ndash003
0
003
006
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20 30 40
larr 0107g
Loma Prieta
Time (s)
ndash014
ndash007
0
007
014
Time (s)
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20 30
larr 0221g
Kocaelindash04
ndash02
0
02
04
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20Time (s)
30
larr 0030g
Chi-Chindash004
ndash002
0
002
004
Time (s)
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20 30ndash008
ndash004
0
004
008larr 0056g
Big Bear-01
(a)
Figure 5 Continued
6 Advances in Civil Engineering
0 1 2 3
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)
0
005
01
015
02
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)0 1 2 3
0
025
05
075
1
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 1 2 3Period Tn (s)
0
01
02
03
04
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)0 1 2 3
0
005
01
015
02
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 1 2 3Period Tn (s)
0
002
004
006
008
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)0 1 2 3
0
03
06
09
12
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 1 2 3Period Tn (s)
0
1
2
3
4
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)0 1 2 3
0
003
006
009
012
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 1 2 3Period Tn (s)
0
01
02
03
04
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)0 1 2 3
0
03
06
09
12
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 1Period Tn (s)
2 30
003
006
009
012
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)0 1 2 3
0
01
02
03
04
(b)
Figure 5 12 actual and unscaled earthquake accelerations (a) Acceleration time history (b) Response spectrum
Advances in Civil Engineering 7
Figure 11 shows the response spectra for four SE sitesFor the long-period structures the spectral accelerationswere close to the SE DRS For the short-period structures thespectral accelerations were greater than the SB DRS but weresignificantly less than the SE DRS
321 Step-1 Site Classification and Site Coefficients Based onVS30 (DRS-1) In IBC 2015 the DRS acceleration is definedas two-thirds of the maximum considered earthquake (MCE)
spectral acceleration with a return period of 2400 years espectral accelerations are defined as follows [2]
Sa 06SDS
T0T + 04SDS 0leTleT0 (3)
Sa SDS T0 leTleTs (4)
Sa SD1T
Ts leT (5)
0 05 1 15 20
04
08
12
Period T (s)Sp
ectr
al ac
cele
ratio
n (g
)
Figure 6 Average response spectra of input accelerations
0 05 1 15 20
04
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
08
12
Period T (s)
Site class SBNumber of sites 9
IBC 2015 (SB)
(a)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
08
16
24Site class SC
Number of sites 302
IBC 2015 (SC)IBC 2015 (SB)
(b)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SD)
IBC 2015 (SB)0
08
16
24Site class SD
Number of sites 161
(c)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SE)
IBC 2015 (SB)0
08
16
24Site class SE
Number of sites 15
(d)
Figure 7 Response spectrum resulting from numerical analysis for 487 sites (reference effective peak ground acceleration (EPGA) 022 g)for (a) SB (b) SC (c) SD (d) SE
8 Advances in Civil Engineering
0 05 1 15 20
04
08
12
Period T (s)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
larr Site period TG = 0048s
Depth to bedrock = 61mVS30 = 8010ms
(a)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
04
08
12
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
Depth to bedrock = 65mVS30 = 8356ms
larr Site period TG = 0048s
(b)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
04
08
12
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
Depth to bedrock = 80mVS30 = 7652ms
larr Site period TG = 0063s
(c)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
04
08
12
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
Depth to bedrock = 101mVS30 = 7694ms
larr Site period TG = 0075s
(d)
Figure 8 Response spectrum resulting from numerical analysis of four SB sites with depth to bedrock (a) 61m (b) 65m (c) 80m (d) 101m
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
06
12
18
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SC)IBC 2015 (SB)
larr Site period TG = 013s
Depth to bedrock = 112mVS30 = 4536ms
(a)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
06
12
18
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)IBC 2015 (SC)
larr Site period TG = 022s
Depth to bedrock = 260mVS30 = 4542ms
(b)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
06
12
18
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)IBC 2015 (SC)
larr Site period TG = 032s
Depth to bedrock = 435mVS30 = 4562ms
(c)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
06
12
18
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)IBC 2015 (SC)
larr Site period TG = 044s
Depth to bedrock = 609mVS30 = 4700ms
(d)
Figure 9 Response spectrum resulting fromnumerical analysis of four SC sites with depth to bedrock (a) 112m (b) 260m (c) 435m (d) 609m
Advances in Civil Engineering 9
where SDS and SD1 are the design spectral accelerationsfor short periods and 1 s period respectively SDS Stimes
25 times Fa times (23) and SD1 S times Fv times (23) S is the referenceeffective ground acceleration for the rock site Ts SD1SDSand T0 02 (SD1SDS) Equations (4) and (5) indicate thedesign spectral accelerations for the constant-accelerationrange and the constant-velocity range respectively
To address the numerical analysis results in the DRS andsoil factors the short-period (constant acceleration-related)amplification factor Fa and themidperiod (constant velocity-related) amplification factor Fv were evaluated e ampli-fication factors were calculated as the ratio (RRS) of theresponse spectral value for the soil to the spectral value forthe outcropping rock According to FEMA 1997 Fa and Fvare defined as follows
Fa(RRS) Rsoil
Rrock
104
111394605
01
RSsoil(T)
RSrock(T)dT (6)
Fv(RRS) Rsoil
Rrock
116
111394620
04
RSsoil(T)
RSrock(T)dT (7)
where RSsoil(T) and RSrock(T) are the spectral accelerationscorresponding to the soil and rock respectively at a givenstructure period T and Rsoil and Rrock are the hypocentral
distances from the soil and rock stationse ratio RsoilRrockwas assumed to be 10 in this study
e calculated Fa and Fv are presented in Tables 3 and 4according to the level of the EPGA In the tables ldquoIBC 2015rdquorefers to the amplification factors specified in IBC 2015 andldquoAnalysis resultrdquo refers to the amplification factors (fromequations (6) and (7)) based on the results of numericalanalyses e constant acceleration-related amplificationfactor Fa in IBC 2015 continues to increase as the site classchanges from SB to SE However in the proposed DRS-1 theFa value of SC is greater than those of the SD and SE sites Forthe SE site because the increased damping ratio due to thenonlinearity of soil reduced the site responses of higherorders the mean value of Fa is less than 10
In the case of the proposed Fv values the responseamplification increases as the site class changes from SB toSE However the amplification is less than that of IBC 2015As the EPGA increases the proposed Fv values decreases toclose to those of IBC 2015 which is attributed to the de-creased stiffness and increased damping of the nonlinear soilbehavior
Figure 12 compares the response spectra from (1) nu-merical analysis (2) the proposed amplification factor (DRS-1) and (3) IBC 2015 e EPGA was 022 g For the am-plification factors of DRS-1 the mean (+) standard deviation
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
larr Site period TG = 026s
Depth to bedrock = 205mVS30 = 3454ms
(a)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
larr Site period TG = 038s
Depth to bedrock = 320mVS30 = 3427ms
(b)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
larr Site period TG = 058s
Depth to bedrock = 508mVS30 = 3428ms
(c)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
larr Site period TG = 095s
Depth to bedrock = 800mVS30 = 3308ms
(d)
Figure 10 Response spectrum resulting from numerical analysis of four SD sites with depth to bedrock (a) 205m (b) 320m (c) 508m (d)800m
10 Advances in Civil Engineering
in Tables 3 and 4 was used Figure 12 shows the responsespectra obtained from the numerical analysis results for the487 sites in Korea A response spectrum curve in the figureindicates the average of the response spectra for 18 input
accelerations for a site conditione numerical results wereclassified as SB to SE by the site class criterion VS30 enumber of sites that belonged to SB SC SD and SE were 9302 161 and 15 respectively
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
larr Site period TG = 054s
Depth to bedrock = 305mVS30 = 1723ms
(a)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
larr Site period TG = 069s
Depth to bedrock = 370mVS30 = 1790ms
(b)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
larr Site period TG = 091s
Depth to bedrock = 403mVS30 = 1747ms
(c)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
Site period TG = 114s rarr
Depth to bedrock = 507mVS30 = 1710ms
(d)
Figure 11 Response spectrum resulting from numerical analysis of four SE sites with depth to bedrock (a) 305m (b) 370m (c) 403m (d)507m
Table 3 Short-period amplification factor (DRS-1)
500-year return period (011 g) 1000-year return period (0154 g) 2400-year return period (022 g)
IBC 2015Analysis result
IBC 2015Analysis result
IBC 2015Analysis result
Mean σlowast Mean σ Mean σSB 100 106 0019 100 106 0019 100 106 0024SC 120 158 0296 120 155 0307 118 151 0320SD 158 150 0328 149 142 0337 136 127 0359SE 244 106 0336 218 098 0338 178 082 0316lowastStandard deviation
Table 4 Midperiod amplification factor (DRS-1)
500-year return period (011 g) 1000-year return period (0154 g) 2400-year return period (022 g)
IBC 2015Analysis result
IBC 2015Analysis result
IBC 2015Analysis result
Mean σlowast Mean σ Mean σSB 100 100 0001 100 101 0001 100 100 0021SC 169 115 0123 165 117 0130 158 121 0148SD 236 149 0141 218 151 0141 196 156 0126SE 347 201 0265 334 197 0300 312 185 0384
Advances in Civil Engineering 11
In Figure 12(a) for the SB sites the site coefficients Faand Fv estimated from numerical analysis were close to 10(Tables 3 and 4) e proposed response spectrum of DRS-1is similar to the DRS in IBC 2015 except for the very short-period range For the SB sites in Korea (based on VS30)because the depth of the soil deposits was very shallowranging from 60 to 100m the dynamic period of the soil isvery short For this reason in the numerical results thestructure responses in the range of very short periods wereamplified significantly due to resonance between the soil andthe structure However because Fa is defined in a relativelylarge range of short periods (01ndash05 s (equation (6))) thehigh response amplification for very short periods less than02 s was not properly captured by the definition of Fa
In the case of the SC sites (Figure 12(b)) the proposed Favalue (mean + σ) is greater than that of the SC class in IBC2015 whereas the Fv value (mean + σ) is smaller As the siteperiods of the SC class range from 006 to 066 s the max-imum response amplification occurred in this range istrend agrees with the results from previous studies ([9 11])for the shallow soil conditions in Korea When the proposed
site coefficients were used in the range of 02ndash07 s theresponse spectral values of DRS-1 underestimated themaximum values obtained from the numerical analysis InFigure 12(c) the trend of the DRS-1 for the SD sites wassimilar to that for the SC sitese response spectral values ofDRS-1 underestimated the maximum numerical results inthe range of 03ndash08 s For the SE sites having VS30 values lessthan 180ms (Figure 12(d)) the proposed Fa value(mean + σ) was 113 In the short-period range the DRS-1was significantly less than the SE DRS values in IBC 2015 andwas close to the SB DRS values e proposed Fv value(mean + σ) was close to that of the SD DRS values in IBC2015 ese results indicate that response amplificationoccurred only for the long-period structures and that theamplification was not significant
In terms of the trends of the response amplificationdesign response spectra using the proposed site coefficients(DRS-1) differ from the analysis results Particularly for theSC and SD site classes the DRS-1 does not accurately capturethe maximum spectral accelerations and the amplificationranges affected by the site periods ese results indicate that
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 Site class SB Fa = 108 Fv = 102
TG
(a)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 Site class SC Fa = 184 Fv = 135
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)IBC 2015 (SC)
TG
(b)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
DRS-1 Site class SD Fa = 163 Fv = 168
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
TG
(c)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
DRS-1 Site class SE Fa = 113 Fv = 224
TG
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
(d)
Figure 12 Comparison between numerical analysis results and DRS-1 (a) SB (b) SC (c) SD (d) SE sites
12 Advances in Civil Engineering
when the definitions for Fa and Fv coefficients of IBC areused the DRS-1 can lead to unsafe seismic designs ofstructures
As shown in Figures 8ndash11 although the site classes(VS30) are identical the site periods can differ significantlydepending on the stiffness and depth of the soil deposits Forexample for the SC site class (VS30) the site periods varyfrom 0058 to 066 s in Table 1 us it is unreasonable todefine the dynamic properties of the soils with the VS30values alone
322 Step-2 Site Classification and Site Coefficients Based onSite Period (DRS-2) As mentioned in the previous sectionsite classification based on the VS30 does not accuratelydescribe the characteristics of the site responses Furtherwhen the depth to bedrock is less than 30m the properties ofthe bedrock are included in the definition of VS30 Howeverwhen the depth to bedrock is greater than 30m the entiresoil strata are not included in the site classification
us in DRS-2 the site period was used as the site classcriterion and the short-period and midperiod site ampli-fication factors were defined according to the site period asproposed in Figure 13 e amplification factors are sum-marized in Tables 5 and 6 e proposed amplificationfactors according to the site periods were calculated asfollows
Fa 1
Ta minusTb1113946
Ta
Tb
RSsoil(T)
RSrock(T)dT (8a)
Ta min 13TG 065( 1113857 (8b)
Tb min 03TG 02( 1113857 (8c)
Fv 105
111394615
10
RSsoil(T)
RSrock(T)dT (9)
In equations (8a)ndash(8c) for Fa the ranges Ta and Tb ofthe integration are defined by the site period TG and themaximum period is limited to 065 s For Fv the range of theintegration in equation (9) is reduced to safely define theamplification factors in the constant-velocity range
In Figure 13(a) when the site periods are shorter than03 s the short-period amplification factors are greater thanthe amplification of 184 for the SC site in Figure 12(b)calculated from equation (6) When the site period is outsidethe integration range the amplification by the first mode ofthe soil deposits does not occur in the integration rangeus as the site periods increase beyond the integrationrange the short-period amplification factors decreasegradually
For the midperiod amplification factors as the site pe-riods increase the amplification by the first mode of the soildeposits is included in the integration range us themidperiod amplification factors increase gradually
When the sites are classified by the site period Figure 14shows the design response spectra (DRS-2) resulting fromthe site amplification factors depending on the site period
eDRS-2 was compared with the numerical analysis resultsand the response spectra of the IBC 2015 e EPGA was022 g
In Figures 14(a)ndash14(d) when the site periods were in therange of 005ndash04 s the short-period spectral accelerations ofthe DRS-2 calculated from equation (8a)ndash(8c) were close tothe maximum spectral accelerations corresponding to thefirst-mode period of the soil deposits
When the site periods range from 04 to 06 s(Figures 14(e) and 14(f )) the site period was increased bythe nonlinear properties of the soil deposits and the am-plification range was between the constant-accelerationrange and the constant-velocity range However themidperiod amplification factor Fv was defined at theperiod of 10 s us in Figures 14(e) and 14(f ) themidperiod site amplification factor of DRS-2 un-derestimates the response amplification by the in-termediate site period
Figures 14(g) and 14(h) show the DRS-2 of the sites withperiods greater than 06 s e responses of the long-periodstructures affected by the first mode site periods and theresponses of the short period structures affected by thehigher modes of the soil deposits are described well by themidperiod and the short-period site amplification factors
As shown in Figures 14(b)ndash14(e) the response ampli-fication occurred in the range of the site period Howeveralthough the site amplification factors were defined with thesite period DRS-2 did not describe the response amplifi-cation is is because the constant-acceleration range didnot capture the range of the site amplification is resultindicates that when the site period is used for the site classcriterion the form of the design response spectrum as well asthe site amplification factors should be defined by the siteperiod
323 Step-3 Proposed Design Response Spectrum-3 (DRS-3)e numerical analysis results showed that response am-plification occurred due to resonance between the soil andstructure and that the site periods varied with soil depth Toaddress these results a new form of design response spec-trum with three site classes is proposed
First the sites are classified into three site classes (1)short-period sites (TGlt 04 s) (2) midperiod sites(04ltTGlt 07 s) and (3) long-period sites (07 sltTG) Onthe basis of the amplification factors in Figure 13 ampli-fication factors corresponding to the three site classes areproposed in Table 7 In the case of IBC 2015 the constant-acceleration range is determined by Ts (Fv25Fa) andT0 02Ts
Figure 15 shows the proposed design response spectrum(DRS-3) that is defined by the site period TG To include thefirst-mode periods of short-period sites or second-modeperiods of midperiod and long-period sites the constant-acceleration ranges are extended to T1 T2 is a corner periodto include the response amplifications by the higher modesof soil deposits To define the constant-velocity range thespectral accelerations are moved horizontally by(T1 minusTs) Sa SD1(Tminus (T1 minusTs)) in Figure 15
Advances in Civil Engineering 13
In Figure 16 the proposed DRS-3 is compared with thenumerical analysis results and the DRS of IBC 2015 DRS-3agrees with the maximum accelerations and the constant-acceleration range calculated by the numerical analysesUnlike DRS-1 and DRS-2 DRS-3 provides a better de-scription of the range and magnitude of the maximumspectral values in the constant-acceleration range and lessamplified spectral accelerations in the constant-velocityrange
4 Conclusions
Numerical studies were performed to investigate the re-sponse spectra for 487 site conditions in Korea which is amoderate seismic zone with shallow soil depths e mag-nitudes of the earthquake accelerations were scaled to theEPGAs of moderate seismic zones (011 0154 and 022 g)Twelve existing earthquake records and six artificial accel-erations which were adjusted to the target EPGAs wereused for the input ground accelerations e numericalanalysis results were compared with design response spec-trum (DRS) values of IBC 2015 e results of the presentstudy can be summarized as follows
(1) Even within the same site class (VS30 in IBC 2015)the (elastic) periods of the sites varied significantlywith soil depth
(2) e spectral accelerations of structures were sig-nificantly amplified when the site period was close tothe structure period is result indicates that toaccurately predict the effects of soil the response-amplification factor (ie the soil factor) needs to bedefined by the site period rather than by the soilshear modulus (or soil shear velocity)
(3) e responses of structures were amplified by thehigher modes as well as by the first mode of the soildeposite higher modes amplified the responses ofshort-period structures
(4) When the site periods were less than 04 s thespectral accelerations were greater than the DRSvalues corresponding to the site class VS30 in IBC2015 When the site periods ranged from 04 to 06 sthe spectral accelerations were close to the DRSvalues of IBC 2015 When the site periods weregreater than 07 s the spectral accelerations were lessthan the DRS values of IBC 2015
(5) In particular in the case of SE soil (VS30lt 180ms)the spectral accelerations were significantly less thanthe SE DRS values and were close to the unamplifiedDRS values of SB
In this study three steps for the design response spec-trum (DRS) were performed to address the effect of shallowsoil deposits (in Korea) on structure responses In the firststep DRS-1 following the definitions of the site classifica-tion and the site coefficient of IBC 2015 themagnitude of thesite coefficient was estimated based on the numericalanalysis results In the second step DRS-2 the site periodwas used for the site classification and the integration rangesfor the amplification factors were modified In the third stepDRS-3 to enhance the accuracy of the DRS both themagnitude and ranges of the response amplification weredefined by the site period Results of the three steps aresummarized as follows
0 02 04 06 08 1 1205
1
15
2
25
Site period TG (s)
Am
plifi
catio
n fa
ctor
Fa
Mean + σProposed Fa
(a)
Am
plifi
catio
n fa
ctor
Fv
Mean + σProposed Fv
0 02 04 06 08 1 1205
1
15
2
25
3
Site period TG (s)
(b)
Figure 13 Site amplification factors according to site period (DRS-2) (a) Fa (b) Fv
Table 5 Short-period amplification factor according to site period(DRS-2)
TG (s) 00 03 10leTG
Fa 22 22 11
Table 6 Midperiod amplification factor according to site period(DRS-2)
TG (s) 00 04 07leTG
Fv 10 14 24
14 Advances in Civil Engineering
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-2 005 lt TG lt 01s Fa = 220 Fv = 110
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18Sp
ectr
al ac
cele
ratio
n (g
)
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Period T (s)
(a)
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-2 01 lt TG lt 02s Fa = 220 Fv = 115
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(b)
DRS-2 02 lt TG lt 03s Fa = 220 Fv = 125
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(c)
DRS-2 03 lt TG lt 04s Fa = 212 Fv = 135
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TGSp
ectr
al ac
cele
ratio
n (g
)
Period T (s)
(d)
DRS-2 04 lt TG lt 05s Fa = 196 Fv = 157
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(e)
DRS-2 05 lt TG lt 06s Fa = 161 Fv = 207
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2012 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(f )
Figure 14 Continued
Advances in Civil Engineering 15
(1) e DRS of the IBC was developed with theanalysis of seismic ground motions measured atsites located on the West Coast of the United Statesthat have deep soil deposits However in thisstudy DRS-1 underestimated the short-periodspectral accelerations resulting from numericalstudies with a large deviation is indicates thatthe site classification based on VS30 and theconstant-acceleration range did not rationallydescribe the responses of structures affected byshallow soil depth
(2) In DRS-2 the constant-acceleration range of theshort period sites did not accurately predict the rangeof the maximum responses resulting from the nu-merical analysis results us DRS-2 showed unsafevalues for sites with periods of 01ndash05 s
(3) DRS-3 generally agreed with the numerical resultsand described the characteristics of the responsespectrum affected by shallow soil deposits well Forshort site periods the constant-acceleration rangewas narrow and the magnitude was greater than thatof IBC 2015 As the site period increased the range of
DRS-2 06 lt TG lt 07s Fa = 165 Fv = 223
SCSD
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2012 (SB)
SE
(g)
DRS-2 07 lt TG lt 12s Fa = 126 Fv = 240
SCSD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2012 (SB)
(h)
Figure 14 Comparison between numerical analysis results and DRS-2
Table 7 Properties of the proposed DRS-3
TG Fa Fv
Constant-acceleration rangeis study IBC 2015
T2 T1 T0 TS
TGlt 04 s 22 14 01 04 0056 02804 sleTGlt 07 s 17 16 02 06 008 03807 sleTG 14 24 03 09 014 069
TT2 T1
Sa
SDS
Sa = SD1T ndash (T1 ndash TS)
10
SD1
TST0
Figure 15 New form of design response spectrum (DRS-3)
16 Advances in Civil Engineering
the constant acceleration increased being shifted togreater periods and the peak acceleration decreased
Data Availability
e Excel file data used to support the findings of this studyare available from the corresponding author upon request
Conflicts of Interest
e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest
Acknowledgments
is research was supported by the Korea Agency for In-frastructure Technology Advancement (KAIA) funded bythe Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Transport (No18AUDP-B106327-04) and the Basic Science ResearchProgram through the National Research Foundation of
Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education(NRF-2018R1A6A1A07025819)
References
[1] Architectural Institute of Korea (AIK) Korean Building CodeArchitectural Institute of Korea (AIK) Seoul Republic ofKorea 2016
[2] International Code Council (ICC) International BuildingCode International Code Council (ICC) 2015
[3] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) ldquoNEHRPrecommended provisions for seismic regulations for newbuildings and other structuresrdquo Report No FEMA-302Building Seismic Safety CouncilWashington DC USA 1997
[4] GB50011-2001 Code for Seismic Design of Buildings ChinaBuilding Industry Press Beijing China 2001
[5] A Tena-Colunga U Mena-Hernandez L Perez-RochaJ Aviles M Ordaz and J Vilar ldquoUpdated seismic designguidelines for model building code of Mexicordquo EarthquakeSpectra vol 25 no 4 pp 869ndash898 2009
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 TG lt 04s Fa = 220 Fv = 140
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
(a)
05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 04 lt TG lt 07s Fa = 170 Fv = 160
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0
(b)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 07s lt TG Fa = 140 Fv = 240
TG
(c)
Figure 16 Comparison between numerical analysis results and DRS-3 (a) short-period sites (b) Midperiod sites (c) Long-period sites
Advances in Civil Engineering 17
[6] European Committee for Standardization Eurocode 8 Designof Structures for Earthquake Resistance British StandardLondon UK 2003
[7] Mid-America Earthquake Center (MAE Center) ldquoUniformhazard ground motion and response spectra for mid-Americacitiesrdquo MAE Center Report 03-07 Mid-America EarthquakeCenter (MAE Center) Urbana IL USA 2003
[8] H H M Hwang H Lin and J-R Huo ldquoSite coefficients fordesign of buildings in eastern United Statesrdquo Soil Dynamicsand Earthquake Engineering vol 16 no 1 pp 29ndash40 1997
[9] D-S Kim and J-K Yoon ldquoDevelopment of new site classi-fication system for the regions of shallow bedrock in KoreardquoJournal of Earthquake Engineering vol 10 no 3 pp 331ndash3582006
[10] C-G Sun H-S Kim C-K Chung and H-C Chi ldquoSpatialzonations for regional assessment of seismic site effects in theSeoul metropolitan areardquo Soil Dynamics and EarthquakeEngineering vol 56 pp 44ndash56 2014
[11] S-H Lee C-G Sun J-K Yoon and D-S Kim ldquoDevelop-ment and verification of a new site classification system andsite coefficients for regions of shallow bedrock in KoreardquoJournal of Earthquake Engineering vol 16 no 6 pp 795ndash8192012
[12] D S Kim and Y W Choo ldquoDynamic deformation charac-teristics of cohesionless soils in Korea using resonant columntestsrdquo Journal of the Korean Geotechnical Society vol 17 no 5pp 115ndash138 2001
[13] I M Idriss and J I Sun A Computer Program for ConductingEquivalent Linear Seismic Response Analysis of HorizontallyLayered Soil Deposits Civil Engineering Department Centerfor Geotechnical Modelling UC Davis Davis CA USA1992
[14] httpngawest2berkeleyedu[15] S A Nikolaou A GIS Platform for Earthquake Risk Analysis
PhD dissertation State University of New York Buffalo NYUSA 1998
[16] F Naeim A Alimoradi and S Pezeshk ldquoSelection and scalingof ground motion time histories for structural design usinggenetic algorithmsrdquo Earthquake Spectra vol 20 no 2pp 413ndash426 2004
[17] D A Gasparini and E H Vanmarche Simulated EarthquakeMotions Compatible with Prescribed Response Spectra ReportNo R76-4 MIT Department of Civil Engineering Cam-bridge MA USA 1976
[18] American Society of Civil Engineers Standard (ASCE) SeismicAnalysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures and Commen-tary ASCE 4-98 Reston VA USA 2000
[19] Ministry of Construction and Transportation (MCT) SeismicDesign Standard Research Ministry of Construction andTransportation (MCT) Seoul Korea 1997
18 Advances in Civil Engineering
International Journal of
AerospaceEngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
RoboticsJournal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Active and Passive Electronic Components
VLSI Design
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Shock and Vibration
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Civil EngineeringAdvances in
Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Journal of
Advances inOptoElectronics
Hindawiwwwhindawicom
Volume 2018
Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013Hindawiwwwhindawicom
The Scientific World Journal
Volume 2018
Control Scienceand Engineering
Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom
Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2018
SensorsJournal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
International Journal of
RotatingMachinery
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Modelling ampSimulationin EngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and
Propagation
International Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Navigation and Observation
International Journal of
Hindawi
wwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in
Multimedia
Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom
trapezoidal function e starting time and duration of theacceleration time history were defined as Trise and Tlevelrespectively In the ASCE standard 4-98 [18] 15 s and 10 swere recommended for Trise and Tlevel respectively forregions that have an expected maximum earthquake mag-nitude of 65ndash70 However the Ministry of Constructionand Transportation in Korea [19] recommended 2 s and6ndash7 s for Trise and Tlevel respectively based on the earth-quake accelerations measured in Korea In the present studysix artificial earthquakes were generated using 15 s and 25 sfor Trise and 60 s 80 s and 100 s for Tlevel Figure 6compares the DRS of the KBC (site class SB) the re-sponse spectra from the scaled-input accelerations and theaverage response spectrum e average response spectrumwas close to the DRS indicating that the scaling method wasacceptable
3 Parametric Study and Results
31 Results for All 487 Sites Figure 7 shows the numericalanalysis results for 487 sites in the case of reference effectivepeak ground acceleration (EPGA) 022 g In the figureeach response spectrum indicates the average of the resultscalculated from 18 input accelerations (ie the number ofactual response spectra is 18 times the results shown in thefigure) e results were classified by the site-class criteriaVS30 of IBC 2015 For the SB to SD sites (Figures 7(a)ndash7(c))the maximum spectral accelerations of the short-periodstructures were significantly greater than the DRS valuesof IBC 2015 For the SE sites on the other hand the spectralaccelerations of the short-period structures were signifi-cantly less than the SE DRS values of IBC 2015 as shown inFigure 7(d)
32 Response of Each Site Class Figures 8ndash11 show the re-sponse spectra for each site class SB to SE e gray linesindicate the numerical analysis results of each site for the 18earthquake accelerations e blue line indicates the average
of the analysis results TG indicates the period of the sites Tindicates the period of the structure models e site period(TG) was calculated from the first-mode frequency f1 of thewave-propagation transfer functione reference EPGA forthe 2400-year return period was 022 g
Figure 8 shows the results for four SB sitese periods ofthe soils (TG) ranged from 0048 to 0075 s (Table 1) In therange of very short periods (Tlt 02 s) the maximum spectralaccelerations of the numerical analyses were significantlygreater than the IBC SB design spectrum e maximumresponse amplification occurred when the structure period(T) was the same as the site period (TG) is result indicatesthat the response amplification was caused by resonancebetween the soil and the structure However in the ranges ofstructure periods (ie Tgt 02 s) the spectral accelerationswere equivalent to the SB design response spectrum of IBC2015
Figure 9 shows the results for four SC sites e averageshear-wave velocities (VS30) of the four sites were similar(453 454 456 and 469ms respectively) but the soil depthto bedrock values were significantly different (112 260435 and 609m respectively) us site periods weresignificantly different TG 013 022 032 and 044 s re-spectively when the elastic soil property was assumedAccordingly the trend of the response amplification variedsignificantly In the case of short site periods (whereTG 013 022 and 032 s in Figures 9(a)ndash9(c) respectively)the peak spectral accelerations were greater than the SC DRSvalues of IBC 2015 However the spectral accelerations forthe longer periods (Tge10 s) were lower than the SC DRSvalues of IBC 2015 and were close to the SB DRS values ofIBC 2015 For the longer site period of 044 s (Figure 9(d))the spectral accelerations for the short periods (T) wereequivalent to the SC DRS values of IBC 2015 whereas thespectral accelerations for the long-period structures (T) wereclose to the SB DRS values of IBC 2015
Figure 10 shows the response spectra for four SD sitesespectral accelerations for the short site periods (TG 025 and
10
ndash20
ndash40
ndash60Dep
th (m
)
ndash80
ndash100
51 101 151 201 251 301 351 378
Fill soilAlluvial soil
Weathered soilWeathered rock
Figure 1 378 soil strata from GTIS
Advances in Civil Engineering 3
039 s in Figures 10(a) and 10(b) respectively) were close tothe results of the SC sites (TG 022 and 032 s in Figures 9(b)and 9(c) respectively) is result again confirms that the
primary parameter for response amplification is the siteperiod (TG) rather than the material properties of the soilFigures 10(c) and 10(d) shows the response spectra for the site
0 250 500 750 1000
ndash60
ndash45
ndash30
ndash15
0
Shear-wave velocity Vs (ms)
Dep
th (m
)
Site class SCNumber of sites 71
(a)
0 250 500 750 1000
ndash60
ndash45
ndash30
ndash15
0
Shear-wave velocity Vs (ms)
Dep
th (m
)
Site class SDNumber of sites 23
(b)
0 250 500 750 1000
ndash60
ndash45
ndash30
ndash15
0
Shear-wave velocity Vs (ms)
Dep
th (m
)
Site class SENumber of sites 23
(c)
Figure 2 109 shear-wave velocity profiles 378 soil strata from Lee et al [11] Site class (a) SC (b) SD and (c) SE
Table 1 Summary of the soil properties of 487 sites
Site class VS30 SB SC SD SE
Number of sites9 302 161 15
Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max MeanDepth to bedrock (m) 603 101 706 53 916 287 122 841 461 280 540 406VS30 (ms) 765 835 793 360 754 480 238 359 339 114 179 160Site period (s) 005 008 006 006 066 024 024 096 048 053 114 083
4 Advances in Civil Engineering
periodsTG 079 and 097 s respectively In the range of long-period structures (Tgt 10 s) the spectral accelerations wereclose to or less than the SD DRS However for the short-
period structures (Tlt 10 s) the spectral accelerations wereclose to or less than the SB DRS indicating that responseamplification did not occur
0
05
1
15
0 20 40 60 80 100
Site
per
iod
(sec
)
Soil depth (m)
SBSC
SDSE
Figure 3 Site periods of 487 sites
00
02
04
06
08
10
12
GG m
ax
00001 0001 001 01 1Shear strain ()
Fill soilAlluvial soil
Weathered soilWeathered rock
(a)
0
5
10
15
20
00001 0001 001 01 1
Dam
ping
ratio
Shear strain ()
Fill soilAlluvial soil
Weathered soilWeathered rock
(b)
Figure 4 Nonlinear properties of the soil and rock (a) Shear modulus (b) Damping ratio
Table 2 Properties of 12 recorded accelerations
Event Year Nation Station Magnitude Mechanism Rrup (km)lowast
Irpinia-01 1980 Italy Auletta 69 Normal 96Denali 2002 USA Carlo 79 Strike-slip 509San Fernando 1971 USA Cedar Springs 66 Reverse 897Tabas 1978 Iran Tabas 74 Reverse 20Loma Prieta 1989 USA So San Francisco 69 Reverse 631Chi-Chi 1999 Taiwan HWA003 62 Reverse 504Northridge-01 1994 USA Vasquez Rocks Park 67 Reverse 236Northridge-01 1994 USA Antelope Buttes 67 Reverse 469Duzce 1999 Turkey Lamont 1060 71 Strike-slip 259Irpinia-02 1980 Italy Bagnoli Irpino 62 Normal 196Kocaeli 1999 Turkey Izmit 75 Strike-slip 72Big Bear-01 1992 USA Rancho Cucamonga 65 Strike-slip 594lowastRrup closest distance to rupture plane
Advances in Civil Engineering 5
0 10 20 30 40
larr 0065g Irpinia-01
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
Time (s)
ndash008
ndash004
0
004
008
Time (s)
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20 30 40
larr 0161g Northridge-01ndash02
ndash01
0
01
02A
ccel
erat
ion
(g)
0 10 20 30 40larr 0100g Denali
Time (s)
ndash012
ndash006
0
006
012
Time (s)
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20 30larr 0053g Northridge-01
ndash006
ndash003
0
003
006
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10
larr 0019gSan Fernando
Time (s)
ndash004
ndash002
0
002
004
Time (s)
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20 30 40
larr 0245g
Duzcendash04
ndash02
0
02
04
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20 30 40
larr 0814g
Tabas
Time (s)
ndash1
ndash05
0
05
1
Time (s)
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20 30 40larr 0052g Irpinia-02
ndash006
ndash003
0
003
006
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20 30 40
larr 0107g
Loma Prieta
Time (s)
ndash014
ndash007
0
007
014
Time (s)
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20 30
larr 0221g
Kocaelindash04
ndash02
0
02
04
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20Time (s)
30
larr 0030g
Chi-Chindash004
ndash002
0
002
004
Time (s)
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20 30ndash008
ndash004
0
004
008larr 0056g
Big Bear-01
(a)
Figure 5 Continued
6 Advances in Civil Engineering
0 1 2 3
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)
0
005
01
015
02
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)0 1 2 3
0
025
05
075
1
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 1 2 3Period Tn (s)
0
01
02
03
04
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)0 1 2 3
0
005
01
015
02
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 1 2 3Period Tn (s)
0
002
004
006
008
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)0 1 2 3
0
03
06
09
12
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 1 2 3Period Tn (s)
0
1
2
3
4
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)0 1 2 3
0
003
006
009
012
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 1 2 3Period Tn (s)
0
01
02
03
04
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)0 1 2 3
0
03
06
09
12
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 1Period Tn (s)
2 30
003
006
009
012
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)0 1 2 3
0
01
02
03
04
(b)
Figure 5 12 actual and unscaled earthquake accelerations (a) Acceleration time history (b) Response spectrum
Advances in Civil Engineering 7
Figure 11 shows the response spectra for four SE sitesFor the long-period structures the spectral accelerationswere close to the SE DRS For the short-period structures thespectral accelerations were greater than the SB DRS but weresignificantly less than the SE DRS
321 Step-1 Site Classification and Site Coefficients Based onVS30 (DRS-1) In IBC 2015 the DRS acceleration is definedas two-thirds of the maximum considered earthquake (MCE)
spectral acceleration with a return period of 2400 years espectral accelerations are defined as follows [2]
Sa 06SDS
T0T + 04SDS 0leTleT0 (3)
Sa SDS T0 leTleTs (4)
Sa SD1T
Ts leT (5)
0 05 1 15 20
04
08
12
Period T (s)Sp
ectr
al ac
cele
ratio
n (g
)
Figure 6 Average response spectra of input accelerations
0 05 1 15 20
04
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
08
12
Period T (s)
Site class SBNumber of sites 9
IBC 2015 (SB)
(a)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
08
16
24Site class SC
Number of sites 302
IBC 2015 (SC)IBC 2015 (SB)
(b)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SD)
IBC 2015 (SB)0
08
16
24Site class SD
Number of sites 161
(c)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SE)
IBC 2015 (SB)0
08
16
24Site class SE
Number of sites 15
(d)
Figure 7 Response spectrum resulting from numerical analysis for 487 sites (reference effective peak ground acceleration (EPGA) 022 g)for (a) SB (b) SC (c) SD (d) SE
8 Advances in Civil Engineering
0 05 1 15 20
04
08
12
Period T (s)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
larr Site period TG = 0048s
Depth to bedrock = 61mVS30 = 8010ms
(a)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
04
08
12
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
Depth to bedrock = 65mVS30 = 8356ms
larr Site period TG = 0048s
(b)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
04
08
12
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
Depth to bedrock = 80mVS30 = 7652ms
larr Site period TG = 0063s
(c)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
04
08
12
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
Depth to bedrock = 101mVS30 = 7694ms
larr Site period TG = 0075s
(d)
Figure 8 Response spectrum resulting from numerical analysis of four SB sites with depth to bedrock (a) 61m (b) 65m (c) 80m (d) 101m
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
06
12
18
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SC)IBC 2015 (SB)
larr Site period TG = 013s
Depth to bedrock = 112mVS30 = 4536ms
(a)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
06
12
18
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)IBC 2015 (SC)
larr Site period TG = 022s
Depth to bedrock = 260mVS30 = 4542ms
(b)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
06
12
18
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)IBC 2015 (SC)
larr Site period TG = 032s
Depth to bedrock = 435mVS30 = 4562ms
(c)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
06
12
18
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)IBC 2015 (SC)
larr Site period TG = 044s
Depth to bedrock = 609mVS30 = 4700ms
(d)
Figure 9 Response spectrum resulting fromnumerical analysis of four SC sites with depth to bedrock (a) 112m (b) 260m (c) 435m (d) 609m
Advances in Civil Engineering 9
where SDS and SD1 are the design spectral accelerationsfor short periods and 1 s period respectively SDS Stimes
25 times Fa times (23) and SD1 S times Fv times (23) S is the referenceeffective ground acceleration for the rock site Ts SD1SDSand T0 02 (SD1SDS) Equations (4) and (5) indicate thedesign spectral accelerations for the constant-accelerationrange and the constant-velocity range respectively
To address the numerical analysis results in the DRS andsoil factors the short-period (constant acceleration-related)amplification factor Fa and themidperiod (constant velocity-related) amplification factor Fv were evaluated e ampli-fication factors were calculated as the ratio (RRS) of theresponse spectral value for the soil to the spectral value forthe outcropping rock According to FEMA 1997 Fa and Fvare defined as follows
Fa(RRS) Rsoil
Rrock
104
111394605
01
RSsoil(T)
RSrock(T)dT (6)
Fv(RRS) Rsoil
Rrock
116
111394620
04
RSsoil(T)
RSrock(T)dT (7)
where RSsoil(T) and RSrock(T) are the spectral accelerationscorresponding to the soil and rock respectively at a givenstructure period T and Rsoil and Rrock are the hypocentral
distances from the soil and rock stationse ratio RsoilRrockwas assumed to be 10 in this study
e calculated Fa and Fv are presented in Tables 3 and 4according to the level of the EPGA In the tables ldquoIBC 2015rdquorefers to the amplification factors specified in IBC 2015 andldquoAnalysis resultrdquo refers to the amplification factors (fromequations (6) and (7)) based on the results of numericalanalyses e constant acceleration-related amplificationfactor Fa in IBC 2015 continues to increase as the site classchanges from SB to SE However in the proposed DRS-1 theFa value of SC is greater than those of the SD and SE sites Forthe SE site because the increased damping ratio due to thenonlinearity of soil reduced the site responses of higherorders the mean value of Fa is less than 10
In the case of the proposed Fv values the responseamplification increases as the site class changes from SB toSE However the amplification is less than that of IBC 2015As the EPGA increases the proposed Fv values decreases toclose to those of IBC 2015 which is attributed to the de-creased stiffness and increased damping of the nonlinear soilbehavior
Figure 12 compares the response spectra from (1) nu-merical analysis (2) the proposed amplification factor (DRS-1) and (3) IBC 2015 e EPGA was 022 g For the am-plification factors of DRS-1 the mean (+) standard deviation
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
larr Site period TG = 026s
Depth to bedrock = 205mVS30 = 3454ms
(a)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
larr Site period TG = 038s
Depth to bedrock = 320mVS30 = 3427ms
(b)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
larr Site period TG = 058s
Depth to bedrock = 508mVS30 = 3428ms
(c)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
larr Site period TG = 095s
Depth to bedrock = 800mVS30 = 3308ms
(d)
Figure 10 Response spectrum resulting from numerical analysis of four SD sites with depth to bedrock (a) 205m (b) 320m (c) 508m (d)800m
10 Advances in Civil Engineering
in Tables 3 and 4 was used Figure 12 shows the responsespectra obtained from the numerical analysis results for the487 sites in Korea A response spectrum curve in the figureindicates the average of the response spectra for 18 input
accelerations for a site conditione numerical results wereclassified as SB to SE by the site class criterion VS30 enumber of sites that belonged to SB SC SD and SE were 9302 161 and 15 respectively
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
larr Site period TG = 054s
Depth to bedrock = 305mVS30 = 1723ms
(a)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
larr Site period TG = 069s
Depth to bedrock = 370mVS30 = 1790ms
(b)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
larr Site period TG = 091s
Depth to bedrock = 403mVS30 = 1747ms
(c)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
Site period TG = 114s rarr
Depth to bedrock = 507mVS30 = 1710ms
(d)
Figure 11 Response spectrum resulting from numerical analysis of four SE sites with depth to bedrock (a) 305m (b) 370m (c) 403m (d)507m
Table 3 Short-period amplification factor (DRS-1)
500-year return period (011 g) 1000-year return period (0154 g) 2400-year return period (022 g)
IBC 2015Analysis result
IBC 2015Analysis result
IBC 2015Analysis result
Mean σlowast Mean σ Mean σSB 100 106 0019 100 106 0019 100 106 0024SC 120 158 0296 120 155 0307 118 151 0320SD 158 150 0328 149 142 0337 136 127 0359SE 244 106 0336 218 098 0338 178 082 0316lowastStandard deviation
Table 4 Midperiod amplification factor (DRS-1)
500-year return period (011 g) 1000-year return period (0154 g) 2400-year return period (022 g)
IBC 2015Analysis result
IBC 2015Analysis result
IBC 2015Analysis result
Mean σlowast Mean σ Mean σSB 100 100 0001 100 101 0001 100 100 0021SC 169 115 0123 165 117 0130 158 121 0148SD 236 149 0141 218 151 0141 196 156 0126SE 347 201 0265 334 197 0300 312 185 0384
Advances in Civil Engineering 11
In Figure 12(a) for the SB sites the site coefficients Faand Fv estimated from numerical analysis were close to 10(Tables 3 and 4) e proposed response spectrum of DRS-1is similar to the DRS in IBC 2015 except for the very short-period range For the SB sites in Korea (based on VS30)because the depth of the soil deposits was very shallowranging from 60 to 100m the dynamic period of the soil isvery short For this reason in the numerical results thestructure responses in the range of very short periods wereamplified significantly due to resonance between the soil andthe structure However because Fa is defined in a relativelylarge range of short periods (01ndash05 s (equation (6))) thehigh response amplification for very short periods less than02 s was not properly captured by the definition of Fa
In the case of the SC sites (Figure 12(b)) the proposed Favalue (mean + σ) is greater than that of the SC class in IBC2015 whereas the Fv value (mean + σ) is smaller As the siteperiods of the SC class range from 006 to 066 s the max-imum response amplification occurred in this range istrend agrees with the results from previous studies ([9 11])for the shallow soil conditions in Korea When the proposed
site coefficients were used in the range of 02ndash07 s theresponse spectral values of DRS-1 underestimated themaximum values obtained from the numerical analysis InFigure 12(c) the trend of the DRS-1 for the SD sites wassimilar to that for the SC sitese response spectral values ofDRS-1 underestimated the maximum numerical results inthe range of 03ndash08 s For the SE sites having VS30 values lessthan 180ms (Figure 12(d)) the proposed Fa value(mean + σ) was 113 In the short-period range the DRS-1was significantly less than the SE DRS values in IBC 2015 andwas close to the SB DRS values e proposed Fv value(mean + σ) was close to that of the SD DRS values in IBC2015 ese results indicate that response amplificationoccurred only for the long-period structures and that theamplification was not significant
In terms of the trends of the response amplificationdesign response spectra using the proposed site coefficients(DRS-1) differ from the analysis results Particularly for theSC and SD site classes the DRS-1 does not accurately capturethe maximum spectral accelerations and the amplificationranges affected by the site periods ese results indicate that
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 Site class SB Fa = 108 Fv = 102
TG
(a)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 Site class SC Fa = 184 Fv = 135
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)IBC 2015 (SC)
TG
(b)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
DRS-1 Site class SD Fa = 163 Fv = 168
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
TG
(c)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
DRS-1 Site class SE Fa = 113 Fv = 224
TG
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
(d)
Figure 12 Comparison between numerical analysis results and DRS-1 (a) SB (b) SC (c) SD (d) SE sites
12 Advances in Civil Engineering
when the definitions for Fa and Fv coefficients of IBC areused the DRS-1 can lead to unsafe seismic designs ofstructures
As shown in Figures 8ndash11 although the site classes(VS30) are identical the site periods can differ significantlydepending on the stiffness and depth of the soil deposits Forexample for the SC site class (VS30) the site periods varyfrom 0058 to 066 s in Table 1 us it is unreasonable todefine the dynamic properties of the soils with the VS30values alone
322 Step-2 Site Classification and Site Coefficients Based onSite Period (DRS-2) As mentioned in the previous sectionsite classification based on the VS30 does not accuratelydescribe the characteristics of the site responses Furtherwhen the depth to bedrock is less than 30m the properties ofthe bedrock are included in the definition of VS30 Howeverwhen the depth to bedrock is greater than 30m the entiresoil strata are not included in the site classification
us in DRS-2 the site period was used as the site classcriterion and the short-period and midperiod site ampli-fication factors were defined according to the site period asproposed in Figure 13 e amplification factors are sum-marized in Tables 5 and 6 e proposed amplificationfactors according to the site periods were calculated asfollows
Fa 1
Ta minusTb1113946
Ta
Tb
RSsoil(T)
RSrock(T)dT (8a)
Ta min 13TG 065( 1113857 (8b)
Tb min 03TG 02( 1113857 (8c)
Fv 105
111394615
10
RSsoil(T)
RSrock(T)dT (9)
In equations (8a)ndash(8c) for Fa the ranges Ta and Tb ofthe integration are defined by the site period TG and themaximum period is limited to 065 s For Fv the range of theintegration in equation (9) is reduced to safely define theamplification factors in the constant-velocity range
In Figure 13(a) when the site periods are shorter than03 s the short-period amplification factors are greater thanthe amplification of 184 for the SC site in Figure 12(b)calculated from equation (6) When the site period is outsidethe integration range the amplification by the first mode ofthe soil deposits does not occur in the integration rangeus as the site periods increase beyond the integrationrange the short-period amplification factors decreasegradually
For the midperiod amplification factors as the site pe-riods increase the amplification by the first mode of the soildeposits is included in the integration range us themidperiod amplification factors increase gradually
When the sites are classified by the site period Figure 14shows the design response spectra (DRS-2) resulting fromthe site amplification factors depending on the site period
eDRS-2 was compared with the numerical analysis resultsand the response spectra of the IBC 2015 e EPGA was022 g
In Figures 14(a)ndash14(d) when the site periods were in therange of 005ndash04 s the short-period spectral accelerations ofthe DRS-2 calculated from equation (8a)ndash(8c) were close tothe maximum spectral accelerations corresponding to thefirst-mode period of the soil deposits
When the site periods range from 04 to 06 s(Figures 14(e) and 14(f )) the site period was increased bythe nonlinear properties of the soil deposits and the am-plification range was between the constant-accelerationrange and the constant-velocity range However themidperiod amplification factor Fv was defined at theperiod of 10 s us in Figures 14(e) and 14(f ) themidperiod site amplification factor of DRS-2 un-derestimates the response amplification by the in-termediate site period
Figures 14(g) and 14(h) show the DRS-2 of the sites withperiods greater than 06 s e responses of the long-periodstructures affected by the first mode site periods and theresponses of the short period structures affected by thehigher modes of the soil deposits are described well by themidperiod and the short-period site amplification factors
As shown in Figures 14(b)ndash14(e) the response ampli-fication occurred in the range of the site period Howeveralthough the site amplification factors were defined with thesite period DRS-2 did not describe the response amplifi-cation is is because the constant-acceleration range didnot capture the range of the site amplification is resultindicates that when the site period is used for the site classcriterion the form of the design response spectrum as well asthe site amplification factors should be defined by the siteperiod
323 Step-3 Proposed Design Response Spectrum-3 (DRS-3)e numerical analysis results showed that response am-plification occurred due to resonance between the soil andstructure and that the site periods varied with soil depth Toaddress these results a new form of design response spec-trum with three site classes is proposed
First the sites are classified into three site classes (1)short-period sites (TGlt 04 s) (2) midperiod sites(04ltTGlt 07 s) and (3) long-period sites (07 sltTG) Onthe basis of the amplification factors in Figure 13 ampli-fication factors corresponding to the three site classes areproposed in Table 7 In the case of IBC 2015 the constant-acceleration range is determined by Ts (Fv25Fa) andT0 02Ts
Figure 15 shows the proposed design response spectrum(DRS-3) that is defined by the site period TG To include thefirst-mode periods of short-period sites or second-modeperiods of midperiod and long-period sites the constant-acceleration ranges are extended to T1 T2 is a corner periodto include the response amplifications by the higher modesof soil deposits To define the constant-velocity range thespectral accelerations are moved horizontally by(T1 minusTs) Sa SD1(Tminus (T1 minusTs)) in Figure 15
Advances in Civil Engineering 13
In Figure 16 the proposed DRS-3 is compared with thenumerical analysis results and the DRS of IBC 2015 DRS-3agrees with the maximum accelerations and the constant-acceleration range calculated by the numerical analysesUnlike DRS-1 and DRS-2 DRS-3 provides a better de-scription of the range and magnitude of the maximumspectral values in the constant-acceleration range and lessamplified spectral accelerations in the constant-velocityrange
4 Conclusions
Numerical studies were performed to investigate the re-sponse spectra for 487 site conditions in Korea which is amoderate seismic zone with shallow soil depths e mag-nitudes of the earthquake accelerations were scaled to theEPGAs of moderate seismic zones (011 0154 and 022 g)Twelve existing earthquake records and six artificial accel-erations which were adjusted to the target EPGAs wereused for the input ground accelerations e numericalanalysis results were compared with design response spec-trum (DRS) values of IBC 2015 e results of the presentstudy can be summarized as follows
(1) Even within the same site class (VS30 in IBC 2015)the (elastic) periods of the sites varied significantlywith soil depth
(2) e spectral accelerations of structures were sig-nificantly amplified when the site period was close tothe structure period is result indicates that toaccurately predict the effects of soil the response-amplification factor (ie the soil factor) needs to bedefined by the site period rather than by the soilshear modulus (or soil shear velocity)
(3) e responses of structures were amplified by thehigher modes as well as by the first mode of the soildeposite higher modes amplified the responses ofshort-period structures
(4) When the site periods were less than 04 s thespectral accelerations were greater than the DRSvalues corresponding to the site class VS30 in IBC2015 When the site periods ranged from 04 to 06 sthe spectral accelerations were close to the DRSvalues of IBC 2015 When the site periods weregreater than 07 s the spectral accelerations were lessthan the DRS values of IBC 2015
(5) In particular in the case of SE soil (VS30lt 180ms)the spectral accelerations were significantly less thanthe SE DRS values and were close to the unamplifiedDRS values of SB
In this study three steps for the design response spec-trum (DRS) were performed to address the effect of shallowsoil deposits (in Korea) on structure responses In the firststep DRS-1 following the definitions of the site classifica-tion and the site coefficient of IBC 2015 themagnitude of thesite coefficient was estimated based on the numericalanalysis results In the second step DRS-2 the site periodwas used for the site classification and the integration rangesfor the amplification factors were modified In the third stepDRS-3 to enhance the accuracy of the DRS both themagnitude and ranges of the response amplification weredefined by the site period Results of the three steps aresummarized as follows
0 02 04 06 08 1 1205
1
15
2
25
Site period TG (s)
Am
plifi
catio
n fa
ctor
Fa
Mean + σProposed Fa
(a)
Am
plifi
catio
n fa
ctor
Fv
Mean + σProposed Fv
0 02 04 06 08 1 1205
1
15
2
25
3
Site period TG (s)
(b)
Figure 13 Site amplification factors according to site period (DRS-2) (a) Fa (b) Fv
Table 5 Short-period amplification factor according to site period(DRS-2)
TG (s) 00 03 10leTG
Fa 22 22 11
Table 6 Midperiod amplification factor according to site period(DRS-2)
TG (s) 00 04 07leTG
Fv 10 14 24
14 Advances in Civil Engineering
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-2 005 lt TG lt 01s Fa = 220 Fv = 110
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18Sp
ectr
al ac
cele
ratio
n (g
)
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Period T (s)
(a)
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-2 01 lt TG lt 02s Fa = 220 Fv = 115
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(b)
DRS-2 02 lt TG lt 03s Fa = 220 Fv = 125
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(c)
DRS-2 03 lt TG lt 04s Fa = 212 Fv = 135
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TGSp
ectr
al ac
cele
ratio
n (g
)
Period T (s)
(d)
DRS-2 04 lt TG lt 05s Fa = 196 Fv = 157
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(e)
DRS-2 05 lt TG lt 06s Fa = 161 Fv = 207
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2012 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(f )
Figure 14 Continued
Advances in Civil Engineering 15
(1) e DRS of the IBC was developed with theanalysis of seismic ground motions measured atsites located on the West Coast of the United Statesthat have deep soil deposits However in thisstudy DRS-1 underestimated the short-periodspectral accelerations resulting from numericalstudies with a large deviation is indicates thatthe site classification based on VS30 and theconstant-acceleration range did not rationallydescribe the responses of structures affected byshallow soil depth
(2) In DRS-2 the constant-acceleration range of theshort period sites did not accurately predict the rangeof the maximum responses resulting from the nu-merical analysis results us DRS-2 showed unsafevalues for sites with periods of 01ndash05 s
(3) DRS-3 generally agreed with the numerical resultsand described the characteristics of the responsespectrum affected by shallow soil deposits well Forshort site periods the constant-acceleration rangewas narrow and the magnitude was greater than thatof IBC 2015 As the site period increased the range of
DRS-2 06 lt TG lt 07s Fa = 165 Fv = 223
SCSD
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2012 (SB)
SE
(g)
DRS-2 07 lt TG lt 12s Fa = 126 Fv = 240
SCSD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2012 (SB)
(h)
Figure 14 Comparison between numerical analysis results and DRS-2
Table 7 Properties of the proposed DRS-3
TG Fa Fv
Constant-acceleration rangeis study IBC 2015
T2 T1 T0 TS
TGlt 04 s 22 14 01 04 0056 02804 sleTGlt 07 s 17 16 02 06 008 03807 sleTG 14 24 03 09 014 069
TT2 T1
Sa
SDS
Sa = SD1T ndash (T1 ndash TS)
10
SD1
TST0
Figure 15 New form of design response spectrum (DRS-3)
16 Advances in Civil Engineering
the constant acceleration increased being shifted togreater periods and the peak acceleration decreased
Data Availability
e Excel file data used to support the findings of this studyare available from the corresponding author upon request
Conflicts of Interest
e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest
Acknowledgments
is research was supported by the Korea Agency for In-frastructure Technology Advancement (KAIA) funded bythe Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Transport (No18AUDP-B106327-04) and the Basic Science ResearchProgram through the National Research Foundation of
Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education(NRF-2018R1A6A1A07025819)
References
[1] Architectural Institute of Korea (AIK) Korean Building CodeArchitectural Institute of Korea (AIK) Seoul Republic ofKorea 2016
[2] International Code Council (ICC) International BuildingCode International Code Council (ICC) 2015
[3] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) ldquoNEHRPrecommended provisions for seismic regulations for newbuildings and other structuresrdquo Report No FEMA-302Building Seismic Safety CouncilWashington DC USA 1997
[4] GB50011-2001 Code for Seismic Design of Buildings ChinaBuilding Industry Press Beijing China 2001
[5] A Tena-Colunga U Mena-Hernandez L Perez-RochaJ Aviles M Ordaz and J Vilar ldquoUpdated seismic designguidelines for model building code of Mexicordquo EarthquakeSpectra vol 25 no 4 pp 869ndash898 2009
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 TG lt 04s Fa = 220 Fv = 140
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
(a)
05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 04 lt TG lt 07s Fa = 170 Fv = 160
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0
(b)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 07s lt TG Fa = 140 Fv = 240
TG
(c)
Figure 16 Comparison between numerical analysis results and DRS-3 (a) short-period sites (b) Midperiod sites (c) Long-period sites
Advances in Civil Engineering 17
[6] European Committee for Standardization Eurocode 8 Designof Structures for Earthquake Resistance British StandardLondon UK 2003
[7] Mid-America Earthquake Center (MAE Center) ldquoUniformhazard ground motion and response spectra for mid-Americacitiesrdquo MAE Center Report 03-07 Mid-America EarthquakeCenter (MAE Center) Urbana IL USA 2003
[8] H H M Hwang H Lin and J-R Huo ldquoSite coefficients fordesign of buildings in eastern United Statesrdquo Soil Dynamicsand Earthquake Engineering vol 16 no 1 pp 29ndash40 1997
[9] D-S Kim and J-K Yoon ldquoDevelopment of new site classi-fication system for the regions of shallow bedrock in KoreardquoJournal of Earthquake Engineering vol 10 no 3 pp 331ndash3582006
[10] C-G Sun H-S Kim C-K Chung and H-C Chi ldquoSpatialzonations for regional assessment of seismic site effects in theSeoul metropolitan areardquo Soil Dynamics and EarthquakeEngineering vol 56 pp 44ndash56 2014
[11] S-H Lee C-G Sun J-K Yoon and D-S Kim ldquoDevelop-ment and verification of a new site classification system andsite coefficients for regions of shallow bedrock in KoreardquoJournal of Earthquake Engineering vol 16 no 6 pp 795ndash8192012
[12] D S Kim and Y W Choo ldquoDynamic deformation charac-teristics of cohesionless soils in Korea using resonant columntestsrdquo Journal of the Korean Geotechnical Society vol 17 no 5pp 115ndash138 2001
[13] I M Idriss and J I Sun A Computer Program for ConductingEquivalent Linear Seismic Response Analysis of HorizontallyLayered Soil Deposits Civil Engineering Department Centerfor Geotechnical Modelling UC Davis Davis CA USA1992
[14] httpngawest2berkeleyedu[15] S A Nikolaou A GIS Platform for Earthquake Risk Analysis
PhD dissertation State University of New York Buffalo NYUSA 1998
[16] F Naeim A Alimoradi and S Pezeshk ldquoSelection and scalingof ground motion time histories for structural design usinggenetic algorithmsrdquo Earthquake Spectra vol 20 no 2pp 413ndash426 2004
[17] D A Gasparini and E H Vanmarche Simulated EarthquakeMotions Compatible with Prescribed Response Spectra ReportNo R76-4 MIT Department of Civil Engineering Cam-bridge MA USA 1976
[18] American Society of Civil Engineers Standard (ASCE) SeismicAnalysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures and Commen-tary ASCE 4-98 Reston VA USA 2000
[19] Ministry of Construction and Transportation (MCT) SeismicDesign Standard Research Ministry of Construction andTransportation (MCT) Seoul Korea 1997
18 Advances in Civil Engineering
International Journal of
AerospaceEngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
RoboticsJournal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Active and Passive Electronic Components
VLSI Design
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Shock and Vibration
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Civil EngineeringAdvances in
Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Journal of
Advances inOptoElectronics
Hindawiwwwhindawicom
Volume 2018
Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013Hindawiwwwhindawicom
The Scientific World Journal
Volume 2018
Control Scienceand Engineering
Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom
Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2018
SensorsJournal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
International Journal of
RotatingMachinery
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Modelling ampSimulationin EngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and
Propagation
International Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Navigation and Observation
International Journal of
Hindawi
wwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in
Multimedia
Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom
039 s in Figures 10(a) and 10(b) respectively) were close tothe results of the SC sites (TG 022 and 032 s in Figures 9(b)and 9(c) respectively) is result again confirms that the
primary parameter for response amplification is the siteperiod (TG) rather than the material properties of the soilFigures 10(c) and 10(d) shows the response spectra for the site
0 250 500 750 1000
ndash60
ndash45
ndash30
ndash15
0
Shear-wave velocity Vs (ms)
Dep
th (m
)
Site class SCNumber of sites 71
(a)
0 250 500 750 1000
ndash60
ndash45
ndash30
ndash15
0
Shear-wave velocity Vs (ms)
Dep
th (m
)
Site class SDNumber of sites 23
(b)
0 250 500 750 1000
ndash60
ndash45
ndash30
ndash15
0
Shear-wave velocity Vs (ms)
Dep
th (m
)
Site class SENumber of sites 23
(c)
Figure 2 109 shear-wave velocity profiles 378 soil strata from Lee et al [11] Site class (a) SC (b) SD and (c) SE
Table 1 Summary of the soil properties of 487 sites
Site class VS30 SB SC SD SE
Number of sites9 302 161 15
Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max MeanDepth to bedrock (m) 603 101 706 53 916 287 122 841 461 280 540 406VS30 (ms) 765 835 793 360 754 480 238 359 339 114 179 160Site period (s) 005 008 006 006 066 024 024 096 048 053 114 083
4 Advances in Civil Engineering
periodsTG 079 and 097 s respectively In the range of long-period structures (Tgt 10 s) the spectral accelerations wereclose to or less than the SD DRS However for the short-
period structures (Tlt 10 s) the spectral accelerations wereclose to or less than the SB DRS indicating that responseamplification did not occur
0
05
1
15
0 20 40 60 80 100
Site
per
iod
(sec
)
Soil depth (m)
SBSC
SDSE
Figure 3 Site periods of 487 sites
00
02
04
06
08
10
12
GG m
ax
00001 0001 001 01 1Shear strain ()
Fill soilAlluvial soil
Weathered soilWeathered rock
(a)
0
5
10
15
20
00001 0001 001 01 1
Dam
ping
ratio
Shear strain ()
Fill soilAlluvial soil
Weathered soilWeathered rock
(b)
Figure 4 Nonlinear properties of the soil and rock (a) Shear modulus (b) Damping ratio
Table 2 Properties of 12 recorded accelerations
Event Year Nation Station Magnitude Mechanism Rrup (km)lowast
Irpinia-01 1980 Italy Auletta 69 Normal 96Denali 2002 USA Carlo 79 Strike-slip 509San Fernando 1971 USA Cedar Springs 66 Reverse 897Tabas 1978 Iran Tabas 74 Reverse 20Loma Prieta 1989 USA So San Francisco 69 Reverse 631Chi-Chi 1999 Taiwan HWA003 62 Reverse 504Northridge-01 1994 USA Vasquez Rocks Park 67 Reverse 236Northridge-01 1994 USA Antelope Buttes 67 Reverse 469Duzce 1999 Turkey Lamont 1060 71 Strike-slip 259Irpinia-02 1980 Italy Bagnoli Irpino 62 Normal 196Kocaeli 1999 Turkey Izmit 75 Strike-slip 72Big Bear-01 1992 USA Rancho Cucamonga 65 Strike-slip 594lowastRrup closest distance to rupture plane
Advances in Civil Engineering 5
0 10 20 30 40
larr 0065g Irpinia-01
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
Time (s)
ndash008
ndash004
0
004
008
Time (s)
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20 30 40
larr 0161g Northridge-01ndash02
ndash01
0
01
02A
ccel
erat
ion
(g)
0 10 20 30 40larr 0100g Denali
Time (s)
ndash012
ndash006
0
006
012
Time (s)
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20 30larr 0053g Northridge-01
ndash006
ndash003
0
003
006
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10
larr 0019gSan Fernando
Time (s)
ndash004
ndash002
0
002
004
Time (s)
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20 30 40
larr 0245g
Duzcendash04
ndash02
0
02
04
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20 30 40
larr 0814g
Tabas
Time (s)
ndash1
ndash05
0
05
1
Time (s)
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20 30 40larr 0052g Irpinia-02
ndash006
ndash003
0
003
006
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20 30 40
larr 0107g
Loma Prieta
Time (s)
ndash014
ndash007
0
007
014
Time (s)
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20 30
larr 0221g
Kocaelindash04
ndash02
0
02
04
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20Time (s)
30
larr 0030g
Chi-Chindash004
ndash002
0
002
004
Time (s)
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20 30ndash008
ndash004
0
004
008larr 0056g
Big Bear-01
(a)
Figure 5 Continued
6 Advances in Civil Engineering
0 1 2 3
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)
0
005
01
015
02
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)0 1 2 3
0
025
05
075
1
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 1 2 3Period Tn (s)
0
01
02
03
04
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)0 1 2 3
0
005
01
015
02
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 1 2 3Period Tn (s)
0
002
004
006
008
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)0 1 2 3
0
03
06
09
12
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 1 2 3Period Tn (s)
0
1
2
3
4
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)0 1 2 3
0
003
006
009
012
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 1 2 3Period Tn (s)
0
01
02
03
04
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)0 1 2 3
0
03
06
09
12
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 1Period Tn (s)
2 30
003
006
009
012
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)0 1 2 3
0
01
02
03
04
(b)
Figure 5 12 actual and unscaled earthquake accelerations (a) Acceleration time history (b) Response spectrum
Advances in Civil Engineering 7
Figure 11 shows the response spectra for four SE sitesFor the long-period structures the spectral accelerationswere close to the SE DRS For the short-period structures thespectral accelerations were greater than the SB DRS but weresignificantly less than the SE DRS
321 Step-1 Site Classification and Site Coefficients Based onVS30 (DRS-1) In IBC 2015 the DRS acceleration is definedas two-thirds of the maximum considered earthquake (MCE)
spectral acceleration with a return period of 2400 years espectral accelerations are defined as follows [2]
Sa 06SDS
T0T + 04SDS 0leTleT0 (3)
Sa SDS T0 leTleTs (4)
Sa SD1T
Ts leT (5)
0 05 1 15 20
04
08
12
Period T (s)Sp
ectr
al ac
cele
ratio
n (g
)
Figure 6 Average response spectra of input accelerations
0 05 1 15 20
04
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
08
12
Period T (s)
Site class SBNumber of sites 9
IBC 2015 (SB)
(a)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
08
16
24Site class SC
Number of sites 302
IBC 2015 (SC)IBC 2015 (SB)
(b)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SD)
IBC 2015 (SB)0
08
16
24Site class SD
Number of sites 161
(c)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SE)
IBC 2015 (SB)0
08
16
24Site class SE
Number of sites 15
(d)
Figure 7 Response spectrum resulting from numerical analysis for 487 sites (reference effective peak ground acceleration (EPGA) 022 g)for (a) SB (b) SC (c) SD (d) SE
8 Advances in Civil Engineering
0 05 1 15 20
04
08
12
Period T (s)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
larr Site period TG = 0048s
Depth to bedrock = 61mVS30 = 8010ms
(a)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
04
08
12
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
Depth to bedrock = 65mVS30 = 8356ms
larr Site period TG = 0048s
(b)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
04
08
12
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
Depth to bedrock = 80mVS30 = 7652ms
larr Site period TG = 0063s
(c)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
04
08
12
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
Depth to bedrock = 101mVS30 = 7694ms
larr Site period TG = 0075s
(d)
Figure 8 Response spectrum resulting from numerical analysis of four SB sites with depth to bedrock (a) 61m (b) 65m (c) 80m (d) 101m
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
06
12
18
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SC)IBC 2015 (SB)
larr Site period TG = 013s
Depth to bedrock = 112mVS30 = 4536ms
(a)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
06
12
18
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)IBC 2015 (SC)
larr Site period TG = 022s
Depth to bedrock = 260mVS30 = 4542ms
(b)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
06
12
18
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)IBC 2015 (SC)
larr Site period TG = 032s
Depth to bedrock = 435mVS30 = 4562ms
(c)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
06
12
18
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)IBC 2015 (SC)
larr Site period TG = 044s
Depth to bedrock = 609mVS30 = 4700ms
(d)
Figure 9 Response spectrum resulting fromnumerical analysis of four SC sites with depth to bedrock (a) 112m (b) 260m (c) 435m (d) 609m
Advances in Civil Engineering 9
where SDS and SD1 are the design spectral accelerationsfor short periods and 1 s period respectively SDS Stimes
25 times Fa times (23) and SD1 S times Fv times (23) S is the referenceeffective ground acceleration for the rock site Ts SD1SDSand T0 02 (SD1SDS) Equations (4) and (5) indicate thedesign spectral accelerations for the constant-accelerationrange and the constant-velocity range respectively
To address the numerical analysis results in the DRS andsoil factors the short-period (constant acceleration-related)amplification factor Fa and themidperiod (constant velocity-related) amplification factor Fv were evaluated e ampli-fication factors were calculated as the ratio (RRS) of theresponse spectral value for the soil to the spectral value forthe outcropping rock According to FEMA 1997 Fa and Fvare defined as follows
Fa(RRS) Rsoil
Rrock
104
111394605
01
RSsoil(T)
RSrock(T)dT (6)
Fv(RRS) Rsoil
Rrock
116
111394620
04
RSsoil(T)
RSrock(T)dT (7)
where RSsoil(T) and RSrock(T) are the spectral accelerationscorresponding to the soil and rock respectively at a givenstructure period T and Rsoil and Rrock are the hypocentral
distances from the soil and rock stationse ratio RsoilRrockwas assumed to be 10 in this study
e calculated Fa and Fv are presented in Tables 3 and 4according to the level of the EPGA In the tables ldquoIBC 2015rdquorefers to the amplification factors specified in IBC 2015 andldquoAnalysis resultrdquo refers to the amplification factors (fromequations (6) and (7)) based on the results of numericalanalyses e constant acceleration-related amplificationfactor Fa in IBC 2015 continues to increase as the site classchanges from SB to SE However in the proposed DRS-1 theFa value of SC is greater than those of the SD and SE sites Forthe SE site because the increased damping ratio due to thenonlinearity of soil reduced the site responses of higherorders the mean value of Fa is less than 10
In the case of the proposed Fv values the responseamplification increases as the site class changes from SB toSE However the amplification is less than that of IBC 2015As the EPGA increases the proposed Fv values decreases toclose to those of IBC 2015 which is attributed to the de-creased stiffness and increased damping of the nonlinear soilbehavior
Figure 12 compares the response spectra from (1) nu-merical analysis (2) the proposed amplification factor (DRS-1) and (3) IBC 2015 e EPGA was 022 g For the am-plification factors of DRS-1 the mean (+) standard deviation
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
larr Site period TG = 026s
Depth to bedrock = 205mVS30 = 3454ms
(a)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
larr Site period TG = 038s
Depth to bedrock = 320mVS30 = 3427ms
(b)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
larr Site period TG = 058s
Depth to bedrock = 508mVS30 = 3428ms
(c)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
larr Site period TG = 095s
Depth to bedrock = 800mVS30 = 3308ms
(d)
Figure 10 Response spectrum resulting from numerical analysis of four SD sites with depth to bedrock (a) 205m (b) 320m (c) 508m (d)800m
10 Advances in Civil Engineering
in Tables 3 and 4 was used Figure 12 shows the responsespectra obtained from the numerical analysis results for the487 sites in Korea A response spectrum curve in the figureindicates the average of the response spectra for 18 input
accelerations for a site conditione numerical results wereclassified as SB to SE by the site class criterion VS30 enumber of sites that belonged to SB SC SD and SE were 9302 161 and 15 respectively
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
larr Site period TG = 054s
Depth to bedrock = 305mVS30 = 1723ms
(a)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
larr Site period TG = 069s
Depth to bedrock = 370mVS30 = 1790ms
(b)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
larr Site period TG = 091s
Depth to bedrock = 403mVS30 = 1747ms
(c)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
Site period TG = 114s rarr
Depth to bedrock = 507mVS30 = 1710ms
(d)
Figure 11 Response spectrum resulting from numerical analysis of four SE sites with depth to bedrock (a) 305m (b) 370m (c) 403m (d)507m
Table 3 Short-period amplification factor (DRS-1)
500-year return period (011 g) 1000-year return period (0154 g) 2400-year return period (022 g)
IBC 2015Analysis result
IBC 2015Analysis result
IBC 2015Analysis result
Mean σlowast Mean σ Mean σSB 100 106 0019 100 106 0019 100 106 0024SC 120 158 0296 120 155 0307 118 151 0320SD 158 150 0328 149 142 0337 136 127 0359SE 244 106 0336 218 098 0338 178 082 0316lowastStandard deviation
Table 4 Midperiod amplification factor (DRS-1)
500-year return period (011 g) 1000-year return period (0154 g) 2400-year return period (022 g)
IBC 2015Analysis result
IBC 2015Analysis result
IBC 2015Analysis result
Mean σlowast Mean σ Mean σSB 100 100 0001 100 101 0001 100 100 0021SC 169 115 0123 165 117 0130 158 121 0148SD 236 149 0141 218 151 0141 196 156 0126SE 347 201 0265 334 197 0300 312 185 0384
Advances in Civil Engineering 11
In Figure 12(a) for the SB sites the site coefficients Faand Fv estimated from numerical analysis were close to 10(Tables 3 and 4) e proposed response spectrum of DRS-1is similar to the DRS in IBC 2015 except for the very short-period range For the SB sites in Korea (based on VS30)because the depth of the soil deposits was very shallowranging from 60 to 100m the dynamic period of the soil isvery short For this reason in the numerical results thestructure responses in the range of very short periods wereamplified significantly due to resonance between the soil andthe structure However because Fa is defined in a relativelylarge range of short periods (01ndash05 s (equation (6))) thehigh response amplification for very short periods less than02 s was not properly captured by the definition of Fa
In the case of the SC sites (Figure 12(b)) the proposed Favalue (mean + σ) is greater than that of the SC class in IBC2015 whereas the Fv value (mean + σ) is smaller As the siteperiods of the SC class range from 006 to 066 s the max-imum response amplification occurred in this range istrend agrees with the results from previous studies ([9 11])for the shallow soil conditions in Korea When the proposed
site coefficients were used in the range of 02ndash07 s theresponse spectral values of DRS-1 underestimated themaximum values obtained from the numerical analysis InFigure 12(c) the trend of the DRS-1 for the SD sites wassimilar to that for the SC sitese response spectral values ofDRS-1 underestimated the maximum numerical results inthe range of 03ndash08 s For the SE sites having VS30 values lessthan 180ms (Figure 12(d)) the proposed Fa value(mean + σ) was 113 In the short-period range the DRS-1was significantly less than the SE DRS values in IBC 2015 andwas close to the SB DRS values e proposed Fv value(mean + σ) was close to that of the SD DRS values in IBC2015 ese results indicate that response amplificationoccurred only for the long-period structures and that theamplification was not significant
In terms of the trends of the response amplificationdesign response spectra using the proposed site coefficients(DRS-1) differ from the analysis results Particularly for theSC and SD site classes the DRS-1 does not accurately capturethe maximum spectral accelerations and the amplificationranges affected by the site periods ese results indicate that
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 Site class SB Fa = 108 Fv = 102
TG
(a)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 Site class SC Fa = 184 Fv = 135
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)IBC 2015 (SC)
TG
(b)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
DRS-1 Site class SD Fa = 163 Fv = 168
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
TG
(c)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
DRS-1 Site class SE Fa = 113 Fv = 224
TG
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
(d)
Figure 12 Comparison between numerical analysis results and DRS-1 (a) SB (b) SC (c) SD (d) SE sites
12 Advances in Civil Engineering
when the definitions for Fa and Fv coefficients of IBC areused the DRS-1 can lead to unsafe seismic designs ofstructures
As shown in Figures 8ndash11 although the site classes(VS30) are identical the site periods can differ significantlydepending on the stiffness and depth of the soil deposits Forexample for the SC site class (VS30) the site periods varyfrom 0058 to 066 s in Table 1 us it is unreasonable todefine the dynamic properties of the soils with the VS30values alone
322 Step-2 Site Classification and Site Coefficients Based onSite Period (DRS-2) As mentioned in the previous sectionsite classification based on the VS30 does not accuratelydescribe the characteristics of the site responses Furtherwhen the depth to bedrock is less than 30m the properties ofthe bedrock are included in the definition of VS30 Howeverwhen the depth to bedrock is greater than 30m the entiresoil strata are not included in the site classification
us in DRS-2 the site period was used as the site classcriterion and the short-period and midperiod site ampli-fication factors were defined according to the site period asproposed in Figure 13 e amplification factors are sum-marized in Tables 5 and 6 e proposed amplificationfactors according to the site periods were calculated asfollows
Fa 1
Ta minusTb1113946
Ta
Tb
RSsoil(T)
RSrock(T)dT (8a)
Ta min 13TG 065( 1113857 (8b)
Tb min 03TG 02( 1113857 (8c)
Fv 105
111394615
10
RSsoil(T)
RSrock(T)dT (9)
In equations (8a)ndash(8c) for Fa the ranges Ta and Tb ofthe integration are defined by the site period TG and themaximum period is limited to 065 s For Fv the range of theintegration in equation (9) is reduced to safely define theamplification factors in the constant-velocity range
In Figure 13(a) when the site periods are shorter than03 s the short-period amplification factors are greater thanthe amplification of 184 for the SC site in Figure 12(b)calculated from equation (6) When the site period is outsidethe integration range the amplification by the first mode ofthe soil deposits does not occur in the integration rangeus as the site periods increase beyond the integrationrange the short-period amplification factors decreasegradually
For the midperiod amplification factors as the site pe-riods increase the amplification by the first mode of the soildeposits is included in the integration range us themidperiod amplification factors increase gradually
When the sites are classified by the site period Figure 14shows the design response spectra (DRS-2) resulting fromthe site amplification factors depending on the site period
eDRS-2 was compared with the numerical analysis resultsand the response spectra of the IBC 2015 e EPGA was022 g
In Figures 14(a)ndash14(d) when the site periods were in therange of 005ndash04 s the short-period spectral accelerations ofthe DRS-2 calculated from equation (8a)ndash(8c) were close tothe maximum spectral accelerations corresponding to thefirst-mode period of the soil deposits
When the site periods range from 04 to 06 s(Figures 14(e) and 14(f )) the site period was increased bythe nonlinear properties of the soil deposits and the am-plification range was between the constant-accelerationrange and the constant-velocity range However themidperiod amplification factor Fv was defined at theperiod of 10 s us in Figures 14(e) and 14(f ) themidperiod site amplification factor of DRS-2 un-derestimates the response amplification by the in-termediate site period
Figures 14(g) and 14(h) show the DRS-2 of the sites withperiods greater than 06 s e responses of the long-periodstructures affected by the first mode site periods and theresponses of the short period structures affected by thehigher modes of the soil deposits are described well by themidperiod and the short-period site amplification factors
As shown in Figures 14(b)ndash14(e) the response ampli-fication occurred in the range of the site period Howeveralthough the site amplification factors were defined with thesite period DRS-2 did not describe the response amplifi-cation is is because the constant-acceleration range didnot capture the range of the site amplification is resultindicates that when the site period is used for the site classcriterion the form of the design response spectrum as well asthe site amplification factors should be defined by the siteperiod
323 Step-3 Proposed Design Response Spectrum-3 (DRS-3)e numerical analysis results showed that response am-plification occurred due to resonance between the soil andstructure and that the site periods varied with soil depth Toaddress these results a new form of design response spec-trum with three site classes is proposed
First the sites are classified into three site classes (1)short-period sites (TGlt 04 s) (2) midperiod sites(04ltTGlt 07 s) and (3) long-period sites (07 sltTG) Onthe basis of the amplification factors in Figure 13 ampli-fication factors corresponding to the three site classes areproposed in Table 7 In the case of IBC 2015 the constant-acceleration range is determined by Ts (Fv25Fa) andT0 02Ts
Figure 15 shows the proposed design response spectrum(DRS-3) that is defined by the site period TG To include thefirst-mode periods of short-period sites or second-modeperiods of midperiod and long-period sites the constant-acceleration ranges are extended to T1 T2 is a corner periodto include the response amplifications by the higher modesof soil deposits To define the constant-velocity range thespectral accelerations are moved horizontally by(T1 minusTs) Sa SD1(Tminus (T1 minusTs)) in Figure 15
Advances in Civil Engineering 13
In Figure 16 the proposed DRS-3 is compared with thenumerical analysis results and the DRS of IBC 2015 DRS-3agrees with the maximum accelerations and the constant-acceleration range calculated by the numerical analysesUnlike DRS-1 and DRS-2 DRS-3 provides a better de-scription of the range and magnitude of the maximumspectral values in the constant-acceleration range and lessamplified spectral accelerations in the constant-velocityrange
4 Conclusions
Numerical studies were performed to investigate the re-sponse spectra for 487 site conditions in Korea which is amoderate seismic zone with shallow soil depths e mag-nitudes of the earthquake accelerations were scaled to theEPGAs of moderate seismic zones (011 0154 and 022 g)Twelve existing earthquake records and six artificial accel-erations which were adjusted to the target EPGAs wereused for the input ground accelerations e numericalanalysis results were compared with design response spec-trum (DRS) values of IBC 2015 e results of the presentstudy can be summarized as follows
(1) Even within the same site class (VS30 in IBC 2015)the (elastic) periods of the sites varied significantlywith soil depth
(2) e spectral accelerations of structures were sig-nificantly amplified when the site period was close tothe structure period is result indicates that toaccurately predict the effects of soil the response-amplification factor (ie the soil factor) needs to bedefined by the site period rather than by the soilshear modulus (or soil shear velocity)
(3) e responses of structures were amplified by thehigher modes as well as by the first mode of the soildeposite higher modes amplified the responses ofshort-period structures
(4) When the site periods were less than 04 s thespectral accelerations were greater than the DRSvalues corresponding to the site class VS30 in IBC2015 When the site periods ranged from 04 to 06 sthe spectral accelerations were close to the DRSvalues of IBC 2015 When the site periods weregreater than 07 s the spectral accelerations were lessthan the DRS values of IBC 2015
(5) In particular in the case of SE soil (VS30lt 180ms)the spectral accelerations were significantly less thanthe SE DRS values and were close to the unamplifiedDRS values of SB
In this study three steps for the design response spec-trum (DRS) were performed to address the effect of shallowsoil deposits (in Korea) on structure responses In the firststep DRS-1 following the definitions of the site classifica-tion and the site coefficient of IBC 2015 themagnitude of thesite coefficient was estimated based on the numericalanalysis results In the second step DRS-2 the site periodwas used for the site classification and the integration rangesfor the amplification factors were modified In the third stepDRS-3 to enhance the accuracy of the DRS both themagnitude and ranges of the response amplification weredefined by the site period Results of the three steps aresummarized as follows
0 02 04 06 08 1 1205
1
15
2
25
Site period TG (s)
Am
plifi
catio
n fa
ctor
Fa
Mean + σProposed Fa
(a)
Am
plifi
catio
n fa
ctor
Fv
Mean + σProposed Fv
0 02 04 06 08 1 1205
1
15
2
25
3
Site period TG (s)
(b)
Figure 13 Site amplification factors according to site period (DRS-2) (a) Fa (b) Fv
Table 5 Short-period amplification factor according to site period(DRS-2)
TG (s) 00 03 10leTG
Fa 22 22 11
Table 6 Midperiod amplification factor according to site period(DRS-2)
TG (s) 00 04 07leTG
Fv 10 14 24
14 Advances in Civil Engineering
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-2 005 lt TG lt 01s Fa = 220 Fv = 110
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18Sp
ectr
al ac
cele
ratio
n (g
)
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Period T (s)
(a)
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-2 01 lt TG lt 02s Fa = 220 Fv = 115
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(b)
DRS-2 02 lt TG lt 03s Fa = 220 Fv = 125
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(c)
DRS-2 03 lt TG lt 04s Fa = 212 Fv = 135
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TGSp
ectr
al ac
cele
ratio
n (g
)
Period T (s)
(d)
DRS-2 04 lt TG lt 05s Fa = 196 Fv = 157
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(e)
DRS-2 05 lt TG lt 06s Fa = 161 Fv = 207
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2012 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(f )
Figure 14 Continued
Advances in Civil Engineering 15
(1) e DRS of the IBC was developed with theanalysis of seismic ground motions measured atsites located on the West Coast of the United Statesthat have deep soil deposits However in thisstudy DRS-1 underestimated the short-periodspectral accelerations resulting from numericalstudies with a large deviation is indicates thatthe site classification based on VS30 and theconstant-acceleration range did not rationallydescribe the responses of structures affected byshallow soil depth
(2) In DRS-2 the constant-acceleration range of theshort period sites did not accurately predict the rangeof the maximum responses resulting from the nu-merical analysis results us DRS-2 showed unsafevalues for sites with periods of 01ndash05 s
(3) DRS-3 generally agreed with the numerical resultsand described the characteristics of the responsespectrum affected by shallow soil deposits well Forshort site periods the constant-acceleration rangewas narrow and the magnitude was greater than thatof IBC 2015 As the site period increased the range of
DRS-2 06 lt TG lt 07s Fa = 165 Fv = 223
SCSD
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2012 (SB)
SE
(g)
DRS-2 07 lt TG lt 12s Fa = 126 Fv = 240
SCSD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2012 (SB)
(h)
Figure 14 Comparison between numerical analysis results and DRS-2
Table 7 Properties of the proposed DRS-3
TG Fa Fv
Constant-acceleration rangeis study IBC 2015
T2 T1 T0 TS
TGlt 04 s 22 14 01 04 0056 02804 sleTGlt 07 s 17 16 02 06 008 03807 sleTG 14 24 03 09 014 069
TT2 T1
Sa
SDS
Sa = SD1T ndash (T1 ndash TS)
10
SD1
TST0
Figure 15 New form of design response spectrum (DRS-3)
16 Advances in Civil Engineering
the constant acceleration increased being shifted togreater periods and the peak acceleration decreased
Data Availability
e Excel file data used to support the findings of this studyare available from the corresponding author upon request
Conflicts of Interest
e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest
Acknowledgments
is research was supported by the Korea Agency for In-frastructure Technology Advancement (KAIA) funded bythe Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Transport (No18AUDP-B106327-04) and the Basic Science ResearchProgram through the National Research Foundation of
Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education(NRF-2018R1A6A1A07025819)
References
[1] Architectural Institute of Korea (AIK) Korean Building CodeArchitectural Institute of Korea (AIK) Seoul Republic ofKorea 2016
[2] International Code Council (ICC) International BuildingCode International Code Council (ICC) 2015
[3] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) ldquoNEHRPrecommended provisions for seismic regulations for newbuildings and other structuresrdquo Report No FEMA-302Building Seismic Safety CouncilWashington DC USA 1997
[4] GB50011-2001 Code for Seismic Design of Buildings ChinaBuilding Industry Press Beijing China 2001
[5] A Tena-Colunga U Mena-Hernandez L Perez-RochaJ Aviles M Ordaz and J Vilar ldquoUpdated seismic designguidelines for model building code of Mexicordquo EarthquakeSpectra vol 25 no 4 pp 869ndash898 2009
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 TG lt 04s Fa = 220 Fv = 140
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
(a)
05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 04 lt TG lt 07s Fa = 170 Fv = 160
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0
(b)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 07s lt TG Fa = 140 Fv = 240
TG
(c)
Figure 16 Comparison between numerical analysis results and DRS-3 (a) short-period sites (b) Midperiod sites (c) Long-period sites
Advances in Civil Engineering 17
[6] European Committee for Standardization Eurocode 8 Designof Structures for Earthquake Resistance British StandardLondon UK 2003
[7] Mid-America Earthquake Center (MAE Center) ldquoUniformhazard ground motion and response spectra for mid-Americacitiesrdquo MAE Center Report 03-07 Mid-America EarthquakeCenter (MAE Center) Urbana IL USA 2003
[8] H H M Hwang H Lin and J-R Huo ldquoSite coefficients fordesign of buildings in eastern United Statesrdquo Soil Dynamicsand Earthquake Engineering vol 16 no 1 pp 29ndash40 1997
[9] D-S Kim and J-K Yoon ldquoDevelopment of new site classi-fication system for the regions of shallow bedrock in KoreardquoJournal of Earthquake Engineering vol 10 no 3 pp 331ndash3582006
[10] C-G Sun H-S Kim C-K Chung and H-C Chi ldquoSpatialzonations for regional assessment of seismic site effects in theSeoul metropolitan areardquo Soil Dynamics and EarthquakeEngineering vol 56 pp 44ndash56 2014
[11] S-H Lee C-G Sun J-K Yoon and D-S Kim ldquoDevelop-ment and verification of a new site classification system andsite coefficients for regions of shallow bedrock in KoreardquoJournal of Earthquake Engineering vol 16 no 6 pp 795ndash8192012
[12] D S Kim and Y W Choo ldquoDynamic deformation charac-teristics of cohesionless soils in Korea using resonant columntestsrdquo Journal of the Korean Geotechnical Society vol 17 no 5pp 115ndash138 2001
[13] I M Idriss and J I Sun A Computer Program for ConductingEquivalent Linear Seismic Response Analysis of HorizontallyLayered Soil Deposits Civil Engineering Department Centerfor Geotechnical Modelling UC Davis Davis CA USA1992
[14] httpngawest2berkeleyedu[15] S A Nikolaou A GIS Platform for Earthquake Risk Analysis
PhD dissertation State University of New York Buffalo NYUSA 1998
[16] F Naeim A Alimoradi and S Pezeshk ldquoSelection and scalingof ground motion time histories for structural design usinggenetic algorithmsrdquo Earthquake Spectra vol 20 no 2pp 413ndash426 2004
[17] D A Gasparini and E H Vanmarche Simulated EarthquakeMotions Compatible with Prescribed Response Spectra ReportNo R76-4 MIT Department of Civil Engineering Cam-bridge MA USA 1976
[18] American Society of Civil Engineers Standard (ASCE) SeismicAnalysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures and Commen-tary ASCE 4-98 Reston VA USA 2000
[19] Ministry of Construction and Transportation (MCT) SeismicDesign Standard Research Ministry of Construction andTransportation (MCT) Seoul Korea 1997
18 Advances in Civil Engineering
International Journal of
AerospaceEngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
RoboticsJournal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Active and Passive Electronic Components
VLSI Design
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Shock and Vibration
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Civil EngineeringAdvances in
Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Journal of
Advances inOptoElectronics
Hindawiwwwhindawicom
Volume 2018
Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013Hindawiwwwhindawicom
The Scientific World Journal
Volume 2018
Control Scienceand Engineering
Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom
Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2018
SensorsJournal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
International Journal of
RotatingMachinery
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Modelling ampSimulationin EngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and
Propagation
International Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Navigation and Observation
International Journal of
Hindawi
wwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in
Multimedia
Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom
periodsTG 079 and 097 s respectively In the range of long-period structures (Tgt 10 s) the spectral accelerations wereclose to or less than the SD DRS However for the short-
period structures (Tlt 10 s) the spectral accelerations wereclose to or less than the SB DRS indicating that responseamplification did not occur
0
05
1
15
0 20 40 60 80 100
Site
per
iod
(sec
)
Soil depth (m)
SBSC
SDSE
Figure 3 Site periods of 487 sites
00
02
04
06
08
10
12
GG m
ax
00001 0001 001 01 1Shear strain ()
Fill soilAlluvial soil
Weathered soilWeathered rock
(a)
0
5
10
15
20
00001 0001 001 01 1
Dam
ping
ratio
Shear strain ()
Fill soilAlluvial soil
Weathered soilWeathered rock
(b)
Figure 4 Nonlinear properties of the soil and rock (a) Shear modulus (b) Damping ratio
Table 2 Properties of 12 recorded accelerations
Event Year Nation Station Magnitude Mechanism Rrup (km)lowast
Irpinia-01 1980 Italy Auletta 69 Normal 96Denali 2002 USA Carlo 79 Strike-slip 509San Fernando 1971 USA Cedar Springs 66 Reverse 897Tabas 1978 Iran Tabas 74 Reverse 20Loma Prieta 1989 USA So San Francisco 69 Reverse 631Chi-Chi 1999 Taiwan HWA003 62 Reverse 504Northridge-01 1994 USA Vasquez Rocks Park 67 Reverse 236Northridge-01 1994 USA Antelope Buttes 67 Reverse 469Duzce 1999 Turkey Lamont 1060 71 Strike-slip 259Irpinia-02 1980 Italy Bagnoli Irpino 62 Normal 196Kocaeli 1999 Turkey Izmit 75 Strike-slip 72Big Bear-01 1992 USA Rancho Cucamonga 65 Strike-slip 594lowastRrup closest distance to rupture plane
Advances in Civil Engineering 5
0 10 20 30 40
larr 0065g Irpinia-01
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
Time (s)
ndash008
ndash004
0
004
008
Time (s)
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20 30 40
larr 0161g Northridge-01ndash02
ndash01
0
01
02A
ccel
erat
ion
(g)
0 10 20 30 40larr 0100g Denali
Time (s)
ndash012
ndash006
0
006
012
Time (s)
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20 30larr 0053g Northridge-01
ndash006
ndash003
0
003
006
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10
larr 0019gSan Fernando
Time (s)
ndash004
ndash002
0
002
004
Time (s)
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20 30 40
larr 0245g
Duzcendash04
ndash02
0
02
04
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20 30 40
larr 0814g
Tabas
Time (s)
ndash1
ndash05
0
05
1
Time (s)
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20 30 40larr 0052g Irpinia-02
ndash006
ndash003
0
003
006
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20 30 40
larr 0107g
Loma Prieta
Time (s)
ndash014
ndash007
0
007
014
Time (s)
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20 30
larr 0221g
Kocaelindash04
ndash02
0
02
04
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20Time (s)
30
larr 0030g
Chi-Chindash004
ndash002
0
002
004
Time (s)
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20 30ndash008
ndash004
0
004
008larr 0056g
Big Bear-01
(a)
Figure 5 Continued
6 Advances in Civil Engineering
0 1 2 3
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)
0
005
01
015
02
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)0 1 2 3
0
025
05
075
1
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 1 2 3Period Tn (s)
0
01
02
03
04
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)0 1 2 3
0
005
01
015
02
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 1 2 3Period Tn (s)
0
002
004
006
008
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)0 1 2 3
0
03
06
09
12
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 1 2 3Period Tn (s)
0
1
2
3
4
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)0 1 2 3
0
003
006
009
012
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 1 2 3Period Tn (s)
0
01
02
03
04
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)0 1 2 3
0
03
06
09
12
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 1Period Tn (s)
2 30
003
006
009
012
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)0 1 2 3
0
01
02
03
04
(b)
Figure 5 12 actual and unscaled earthquake accelerations (a) Acceleration time history (b) Response spectrum
Advances in Civil Engineering 7
Figure 11 shows the response spectra for four SE sitesFor the long-period structures the spectral accelerationswere close to the SE DRS For the short-period structures thespectral accelerations were greater than the SB DRS but weresignificantly less than the SE DRS
321 Step-1 Site Classification and Site Coefficients Based onVS30 (DRS-1) In IBC 2015 the DRS acceleration is definedas two-thirds of the maximum considered earthquake (MCE)
spectral acceleration with a return period of 2400 years espectral accelerations are defined as follows [2]
Sa 06SDS
T0T + 04SDS 0leTleT0 (3)
Sa SDS T0 leTleTs (4)
Sa SD1T
Ts leT (5)
0 05 1 15 20
04
08
12
Period T (s)Sp
ectr
al ac
cele
ratio
n (g
)
Figure 6 Average response spectra of input accelerations
0 05 1 15 20
04
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
08
12
Period T (s)
Site class SBNumber of sites 9
IBC 2015 (SB)
(a)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
08
16
24Site class SC
Number of sites 302
IBC 2015 (SC)IBC 2015 (SB)
(b)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SD)
IBC 2015 (SB)0
08
16
24Site class SD
Number of sites 161
(c)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SE)
IBC 2015 (SB)0
08
16
24Site class SE
Number of sites 15
(d)
Figure 7 Response spectrum resulting from numerical analysis for 487 sites (reference effective peak ground acceleration (EPGA) 022 g)for (a) SB (b) SC (c) SD (d) SE
8 Advances in Civil Engineering
0 05 1 15 20
04
08
12
Period T (s)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
larr Site period TG = 0048s
Depth to bedrock = 61mVS30 = 8010ms
(a)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
04
08
12
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
Depth to bedrock = 65mVS30 = 8356ms
larr Site period TG = 0048s
(b)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
04
08
12
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
Depth to bedrock = 80mVS30 = 7652ms
larr Site period TG = 0063s
(c)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
04
08
12
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
Depth to bedrock = 101mVS30 = 7694ms
larr Site period TG = 0075s
(d)
Figure 8 Response spectrum resulting from numerical analysis of four SB sites with depth to bedrock (a) 61m (b) 65m (c) 80m (d) 101m
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
06
12
18
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SC)IBC 2015 (SB)
larr Site period TG = 013s
Depth to bedrock = 112mVS30 = 4536ms
(a)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
06
12
18
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)IBC 2015 (SC)
larr Site period TG = 022s
Depth to bedrock = 260mVS30 = 4542ms
(b)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
06
12
18
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)IBC 2015 (SC)
larr Site period TG = 032s
Depth to bedrock = 435mVS30 = 4562ms
(c)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
06
12
18
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)IBC 2015 (SC)
larr Site period TG = 044s
Depth to bedrock = 609mVS30 = 4700ms
(d)
Figure 9 Response spectrum resulting fromnumerical analysis of four SC sites with depth to bedrock (a) 112m (b) 260m (c) 435m (d) 609m
Advances in Civil Engineering 9
where SDS and SD1 are the design spectral accelerationsfor short periods and 1 s period respectively SDS Stimes
25 times Fa times (23) and SD1 S times Fv times (23) S is the referenceeffective ground acceleration for the rock site Ts SD1SDSand T0 02 (SD1SDS) Equations (4) and (5) indicate thedesign spectral accelerations for the constant-accelerationrange and the constant-velocity range respectively
To address the numerical analysis results in the DRS andsoil factors the short-period (constant acceleration-related)amplification factor Fa and themidperiod (constant velocity-related) amplification factor Fv were evaluated e ampli-fication factors were calculated as the ratio (RRS) of theresponse spectral value for the soil to the spectral value forthe outcropping rock According to FEMA 1997 Fa and Fvare defined as follows
Fa(RRS) Rsoil
Rrock
104
111394605
01
RSsoil(T)
RSrock(T)dT (6)
Fv(RRS) Rsoil
Rrock
116
111394620
04
RSsoil(T)
RSrock(T)dT (7)
where RSsoil(T) and RSrock(T) are the spectral accelerationscorresponding to the soil and rock respectively at a givenstructure period T and Rsoil and Rrock are the hypocentral
distances from the soil and rock stationse ratio RsoilRrockwas assumed to be 10 in this study
e calculated Fa and Fv are presented in Tables 3 and 4according to the level of the EPGA In the tables ldquoIBC 2015rdquorefers to the amplification factors specified in IBC 2015 andldquoAnalysis resultrdquo refers to the amplification factors (fromequations (6) and (7)) based on the results of numericalanalyses e constant acceleration-related amplificationfactor Fa in IBC 2015 continues to increase as the site classchanges from SB to SE However in the proposed DRS-1 theFa value of SC is greater than those of the SD and SE sites Forthe SE site because the increased damping ratio due to thenonlinearity of soil reduced the site responses of higherorders the mean value of Fa is less than 10
In the case of the proposed Fv values the responseamplification increases as the site class changes from SB toSE However the amplification is less than that of IBC 2015As the EPGA increases the proposed Fv values decreases toclose to those of IBC 2015 which is attributed to the de-creased stiffness and increased damping of the nonlinear soilbehavior
Figure 12 compares the response spectra from (1) nu-merical analysis (2) the proposed amplification factor (DRS-1) and (3) IBC 2015 e EPGA was 022 g For the am-plification factors of DRS-1 the mean (+) standard deviation
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
larr Site period TG = 026s
Depth to bedrock = 205mVS30 = 3454ms
(a)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
larr Site period TG = 038s
Depth to bedrock = 320mVS30 = 3427ms
(b)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
larr Site period TG = 058s
Depth to bedrock = 508mVS30 = 3428ms
(c)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
larr Site period TG = 095s
Depth to bedrock = 800mVS30 = 3308ms
(d)
Figure 10 Response spectrum resulting from numerical analysis of four SD sites with depth to bedrock (a) 205m (b) 320m (c) 508m (d)800m
10 Advances in Civil Engineering
in Tables 3 and 4 was used Figure 12 shows the responsespectra obtained from the numerical analysis results for the487 sites in Korea A response spectrum curve in the figureindicates the average of the response spectra for 18 input
accelerations for a site conditione numerical results wereclassified as SB to SE by the site class criterion VS30 enumber of sites that belonged to SB SC SD and SE were 9302 161 and 15 respectively
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
larr Site period TG = 054s
Depth to bedrock = 305mVS30 = 1723ms
(a)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
larr Site period TG = 069s
Depth to bedrock = 370mVS30 = 1790ms
(b)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
larr Site period TG = 091s
Depth to bedrock = 403mVS30 = 1747ms
(c)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
Site period TG = 114s rarr
Depth to bedrock = 507mVS30 = 1710ms
(d)
Figure 11 Response spectrum resulting from numerical analysis of four SE sites with depth to bedrock (a) 305m (b) 370m (c) 403m (d)507m
Table 3 Short-period amplification factor (DRS-1)
500-year return period (011 g) 1000-year return period (0154 g) 2400-year return period (022 g)
IBC 2015Analysis result
IBC 2015Analysis result
IBC 2015Analysis result
Mean σlowast Mean σ Mean σSB 100 106 0019 100 106 0019 100 106 0024SC 120 158 0296 120 155 0307 118 151 0320SD 158 150 0328 149 142 0337 136 127 0359SE 244 106 0336 218 098 0338 178 082 0316lowastStandard deviation
Table 4 Midperiod amplification factor (DRS-1)
500-year return period (011 g) 1000-year return period (0154 g) 2400-year return period (022 g)
IBC 2015Analysis result
IBC 2015Analysis result
IBC 2015Analysis result
Mean σlowast Mean σ Mean σSB 100 100 0001 100 101 0001 100 100 0021SC 169 115 0123 165 117 0130 158 121 0148SD 236 149 0141 218 151 0141 196 156 0126SE 347 201 0265 334 197 0300 312 185 0384
Advances in Civil Engineering 11
In Figure 12(a) for the SB sites the site coefficients Faand Fv estimated from numerical analysis were close to 10(Tables 3 and 4) e proposed response spectrum of DRS-1is similar to the DRS in IBC 2015 except for the very short-period range For the SB sites in Korea (based on VS30)because the depth of the soil deposits was very shallowranging from 60 to 100m the dynamic period of the soil isvery short For this reason in the numerical results thestructure responses in the range of very short periods wereamplified significantly due to resonance between the soil andthe structure However because Fa is defined in a relativelylarge range of short periods (01ndash05 s (equation (6))) thehigh response amplification for very short periods less than02 s was not properly captured by the definition of Fa
In the case of the SC sites (Figure 12(b)) the proposed Favalue (mean + σ) is greater than that of the SC class in IBC2015 whereas the Fv value (mean + σ) is smaller As the siteperiods of the SC class range from 006 to 066 s the max-imum response amplification occurred in this range istrend agrees with the results from previous studies ([9 11])for the shallow soil conditions in Korea When the proposed
site coefficients were used in the range of 02ndash07 s theresponse spectral values of DRS-1 underestimated themaximum values obtained from the numerical analysis InFigure 12(c) the trend of the DRS-1 for the SD sites wassimilar to that for the SC sitese response spectral values ofDRS-1 underestimated the maximum numerical results inthe range of 03ndash08 s For the SE sites having VS30 values lessthan 180ms (Figure 12(d)) the proposed Fa value(mean + σ) was 113 In the short-period range the DRS-1was significantly less than the SE DRS values in IBC 2015 andwas close to the SB DRS values e proposed Fv value(mean + σ) was close to that of the SD DRS values in IBC2015 ese results indicate that response amplificationoccurred only for the long-period structures and that theamplification was not significant
In terms of the trends of the response amplificationdesign response spectra using the proposed site coefficients(DRS-1) differ from the analysis results Particularly for theSC and SD site classes the DRS-1 does not accurately capturethe maximum spectral accelerations and the amplificationranges affected by the site periods ese results indicate that
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 Site class SB Fa = 108 Fv = 102
TG
(a)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 Site class SC Fa = 184 Fv = 135
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)IBC 2015 (SC)
TG
(b)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
DRS-1 Site class SD Fa = 163 Fv = 168
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
TG
(c)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
DRS-1 Site class SE Fa = 113 Fv = 224
TG
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
(d)
Figure 12 Comparison between numerical analysis results and DRS-1 (a) SB (b) SC (c) SD (d) SE sites
12 Advances in Civil Engineering
when the definitions for Fa and Fv coefficients of IBC areused the DRS-1 can lead to unsafe seismic designs ofstructures
As shown in Figures 8ndash11 although the site classes(VS30) are identical the site periods can differ significantlydepending on the stiffness and depth of the soil deposits Forexample for the SC site class (VS30) the site periods varyfrom 0058 to 066 s in Table 1 us it is unreasonable todefine the dynamic properties of the soils with the VS30values alone
322 Step-2 Site Classification and Site Coefficients Based onSite Period (DRS-2) As mentioned in the previous sectionsite classification based on the VS30 does not accuratelydescribe the characteristics of the site responses Furtherwhen the depth to bedrock is less than 30m the properties ofthe bedrock are included in the definition of VS30 Howeverwhen the depth to bedrock is greater than 30m the entiresoil strata are not included in the site classification
us in DRS-2 the site period was used as the site classcriterion and the short-period and midperiod site ampli-fication factors were defined according to the site period asproposed in Figure 13 e amplification factors are sum-marized in Tables 5 and 6 e proposed amplificationfactors according to the site periods were calculated asfollows
Fa 1
Ta minusTb1113946
Ta
Tb
RSsoil(T)
RSrock(T)dT (8a)
Ta min 13TG 065( 1113857 (8b)
Tb min 03TG 02( 1113857 (8c)
Fv 105
111394615
10
RSsoil(T)
RSrock(T)dT (9)
In equations (8a)ndash(8c) for Fa the ranges Ta and Tb ofthe integration are defined by the site period TG and themaximum period is limited to 065 s For Fv the range of theintegration in equation (9) is reduced to safely define theamplification factors in the constant-velocity range
In Figure 13(a) when the site periods are shorter than03 s the short-period amplification factors are greater thanthe amplification of 184 for the SC site in Figure 12(b)calculated from equation (6) When the site period is outsidethe integration range the amplification by the first mode ofthe soil deposits does not occur in the integration rangeus as the site periods increase beyond the integrationrange the short-period amplification factors decreasegradually
For the midperiod amplification factors as the site pe-riods increase the amplification by the first mode of the soildeposits is included in the integration range us themidperiod amplification factors increase gradually
When the sites are classified by the site period Figure 14shows the design response spectra (DRS-2) resulting fromthe site amplification factors depending on the site period
eDRS-2 was compared with the numerical analysis resultsand the response spectra of the IBC 2015 e EPGA was022 g
In Figures 14(a)ndash14(d) when the site periods were in therange of 005ndash04 s the short-period spectral accelerations ofthe DRS-2 calculated from equation (8a)ndash(8c) were close tothe maximum spectral accelerations corresponding to thefirst-mode period of the soil deposits
When the site periods range from 04 to 06 s(Figures 14(e) and 14(f )) the site period was increased bythe nonlinear properties of the soil deposits and the am-plification range was between the constant-accelerationrange and the constant-velocity range However themidperiod amplification factor Fv was defined at theperiod of 10 s us in Figures 14(e) and 14(f ) themidperiod site amplification factor of DRS-2 un-derestimates the response amplification by the in-termediate site period
Figures 14(g) and 14(h) show the DRS-2 of the sites withperiods greater than 06 s e responses of the long-periodstructures affected by the first mode site periods and theresponses of the short period structures affected by thehigher modes of the soil deposits are described well by themidperiod and the short-period site amplification factors
As shown in Figures 14(b)ndash14(e) the response ampli-fication occurred in the range of the site period Howeveralthough the site amplification factors were defined with thesite period DRS-2 did not describe the response amplifi-cation is is because the constant-acceleration range didnot capture the range of the site amplification is resultindicates that when the site period is used for the site classcriterion the form of the design response spectrum as well asthe site amplification factors should be defined by the siteperiod
323 Step-3 Proposed Design Response Spectrum-3 (DRS-3)e numerical analysis results showed that response am-plification occurred due to resonance between the soil andstructure and that the site periods varied with soil depth Toaddress these results a new form of design response spec-trum with three site classes is proposed
First the sites are classified into three site classes (1)short-period sites (TGlt 04 s) (2) midperiod sites(04ltTGlt 07 s) and (3) long-period sites (07 sltTG) Onthe basis of the amplification factors in Figure 13 ampli-fication factors corresponding to the three site classes areproposed in Table 7 In the case of IBC 2015 the constant-acceleration range is determined by Ts (Fv25Fa) andT0 02Ts
Figure 15 shows the proposed design response spectrum(DRS-3) that is defined by the site period TG To include thefirst-mode periods of short-period sites or second-modeperiods of midperiod and long-period sites the constant-acceleration ranges are extended to T1 T2 is a corner periodto include the response amplifications by the higher modesof soil deposits To define the constant-velocity range thespectral accelerations are moved horizontally by(T1 minusTs) Sa SD1(Tminus (T1 minusTs)) in Figure 15
Advances in Civil Engineering 13
In Figure 16 the proposed DRS-3 is compared with thenumerical analysis results and the DRS of IBC 2015 DRS-3agrees with the maximum accelerations and the constant-acceleration range calculated by the numerical analysesUnlike DRS-1 and DRS-2 DRS-3 provides a better de-scription of the range and magnitude of the maximumspectral values in the constant-acceleration range and lessamplified spectral accelerations in the constant-velocityrange
4 Conclusions
Numerical studies were performed to investigate the re-sponse spectra for 487 site conditions in Korea which is amoderate seismic zone with shallow soil depths e mag-nitudes of the earthquake accelerations were scaled to theEPGAs of moderate seismic zones (011 0154 and 022 g)Twelve existing earthquake records and six artificial accel-erations which were adjusted to the target EPGAs wereused for the input ground accelerations e numericalanalysis results were compared with design response spec-trum (DRS) values of IBC 2015 e results of the presentstudy can be summarized as follows
(1) Even within the same site class (VS30 in IBC 2015)the (elastic) periods of the sites varied significantlywith soil depth
(2) e spectral accelerations of structures were sig-nificantly amplified when the site period was close tothe structure period is result indicates that toaccurately predict the effects of soil the response-amplification factor (ie the soil factor) needs to bedefined by the site period rather than by the soilshear modulus (or soil shear velocity)
(3) e responses of structures were amplified by thehigher modes as well as by the first mode of the soildeposite higher modes amplified the responses ofshort-period structures
(4) When the site periods were less than 04 s thespectral accelerations were greater than the DRSvalues corresponding to the site class VS30 in IBC2015 When the site periods ranged from 04 to 06 sthe spectral accelerations were close to the DRSvalues of IBC 2015 When the site periods weregreater than 07 s the spectral accelerations were lessthan the DRS values of IBC 2015
(5) In particular in the case of SE soil (VS30lt 180ms)the spectral accelerations were significantly less thanthe SE DRS values and were close to the unamplifiedDRS values of SB
In this study three steps for the design response spec-trum (DRS) were performed to address the effect of shallowsoil deposits (in Korea) on structure responses In the firststep DRS-1 following the definitions of the site classifica-tion and the site coefficient of IBC 2015 themagnitude of thesite coefficient was estimated based on the numericalanalysis results In the second step DRS-2 the site periodwas used for the site classification and the integration rangesfor the amplification factors were modified In the third stepDRS-3 to enhance the accuracy of the DRS both themagnitude and ranges of the response amplification weredefined by the site period Results of the three steps aresummarized as follows
0 02 04 06 08 1 1205
1
15
2
25
Site period TG (s)
Am
plifi
catio
n fa
ctor
Fa
Mean + σProposed Fa
(a)
Am
plifi
catio
n fa
ctor
Fv
Mean + σProposed Fv
0 02 04 06 08 1 1205
1
15
2
25
3
Site period TG (s)
(b)
Figure 13 Site amplification factors according to site period (DRS-2) (a) Fa (b) Fv
Table 5 Short-period amplification factor according to site period(DRS-2)
TG (s) 00 03 10leTG
Fa 22 22 11
Table 6 Midperiod amplification factor according to site period(DRS-2)
TG (s) 00 04 07leTG
Fv 10 14 24
14 Advances in Civil Engineering
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-2 005 lt TG lt 01s Fa = 220 Fv = 110
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18Sp
ectr
al ac
cele
ratio
n (g
)
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Period T (s)
(a)
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-2 01 lt TG lt 02s Fa = 220 Fv = 115
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(b)
DRS-2 02 lt TG lt 03s Fa = 220 Fv = 125
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(c)
DRS-2 03 lt TG lt 04s Fa = 212 Fv = 135
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TGSp
ectr
al ac
cele
ratio
n (g
)
Period T (s)
(d)
DRS-2 04 lt TG lt 05s Fa = 196 Fv = 157
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(e)
DRS-2 05 lt TG lt 06s Fa = 161 Fv = 207
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2012 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(f )
Figure 14 Continued
Advances in Civil Engineering 15
(1) e DRS of the IBC was developed with theanalysis of seismic ground motions measured atsites located on the West Coast of the United Statesthat have deep soil deposits However in thisstudy DRS-1 underestimated the short-periodspectral accelerations resulting from numericalstudies with a large deviation is indicates thatthe site classification based on VS30 and theconstant-acceleration range did not rationallydescribe the responses of structures affected byshallow soil depth
(2) In DRS-2 the constant-acceleration range of theshort period sites did not accurately predict the rangeof the maximum responses resulting from the nu-merical analysis results us DRS-2 showed unsafevalues for sites with periods of 01ndash05 s
(3) DRS-3 generally agreed with the numerical resultsand described the characteristics of the responsespectrum affected by shallow soil deposits well Forshort site periods the constant-acceleration rangewas narrow and the magnitude was greater than thatof IBC 2015 As the site period increased the range of
DRS-2 06 lt TG lt 07s Fa = 165 Fv = 223
SCSD
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2012 (SB)
SE
(g)
DRS-2 07 lt TG lt 12s Fa = 126 Fv = 240
SCSD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2012 (SB)
(h)
Figure 14 Comparison between numerical analysis results and DRS-2
Table 7 Properties of the proposed DRS-3
TG Fa Fv
Constant-acceleration rangeis study IBC 2015
T2 T1 T0 TS
TGlt 04 s 22 14 01 04 0056 02804 sleTGlt 07 s 17 16 02 06 008 03807 sleTG 14 24 03 09 014 069
TT2 T1
Sa
SDS
Sa = SD1T ndash (T1 ndash TS)
10
SD1
TST0
Figure 15 New form of design response spectrum (DRS-3)
16 Advances in Civil Engineering
the constant acceleration increased being shifted togreater periods and the peak acceleration decreased
Data Availability
e Excel file data used to support the findings of this studyare available from the corresponding author upon request
Conflicts of Interest
e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest
Acknowledgments
is research was supported by the Korea Agency for In-frastructure Technology Advancement (KAIA) funded bythe Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Transport (No18AUDP-B106327-04) and the Basic Science ResearchProgram through the National Research Foundation of
Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education(NRF-2018R1A6A1A07025819)
References
[1] Architectural Institute of Korea (AIK) Korean Building CodeArchitectural Institute of Korea (AIK) Seoul Republic ofKorea 2016
[2] International Code Council (ICC) International BuildingCode International Code Council (ICC) 2015
[3] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) ldquoNEHRPrecommended provisions for seismic regulations for newbuildings and other structuresrdquo Report No FEMA-302Building Seismic Safety CouncilWashington DC USA 1997
[4] GB50011-2001 Code for Seismic Design of Buildings ChinaBuilding Industry Press Beijing China 2001
[5] A Tena-Colunga U Mena-Hernandez L Perez-RochaJ Aviles M Ordaz and J Vilar ldquoUpdated seismic designguidelines for model building code of Mexicordquo EarthquakeSpectra vol 25 no 4 pp 869ndash898 2009
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 TG lt 04s Fa = 220 Fv = 140
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
(a)
05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 04 lt TG lt 07s Fa = 170 Fv = 160
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0
(b)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 07s lt TG Fa = 140 Fv = 240
TG
(c)
Figure 16 Comparison between numerical analysis results and DRS-3 (a) short-period sites (b) Midperiod sites (c) Long-period sites
Advances in Civil Engineering 17
[6] European Committee for Standardization Eurocode 8 Designof Structures for Earthquake Resistance British StandardLondon UK 2003
[7] Mid-America Earthquake Center (MAE Center) ldquoUniformhazard ground motion and response spectra for mid-Americacitiesrdquo MAE Center Report 03-07 Mid-America EarthquakeCenter (MAE Center) Urbana IL USA 2003
[8] H H M Hwang H Lin and J-R Huo ldquoSite coefficients fordesign of buildings in eastern United Statesrdquo Soil Dynamicsand Earthquake Engineering vol 16 no 1 pp 29ndash40 1997
[9] D-S Kim and J-K Yoon ldquoDevelopment of new site classi-fication system for the regions of shallow bedrock in KoreardquoJournal of Earthquake Engineering vol 10 no 3 pp 331ndash3582006
[10] C-G Sun H-S Kim C-K Chung and H-C Chi ldquoSpatialzonations for regional assessment of seismic site effects in theSeoul metropolitan areardquo Soil Dynamics and EarthquakeEngineering vol 56 pp 44ndash56 2014
[11] S-H Lee C-G Sun J-K Yoon and D-S Kim ldquoDevelop-ment and verification of a new site classification system andsite coefficients for regions of shallow bedrock in KoreardquoJournal of Earthquake Engineering vol 16 no 6 pp 795ndash8192012
[12] D S Kim and Y W Choo ldquoDynamic deformation charac-teristics of cohesionless soils in Korea using resonant columntestsrdquo Journal of the Korean Geotechnical Society vol 17 no 5pp 115ndash138 2001
[13] I M Idriss and J I Sun A Computer Program for ConductingEquivalent Linear Seismic Response Analysis of HorizontallyLayered Soil Deposits Civil Engineering Department Centerfor Geotechnical Modelling UC Davis Davis CA USA1992
[14] httpngawest2berkeleyedu[15] S A Nikolaou A GIS Platform for Earthquake Risk Analysis
PhD dissertation State University of New York Buffalo NYUSA 1998
[16] F Naeim A Alimoradi and S Pezeshk ldquoSelection and scalingof ground motion time histories for structural design usinggenetic algorithmsrdquo Earthquake Spectra vol 20 no 2pp 413ndash426 2004
[17] D A Gasparini and E H Vanmarche Simulated EarthquakeMotions Compatible with Prescribed Response Spectra ReportNo R76-4 MIT Department of Civil Engineering Cam-bridge MA USA 1976
[18] American Society of Civil Engineers Standard (ASCE) SeismicAnalysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures and Commen-tary ASCE 4-98 Reston VA USA 2000
[19] Ministry of Construction and Transportation (MCT) SeismicDesign Standard Research Ministry of Construction andTransportation (MCT) Seoul Korea 1997
18 Advances in Civil Engineering
International Journal of
AerospaceEngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
RoboticsJournal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Active and Passive Electronic Components
VLSI Design
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Shock and Vibration
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Civil EngineeringAdvances in
Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Journal of
Advances inOptoElectronics
Hindawiwwwhindawicom
Volume 2018
Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013Hindawiwwwhindawicom
The Scientific World Journal
Volume 2018
Control Scienceand Engineering
Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom
Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2018
SensorsJournal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
International Journal of
RotatingMachinery
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Modelling ampSimulationin EngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and
Propagation
International Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Navigation and Observation
International Journal of
Hindawi
wwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in
Multimedia
Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom
0 10 20 30 40
larr 0065g Irpinia-01
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
Time (s)
ndash008
ndash004
0
004
008
Time (s)
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20 30 40
larr 0161g Northridge-01ndash02
ndash01
0
01
02A
ccel
erat
ion
(g)
0 10 20 30 40larr 0100g Denali
Time (s)
ndash012
ndash006
0
006
012
Time (s)
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20 30larr 0053g Northridge-01
ndash006
ndash003
0
003
006
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10
larr 0019gSan Fernando
Time (s)
ndash004
ndash002
0
002
004
Time (s)
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20 30 40
larr 0245g
Duzcendash04
ndash02
0
02
04
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20 30 40
larr 0814g
Tabas
Time (s)
ndash1
ndash05
0
05
1
Time (s)
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20 30 40larr 0052g Irpinia-02
ndash006
ndash003
0
003
006
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20 30 40
larr 0107g
Loma Prieta
Time (s)
ndash014
ndash007
0
007
014
Time (s)
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20 30
larr 0221g
Kocaelindash04
ndash02
0
02
04
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20Time (s)
30
larr 0030g
Chi-Chindash004
ndash002
0
002
004
Time (s)
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
0 10 20 30ndash008
ndash004
0
004
008larr 0056g
Big Bear-01
(a)
Figure 5 Continued
6 Advances in Civil Engineering
0 1 2 3
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)
0
005
01
015
02
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)0 1 2 3
0
025
05
075
1
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 1 2 3Period Tn (s)
0
01
02
03
04
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)0 1 2 3
0
005
01
015
02
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 1 2 3Period Tn (s)
0
002
004
006
008
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)0 1 2 3
0
03
06
09
12
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 1 2 3Period Tn (s)
0
1
2
3
4
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)0 1 2 3
0
003
006
009
012
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 1 2 3Period Tn (s)
0
01
02
03
04
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)0 1 2 3
0
03
06
09
12
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 1Period Tn (s)
2 30
003
006
009
012
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)0 1 2 3
0
01
02
03
04
(b)
Figure 5 12 actual and unscaled earthquake accelerations (a) Acceleration time history (b) Response spectrum
Advances in Civil Engineering 7
Figure 11 shows the response spectra for four SE sitesFor the long-period structures the spectral accelerationswere close to the SE DRS For the short-period structures thespectral accelerations were greater than the SB DRS but weresignificantly less than the SE DRS
321 Step-1 Site Classification and Site Coefficients Based onVS30 (DRS-1) In IBC 2015 the DRS acceleration is definedas two-thirds of the maximum considered earthquake (MCE)
spectral acceleration with a return period of 2400 years espectral accelerations are defined as follows [2]
Sa 06SDS
T0T + 04SDS 0leTleT0 (3)
Sa SDS T0 leTleTs (4)
Sa SD1T
Ts leT (5)
0 05 1 15 20
04
08
12
Period T (s)Sp
ectr
al ac
cele
ratio
n (g
)
Figure 6 Average response spectra of input accelerations
0 05 1 15 20
04
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
08
12
Period T (s)
Site class SBNumber of sites 9
IBC 2015 (SB)
(a)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
08
16
24Site class SC
Number of sites 302
IBC 2015 (SC)IBC 2015 (SB)
(b)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SD)
IBC 2015 (SB)0
08
16
24Site class SD
Number of sites 161
(c)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SE)
IBC 2015 (SB)0
08
16
24Site class SE
Number of sites 15
(d)
Figure 7 Response spectrum resulting from numerical analysis for 487 sites (reference effective peak ground acceleration (EPGA) 022 g)for (a) SB (b) SC (c) SD (d) SE
8 Advances in Civil Engineering
0 05 1 15 20
04
08
12
Period T (s)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
larr Site period TG = 0048s
Depth to bedrock = 61mVS30 = 8010ms
(a)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
04
08
12
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
Depth to bedrock = 65mVS30 = 8356ms
larr Site period TG = 0048s
(b)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
04
08
12
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
Depth to bedrock = 80mVS30 = 7652ms
larr Site period TG = 0063s
(c)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
04
08
12
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
Depth to bedrock = 101mVS30 = 7694ms
larr Site period TG = 0075s
(d)
Figure 8 Response spectrum resulting from numerical analysis of four SB sites with depth to bedrock (a) 61m (b) 65m (c) 80m (d) 101m
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
06
12
18
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SC)IBC 2015 (SB)
larr Site period TG = 013s
Depth to bedrock = 112mVS30 = 4536ms
(a)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
06
12
18
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)IBC 2015 (SC)
larr Site period TG = 022s
Depth to bedrock = 260mVS30 = 4542ms
(b)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
06
12
18
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)IBC 2015 (SC)
larr Site period TG = 032s
Depth to bedrock = 435mVS30 = 4562ms
(c)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
06
12
18
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)IBC 2015 (SC)
larr Site period TG = 044s
Depth to bedrock = 609mVS30 = 4700ms
(d)
Figure 9 Response spectrum resulting fromnumerical analysis of four SC sites with depth to bedrock (a) 112m (b) 260m (c) 435m (d) 609m
Advances in Civil Engineering 9
where SDS and SD1 are the design spectral accelerationsfor short periods and 1 s period respectively SDS Stimes
25 times Fa times (23) and SD1 S times Fv times (23) S is the referenceeffective ground acceleration for the rock site Ts SD1SDSand T0 02 (SD1SDS) Equations (4) and (5) indicate thedesign spectral accelerations for the constant-accelerationrange and the constant-velocity range respectively
To address the numerical analysis results in the DRS andsoil factors the short-period (constant acceleration-related)amplification factor Fa and themidperiod (constant velocity-related) amplification factor Fv were evaluated e ampli-fication factors were calculated as the ratio (RRS) of theresponse spectral value for the soil to the spectral value forthe outcropping rock According to FEMA 1997 Fa and Fvare defined as follows
Fa(RRS) Rsoil
Rrock
104
111394605
01
RSsoil(T)
RSrock(T)dT (6)
Fv(RRS) Rsoil
Rrock
116
111394620
04
RSsoil(T)
RSrock(T)dT (7)
where RSsoil(T) and RSrock(T) are the spectral accelerationscorresponding to the soil and rock respectively at a givenstructure period T and Rsoil and Rrock are the hypocentral
distances from the soil and rock stationse ratio RsoilRrockwas assumed to be 10 in this study
e calculated Fa and Fv are presented in Tables 3 and 4according to the level of the EPGA In the tables ldquoIBC 2015rdquorefers to the amplification factors specified in IBC 2015 andldquoAnalysis resultrdquo refers to the amplification factors (fromequations (6) and (7)) based on the results of numericalanalyses e constant acceleration-related amplificationfactor Fa in IBC 2015 continues to increase as the site classchanges from SB to SE However in the proposed DRS-1 theFa value of SC is greater than those of the SD and SE sites Forthe SE site because the increased damping ratio due to thenonlinearity of soil reduced the site responses of higherorders the mean value of Fa is less than 10
In the case of the proposed Fv values the responseamplification increases as the site class changes from SB toSE However the amplification is less than that of IBC 2015As the EPGA increases the proposed Fv values decreases toclose to those of IBC 2015 which is attributed to the de-creased stiffness and increased damping of the nonlinear soilbehavior
Figure 12 compares the response spectra from (1) nu-merical analysis (2) the proposed amplification factor (DRS-1) and (3) IBC 2015 e EPGA was 022 g For the am-plification factors of DRS-1 the mean (+) standard deviation
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
larr Site period TG = 026s
Depth to bedrock = 205mVS30 = 3454ms
(a)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
larr Site period TG = 038s
Depth to bedrock = 320mVS30 = 3427ms
(b)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
larr Site period TG = 058s
Depth to bedrock = 508mVS30 = 3428ms
(c)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
larr Site period TG = 095s
Depth to bedrock = 800mVS30 = 3308ms
(d)
Figure 10 Response spectrum resulting from numerical analysis of four SD sites with depth to bedrock (a) 205m (b) 320m (c) 508m (d)800m
10 Advances in Civil Engineering
in Tables 3 and 4 was used Figure 12 shows the responsespectra obtained from the numerical analysis results for the487 sites in Korea A response spectrum curve in the figureindicates the average of the response spectra for 18 input
accelerations for a site conditione numerical results wereclassified as SB to SE by the site class criterion VS30 enumber of sites that belonged to SB SC SD and SE were 9302 161 and 15 respectively
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
larr Site period TG = 054s
Depth to bedrock = 305mVS30 = 1723ms
(a)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
larr Site period TG = 069s
Depth to bedrock = 370mVS30 = 1790ms
(b)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
larr Site period TG = 091s
Depth to bedrock = 403mVS30 = 1747ms
(c)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
Site period TG = 114s rarr
Depth to bedrock = 507mVS30 = 1710ms
(d)
Figure 11 Response spectrum resulting from numerical analysis of four SE sites with depth to bedrock (a) 305m (b) 370m (c) 403m (d)507m
Table 3 Short-period amplification factor (DRS-1)
500-year return period (011 g) 1000-year return period (0154 g) 2400-year return period (022 g)
IBC 2015Analysis result
IBC 2015Analysis result
IBC 2015Analysis result
Mean σlowast Mean σ Mean σSB 100 106 0019 100 106 0019 100 106 0024SC 120 158 0296 120 155 0307 118 151 0320SD 158 150 0328 149 142 0337 136 127 0359SE 244 106 0336 218 098 0338 178 082 0316lowastStandard deviation
Table 4 Midperiod amplification factor (DRS-1)
500-year return period (011 g) 1000-year return period (0154 g) 2400-year return period (022 g)
IBC 2015Analysis result
IBC 2015Analysis result
IBC 2015Analysis result
Mean σlowast Mean σ Mean σSB 100 100 0001 100 101 0001 100 100 0021SC 169 115 0123 165 117 0130 158 121 0148SD 236 149 0141 218 151 0141 196 156 0126SE 347 201 0265 334 197 0300 312 185 0384
Advances in Civil Engineering 11
In Figure 12(a) for the SB sites the site coefficients Faand Fv estimated from numerical analysis were close to 10(Tables 3 and 4) e proposed response spectrum of DRS-1is similar to the DRS in IBC 2015 except for the very short-period range For the SB sites in Korea (based on VS30)because the depth of the soil deposits was very shallowranging from 60 to 100m the dynamic period of the soil isvery short For this reason in the numerical results thestructure responses in the range of very short periods wereamplified significantly due to resonance between the soil andthe structure However because Fa is defined in a relativelylarge range of short periods (01ndash05 s (equation (6))) thehigh response amplification for very short periods less than02 s was not properly captured by the definition of Fa
In the case of the SC sites (Figure 12(b)) the proposed Favalue (mean + σ) is greater than that of the SC class in IBC2015 whereas the Fv value (mean + σ) is smaller As the siteperiods of the SC class range from 006 to 066 s the max-imum response amplification occurred in this range istrend agrees with the results from previous studies ([9 11])for the shallow soil conditions in Korea When the proposed
site coefficients were used in the range of 02ndash07 s theresponse spectral values of DRS-1 underestimated themaximum values obtained from the numerical analysis InFigure 12(c) the trend of the DRS-1 for the SD sites wassimilar to that for the SC sitese response spectral values ofDRS-1 underestimated the maximum numerical results inthe range of 03ndash08 s For the SE sites having VS30 values lessthan 180ms (Figure 12(d)) the proposed Fa value(mean + σ) was 113 In the short-period range the DRS-1was significantly less than the SE DRS values in IBC 2015 andwas close to the SB DRS values e proposed Fv value(mean + σ) was close to that of the SD DRS values in IBC2015 ese results indicate that response amplificationoccurred only for the long-period structures and that theamplification was not significant
In terms of the trends of the response amplificationdesign response spectra using the proposed site coefficients(DRS-1) differ from the analysis results Particularly for theSC and SD site classes the DRS-1 does not accurately capturethe maximum spectral accelerations and the amplificationranges affected by the site periods ese results indicate that
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 Site class SB Fa = 108 Fv = 102
TG
(a)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 Site class SC Fa = 184 Fv = 135
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)IBC 2015 (SC)
TG
(b)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
DRS-1 Site class SD Fa = 163 Fv = 168
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
TG
(c)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
DRS-1 Site class SE Fa = 113 Fv = 224
TG
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
(d)
Figure 12 Comparison between numerical analysis results and DRS-1 (a) SB (b) SC (c) SD (d) SE sites
12 Advances in Civil Engineering
when the definitions for Fa and Fv coefficients of IBC areused the DRS-1 can lead to unsafe seismic designs ofstructures
As shown in Figures 8ndash11 although the site classes(VS30) are identical the site periods can differ significantlydepending on the stiffness and depth of the soil deposits Forexample for the SC site class (VS30) the site periods varyfrom 0058 to 066 s in Table 1 us it is unreasonable todefine the dynamic properties of the soils with the VS30values alone
322 Step-2 Site Classification and Site Coefficients Based onSite Period (DRS-2) As mentioned in the previous sectionsite classification based on the VS30 does not accuratelydescribe the characteristics of the site responses Furtherwhen the depth to bedrock is less than 30m the properties ofthe bedrock are included in the definition of VS30 Howeverwhen the depth to bedrock is greater than 30m the entiresoil strata are not included in the site classification
us in DRS-2 the site period was used as the site classcriterion and the short-period and midperiod site ampli-fication factors were defined according to the site period asproposed in Figure 13 e amplification factors are sum-marized in Tables 5 and 6 e proposed amplificationfactors according to the site periods were calculated asfollows
Fa 1
Ta minusTb1113946
Ta
Tb
RSsoil(T)
RSrock(T)dT (8a)
Ta min 13TG 065( 1113857 (8b)
Tb min 03TG 02( 1113857 (8c)
Fv 105
111394615
10
RSsoil(T)
RSrock(T)dT (9)
In equations (8a)ndash(8c) for Fa the ranges Ta and Tb ofthe integration are defined by the site period TG and themaximum period is limited to 065 s For Fv the range of theintegration in equation (9) is reduced to safely define theamplification factors in the constant-velocity range
In Figure 13(a) when the site periods are shorter than03 s the short-period amplification factors are greater thanthe amplification of 184 for the SC site in Figure 12(b)calculated from equation (6) When the site period is outsidethe integration range the amplification by the first mode ofthe soil deposits does not occur in the integration rangeus as the site periods increase beyond the integrationrange the short-period amplification factors decreasegradually
For the midperiod amplification factors as the site pe-riods increase the amplification by the first mode of the soildeposits is included in the integration range us themidperiod amplification factors increase gradually
When the sites are classified by the site period Figure 14shows the design response spectra (DRS-2) resulting fromthe site amplification factors depending on the site period
eDRS-2 was compared with the numerical analysis resultsand the response spectra of the IBC 2015 e EPGA was022 g
In Figures 14(a)ndash14(d) when the site periods were in therange of 005ndash04 s the short-period spectral accelerations ofthe DRS-2 calculated from equation (8a)ndash(8c) were close tothe maximum spectral accelerations corresponding to thefirst-mode period of the soil deposits
When the site periods range from 04 to 06 s(Figures 14(e) and 14(f )) the site period was increased bythe nonlinear properties of the soil deposits and the am-plification range was between the constant-accelerationrange and the constant-velocity range However themidperiod amplification factor Fv was defined at theperiod of 10 s us in Figures 14(e) and 14(f ) themidperiod site amplification factor of DRS-2 un-derestimates the response amplification by the in-termediate site period
Figures 14(g) and 14(h) show the DRS-2 of the sites withperiods greater than 06 s e responses of the long-periodstructures affected by the first mode site periods and theresponses of the short period structures affected by thehigher modes of the soil deposits are described well by themidperiod and the short-period site amplification factors
As shown in Figures 14(b)ndash14(e) the response ampli-fication occurred in the range of the site period Howeveralthough the site amplification factors were defined with thesite period DRS-2 did not describe the response amplifi-cation is is because the constant-acceleration range didnot capture the range of the site amplification is resultindicates that when the site period is used for the site classcriterion the form of the design response spectrum as well asthe site amplification factors should be defined by the siteperiod
323 Step-3 Proposed Design Response Spectrum-3 (DRS-3)e numerical analysis results showed that response am-plification occurred due to resonance between the soil andstructure and that the site periods varied with soil depth Toaddress these results a new form of design response spec-trum with three site classes is proposed
First the sites are classified into three site classes (1)short-period sites (TGlt 04 s) (2) midperiod sites(04ltTGlt 07 s) and (3) long-period sites (07 sltTG) Onthe basis of the amplification factors in Figure 13 ampli-fication factors corresponding to the three site classes areproposed in Table 7 In the case of IBC 2015 the constant-acceleration range is determined by Ts (Fv25Fa) andT0 02Ts
Figure 15 shows the proposed design response spectrum(DRS-3) that is defined by the site period TG To include thefirst-mode periods of short-period sites or second-modeperiods of midperiod and long-period sites the constant-acceleration ranges are extended to T1 T2 is a corner periodto include the response amplifications by the higher modesof soil deposits To define the constant-velocity range thespectral accelerations are moved horizontally by(T1 minusTs) Sa SD1(Tminus (T1 minusTs)) in Figure 15
Advances in Civil Engineering 13
In Figure 16 the proposed DRS-3 is compared with thenumerical analysis results and the DRS of IBC 2015 DRS-3agrees with the maximum accelerations and the constant-acceleration range calculated by the numerical analysesUnlike DRS-1 and DRS-2 DRS-3 provides a better de-scription of the range and magnitude of the maximumspectral values in the constant-acceleration range and lessamplified spectral accelerations in the constant-velocityrange
4 Conclusions
Numerical studies were performed to investigate the re-sponse spectra for 487 site conditions in Korea which is amoderate seismic zone with shallow soil depths e mag-nitudes of the earthquake accelerations were scaled to theEPGAs of moderate seismic zones (011 0154 and 022 g)Twelve existing earthquake records and six artificial accel-erations which were adjusted to the target EPGAs wereused for the input ground accelerations e numericalanalysis results were compared with design response spec-trum (DRS) values of IBC 2015 e results of the presentstudy can be summarized as follows
(1) Even within the same site class (VS30 in IBC 2015)the (elastic) periods of the sites varied significantlywith soil depth
(2) e spectral accelerations of structures were sig-nificantly amplified when the site period was close tothe structure period is result indicates that toaccurately predict the effects of soil the response-amplification factor (ie the soil factor) needs to bedefined by the site period rather than by the soilshear modulus (or soil shear velocity)
(3) e responses of structures were amplified by thehigher modes as well as by the first mode of the soildeposite higher modes amplified the responses ofshort-period structures
(4) When the site periods were less than 04 s thespectral accelerations were greater than the DRSvalues corresponding to the site class VS30 in IBC2015 When the site periods ranged from 04 to 06 sthe spectral accelerations were close to the DRSvalues of IBC 2015 When the site periods weregreater than 07 s the spectral accelerations were lessthan the DRS values of IBC 2015
(5) In particular in the case of SE soil (VS30lt 180ms)the spectral accelerations were significantly less thanthe SE DRS values and were close to the unamplifiedDRS values of SB
In this study three steps for the design response spec-trum (DRS) were performed to address the effect of shallowsoil deposits (in Korea) on structure responses In the firststep DRS-1 following the definitions of the site classifica-tion and the site coefficient of IBC 2015 themagnitude of thesite coefficient was estimated based on the numericalanalysis results In the second step DRS-2 the site periodwas used for the site classification and the integration rangesfor the amplification factors were modified In the third stepDRS-3 to enhance the accuracy of the DRS both themagnitude and ranges of the response amplification weredefined by the site period Results of the three steps aresummarized as follows
0 02 04 06 08 1 1205
1
15
2
25
Site period TG (s)
Am
plifi
catio
n fa
ctor
Fa
Mean + σProposed Fa
(a)
Am
plifi
catio
n fa
ctor
Fv
Mean + σProposed Fv
0 02 04 06 08 1 1205
1
15
2
25
3
Site period TG (s)
(b)
Figure 13 Site amplification factors according to site period (DRS-2) (a) Fa (b) Fv
Table 5 Short-period amplification factor according to site period(DRS-2)
TG (s) 00 03 10leTG
Fa 22 22 11
Table 6 Midperiod amplification factor according to site period(DRS-2)
TG (s) 00 04 07leTG
Fv 10 14 24
14 Advances in Civil Engineering
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-2 005 lt TG lt 01s Fa = 220 Fv = 110
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18Sp
ectr
al ac
cele
ratio
n (g
)
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Period T (s)
(a)
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-2 01 lt TG lt 02s Fa = 220 Fv = 115
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(b)
DRS-2 02 lt TG lt 03s Fa = 220 Fv = 125
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(c)
DRS-2 03 lt TG lt 04s Fa = 212 Fv = 135
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TGSp
ectr
al ac
cele
ratio
n (g
)
Period T (s)
(d)
DRS-2 04 lt TG lt 05s Fa = 196 Fv = 157
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(e)
DRS-2 05 lt TG lt 06s Fa = 161 Fv = 207
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2012 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(f )
Figure 14 Continued
Advances in Civil Engineering 15
(1) e DRS of the IBC was developed with theanalysis of seismic ground motions measured atsites located on the West Coast of the United Statesthat have deep soil deposits However in thisstudy DRS-1 underestimated the short-periodspectral accelerations resulting from numericalstudies with a large deviation is indicates thatthe site classification based on VS30 and theconstant-acceleration range did not rationallydescribe the responses of structures affected byshallow soil depth
(2) In DRS-2 the constant-acceleration range of theshort period sites did not accurately predict the rangeof the maximum responses resulting from the nu-merical analysis results us DRS-2 showed unsafevalues for sites with periods of 01ndash05 s
(3) DRS-3 generally agreed with the numerical resultsand described the characteristics of the responsespectrum affected by shallow soil deposits well Forshort site periods the constant-acceleration rangewas narrow and the magnitude was greater than thatof IBC 2015 As the site period increased the range of
DRS-2 06 lt TG lt 07s Fa = 165 Fv = 223
SCSD
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2012 (SB)
SE
(g)
DRS-2 07 lt TG lt 12s Fa = 126 Fv = 240
SCSD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2012 (SB)
(h)
Figure 14 Comparison between numerical analysis results and DRS-2
Table 7 Properties of the proposed DRS-3
TG Fa Fv
Constant-acceleration rangeis study IBC 2015
T2 T1 T0 TS
TGlt 04 s 22 14 01 04 0056 02804 sleTGlt 07 s 17 16 02 06 008 03807 sleTG 14 24 03 09 014 069
TT2 T1
Sa
SDS
Sa = SD1T ndash (T1 ndash TS)
10
SD1
TST0
Figure 15 New form of design response spectrum (DRS-3)
16 Advances in Civil Engineering
the constant acceleration increased being shifted togreater periods and the peak acceleration decreased
Data Availability
e Excel file data used to support the findings of this studyare available from the corresponding author upon request
Conflicts of Interest
e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest
Acknowledgments
is research was supported by the Korea Agency for In-frastructure Technology Advancement (KAIA) funded bythe Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Transport (No18AUDP-B106327-04) and the Basic Science ResearchProgram through the National Research Foundation of
Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education(NRF-2018R1A6A1A07025819)
References
[1] Architectural Institute of Korea (AIK) Korean Building CodeArchitectural Institute of Korea (AIK) Seoul Republic ofKorea 2016
[2] International Code Council (ICC) International BuildingCode International Code Council (ICC) 2015
[3] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) ldquoNEHRPrecommended provisions for seismic regulations for newbuildings and other structuresrdquo Report No FEMA-302Building Seismic Safety CouncilWashington DC USA 1997
[4] GB50011-2001 Code for Seismic Design of Buildings ChinaBuilding Industry Press Beijing China 2001
[5] A Tena-Colunga U Mena-Hernandez L Perez-RochaJ Aviles M Ordaz and J Vilar ldquoUpdated seismic designguidelines for model building code of Mexicordquo EarthquakeSpectra vol 25 no 4 pp 869ndash898 2009
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 TG lt 04s Fa = 220 Fv = 140
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
(a)
05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 04 lt TG lt 07s Fa = 170 Fv = 160
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0
(b)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 07s lt TG Fa = 140 Fv = 240
TG
(c)
Figure 16 Comparison between numerical analysis results and DRS-3 (a) short-period sites (b) Midperiod sites (c) Long-period sites
Advances in Civil Engineering 17
[6] European Committee for Standardization Eurocode 8 Designof Structures for Earthquake Resistance British StandardLondon UK 2003
[7] Mid-America Earthquake Center (MAE Center) ldquoUniformhazard ground motion and response spectra for mid-Americacitiesrdquo MAE Center Report 03-07 Mid-America EarthquakeCenter (MAE Center) Urbana IL USA 2003
[8] H H M Hwang H Lin and J-R Huo ldquoSite coefficients fordesign of buildings in eastern United Statesrdquo Soil Dynamicsand Earthquake Engineering vol 16 no 1 pp 29ndash40 1997
[9] D-S Kim and J-K Yoon ldquoDevelopment of new site classi-fication system for the regions of shallow bedrock in KoreardquoJournal of Earthquake Engineering vol 10 no 3 pp 331ndash3582006
[10] C-G Sun H-S Kim C-K Chung and H-C Chi ldquoSpatialzonations for regional assessment of seismic site effects in theSeoul metropolitan areardquo Soil Dynamics and EarthquakeEngineering vol 56 pp 44ndash56 2014
[11] S-H Lee C-G Sun J-K Yoon and D-S Kim ldquoDevelop-ment and verification of a new site classification system andsite coefficients for regions of shallow bedrock in KoreardquoJournal of Earthquake Engineering vol 16 no 6 pp 795ndash8192012
[12] D S Kim and Y W Choo ldquoDynamic deformation charac-teristics of cohesionless soils in Korea using resonant columntestsrdquo Journal of the Korean Geotechnical Society vol 17 no 5pp 115ndash138 2001
[13] I M Idriss and J I Sun A Computer Program for ConductingEquivalent Linear Seismic Response Analysis of HorizontallyLayered Soil Deposits Civil Engineering Department Centerfor Geotechnical Modelling UC Davis Davis CA USA1992
[14] httpngawest2berkeleyedu[15] S A Nikolaou A GIS Platform for Earthquake Risk Analysis
PhD dissertation State University of New York Buffalo NYUSA 1998
[16] F Naeim A Alimoradi and S Pezeshk ldquoSelection and scalingof ground motion time histories for structural design usinggenetic algorithmsrdquo Earthquake Spectra vol 20 no 2pp 413ndash426 2004
[17] D A Gasparini and E H Vanmarche Simulated EarthquakeMotions Compatible with Prescribed Response Spectra ReportNo R76-4 MIT Department of Civil Engineering Cam-bridge MA USA 1976
[18] American Society of Civil Engineers Standard (ASCE) SeismicAnalysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures and Commen-tary ASCE 4-98 Reston VA USA 2000
[19] Ministry of Construction and Transportation (MCT) SeismicDesign Standard Research Ministry of Construction andTransportation (MCT) Seoul Korea 1997
18 Advances in Civil Engineering
International Journal of
AerospaceEngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
RoboticsJournal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Active and Passive Electronic Components
VLSI Design
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Shock and Vibration
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Civil EngineeringAdvances in
Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Journal of
Advances inOptoElectronics
Hindawiwwwhindawicom
Volume 2018
Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013Hindawiwwwhindawicom
The Scientific World Journal
Volume 2018
Control Scienceand Engineering
Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom
Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2018
SensorsJournal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
International Journal of
RotatingMachinery
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Modelling ampSimulationin EngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and
Propagation
International Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Navigation and Observation
International Journal of
Hindawi
wwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in
Multimedia
Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom
0 1 2 3
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)
0
005
01
015
02
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)0 1 2 3
0
025
05
075
1
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 1 2 3Period Tn (s)
0
01
02
03
04
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)0 1 2 3
0
005
01
015
02
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 1 2 3Period Tn (s)
0
002
004
006
008
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)0 1 2 3
0
03
06
09
12
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 1 2 3Period Tn (s)
0
1
2
3
4
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)0 1 2 3
0
003
006
009
012
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 1 2 3Period Tn (s)
0
01
02
03
04
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)0 1 2 3
0
03
06
09
12
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 1Period Tn (s)
2 30
003
006
009
012
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period Tn (s)0 1 2 3
0
01
02
03
04
(b)
Figure 5 12 actual and unscaled earthquake accelerations (a) Acceleration time history (b) Response spectrum
Advances in Civil Engineering 7
Figure 11 shows the response spectra for four SE sitesFor the long-period structures the spectral accelerationswere close to the SE DRS For the short-period structures thespectral accelerations were greater than the SB DRS but weresignificantly less than the SE DRS
321 Step-1 Site Classification and Site Coefficients Based onVS30 (DRS-1) In IBC 2015 the DRS acceleration is definedas two-thirds of the maximum considered earthquake (MCE)
spectral acceleration with a return period of 2400 years espectral accelerations are defined as follows [2]
Sa 06SDS
T0T + 04SDS 0leTleT0 (3)
Sa SDS T0 leTleTs (4)
Sa SD1T
Ts leT (5)
0 05 1 15 20
04
08
12
Period T (s)Sp
ectr
al ac
cele
ratio
n (g
)
Figure 6 Average response spectra of input accelerations
0 05 1 15 20
04
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
08
12
Period T (s)
Site class SBNumber of sites 9
IBC 2015 (SB)
(a)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
08
16
24Site class SC
Number of sites 302
IBC 2015 (SC)IBC 2015 (SB)
(b)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SD)
IBC 2015 (SB)0
08
16
24Site class SD
Number of sites 161
(c)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SE)
IBC 2015 (SB)0
08
16
24Site class SE
Number of sites 15
(d)
Figure 7 Response spectrum resulting from numerical analysis for 487 sites (reference effective peak ground acceleration (EPGA) 022 g)for (a) SB (b) SC (c) SD (d) SE
8 Advances in Civil Engineering
0 05 1 15 20
04
08
12
Period T (s)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
larr Site period TG = 0048s
Depth to bedrock = 61mVS30 = 8010ms
(a)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
04
08
12
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
Depth to bedrock = 65mVS30 = 8356ms
larr Site period TG = 0048s
(b)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
04
08
12
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
Depth to bedrock = 80mVS30 = 7652ms
larr Site period TG = 0063s
(c)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
04
08
12
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
Depth to bedrock = 101mVS30 = 7694ms
larr Site period TG = 0075s
(d)
Figure 8 Response spectrum resulting from numerical analysis of four SB sites with depth to bedrock (a) 61m (b) 65m (c) 80m (d) 101m
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
06
12
18
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SC)IBC 2015 (SB)
larr Site period TG = 013s
Depth to bedrock = 112mVS30 = 4536ms
(a)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
06
12
18
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)IBC 2015 (SC)
larr Site period TG = 022s
Depth to bedrock = 260mVS30 = 4542ms
(b)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
06
12
18
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)IBC 2015 (SC)
larr Site period TG = 032s
Depth to bedrock = 435mVS30 = 4562ms
(c)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
06
12
18
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)IBC 2015 (SC)
larr Site period TG = 044s
Depth to bedrock = 609mVS30 = 4700ms
(d)
Figure 9 Response spectrum resulting fromnumerical analysis of four SC sites with depth to bedrock (a) 112m (b) 260m (c) 435m (d) 609m
Advances in Civil Engineering 9
where SDS and SD1 are the design spectral accelerationsfor short periods and 1 s period respectively SDS Stimes
25 times Fa times (23) and SD1 S times Fv times (23) S is the referenceeffective ground acceleration for the rock site Ts SD1SDSand T0 02 (SD1SDS) Equations (4) and (5) indicate thedesign spectral accelerations for the constant-accelerationrange and the constant-velocity range respectively
To address the numerical analysis results in the DRS andsoil factors the short-period (constant acceleration-related)amplification factor Fa and themidperiod (constant velocity-related) amplification factor Fv were evaluated e ampli-fication factors were calculated as the ratio (RRS) of theresponse spectral value for the soil to the spectral value forthe outcropping rock According to FEMA 1997 Fa and Fvare defined as follows
Fa(RRS) Rsoil
Rrock
104
111394605
01
RSsoil(T)
RSrock(T)dT (6)
Fv(RRS) Rsoil
Rrock
116
111394620
04
RSsoil(T)
RSrock(T)dT (7)
where RSsoil(T) and RSrock(T) are the spectral accelerationscorresponding to the soil and rock respectively at a givenstructure period T and Rsoil and Rrock are the hypocentral
distances from the soil and rock stationse ratio RsoilRrockwas assumed to be 10 in this study
e calculated Fa and Fv are presented in Tables 3 and 4according to the level of the EPGA In the tables ldquoIBC 2015rdquorefers to the amplification factors specified in IBC 2015 andldquoAnalysis resultrdquo refers to the amplification factors (fromequations (6) and (7)) based on the results of numericalanalyses e constant acceleration-related amplificationfactor Fa in IBC 2015 continues to increase as the site classchanges from SB to SE However in the proposed DRS-1 theFa value of SC is greater than those of the SD and SE sites Forthe SE site because the increased damping ratio due to thenonlinearity of soil reduced the site responses of higherorders the mean value of Fa is less than 10
In the case of the proposed Fv values the responseamplification increases as the site class changes from SB toSE However the amplification is less than that of IBC 2015As the EPGA increases the proposed Fv values decreases toclose to those of IBC 2015 which is attributed to the de-creased stiffness and increased damping of the nonlinear soilbehavior
Figure 12 compares the response spectra from (1) nu-merical analysis (2) the proposed amplification factor (DRS-1) and (3) IBC 2015 e EPGA was 022 g For the am-plification factors of DRS-1 the mean (+) standard deviation
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
larr Site period TG = 026s
Depth to bedrock = 205mVS30 = 3454ms
(a)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
larr Site period TG = 038s
Depth to bedrock = 320mVS30 = 3427ms
(b)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
larr Site period TG = 058s
Depth to bedrock = 508mVS30 = 3428ms
(c)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
larr Site period TG = 095s
Depth to bedrock = 800mVS30 = 3308ms
(d)
Figure 10 Response spectrum resulting from numerical analysis of four SD sites with depth to bedrock (a) 205m (b) 320m (c) 508m (d)800m
10 Advances in Civil Engineering
in Tables 3 and 4 was used Figure 12 shows the responsespectra obtained from the numerical analysis results for the487 sites in Korea A response spectrum curve in the figureindicates the average of the response spectra for 18 input
accelerations for a site conditione numerical results wereclassified as SB to SE by the site class criterion VS30 enumber of sites that belonged to SB SC SD and SE were 9302 161 and 15 respectively
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
larr Site period TG = 054s
Depth to bedrock = 305mVS30 = 1723ms
(a)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
larr Site period TG = 069s
Depth to bedrock = 370mVS30 = 1790ms
(b)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
larr Site period TG = 091s
Depth to bedrock = 403mVS30 = 1747ms
(c)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
Site period TG = 114s rarr
Depth to bedrock = 507mVS30 = 1710ms
(d)
Figure 11 Response spectrum resulting from numerical analysis of four SE sites with depth to bedrock (a) 305m (b) 370m (c) 403m (d)507m
Table 3 Short-period amplification factor (DRS-1)
500-year return period (011 g) 1000-year return period (0154 g) 2400-year return period (022 g)
IBC 2015Analysis result
IBC 2015Analysis result
IBC 2015Analysis result
Mean σlowast Mean σ Mean σSB 100 106 0019 100 106 0019 100 106 0024SC 120 158 0296 120 155 0307 118 151 0320SD 158 150 0328 149 142 0337 136 127 0359SE 244 106 0336 218 098 0338 178 082 0316lowastStandard deviation
Table 4 Midperiod amplification factor (DRS-1)
500-year return period (011 g) 1000-year return period (0154 g) 2400-year return period (022 g)
IBC 2015Analysis result
IBC 2015Analysis result
IBC 2015Analysis result
Mean σlowast Mean σ Mean σSB 100 100 0001 100 101 0001 100 100 0021SC 169 115 0123 165 117 0130 158 121 0148SD 236 149 0141 218 151 0141 196 156 0126SE 347 201 0265 334 197 0300 312 185 0384
Advances in Civil Engineering 11
In Figure 12(a) for the SB sites the site coefficients Faand Fv estimated from numerical analysis were close to 10(Tables 3 and 4) e proposed response spectrum of DRS-1is similar to the DRS in IBC 2015 except for the very short-period range For the SB sites in Korea (based on VS30)because the depth of the soil deposits was very shallowranging from 60 to 100m the dynamic period of the soil isvery short For this reason in the numerical results thestructure responses in the range of very short periods wereamplified significantly due to resonance between the soil andthe structure However because Fa is defined in a relativelylarge range of short periods (01ndash05 s (equation (6))) thehigh response amplification for very short periods less than02 s was not properly captured by the definition of Fa
In the case of the SC sites (Figure 12(b)) the proposed Favalue (mean + σ) is greater than that of the SC class in IBC2015 whereas the Fv value (mean + σ) is smaller As the siteperiods of the SC class range from 006 to 066 s the max-imum response amplification occurred in this range istrend agrees with the results from previous studies ([9 11])for the shallow soil conditions in Korea When the proposed
site coefficients were used in the range of 02ndash07 s theresponse spectral values of DRS-1 underestimated themaximum values obtained from the numerical analysis InFigure 12(c) the trend of the DRS-1 for the SD sites wassimilar to that for the SC sitese response spectral values ofDRS-1 underestimated the maximum numerical results inthe range of 03ndash08 s For the SE sites having VS30 values lessthan 180ms (Figure 12(d)) the proposed Fa value(mean + σ) was 113 In the short-period range the DRS-1was significantly less than the SE DRS values in IBC 2015 andwas close to the SB DRS values e proposed Fv value(mean + σ) was close to that of the SD DRS values in IBC2015 ese results indicate that response amplificationoccurred only for the long-period structures and that theamplification was not significant
In terms of the trends of the response amplificationdesign response spectra using the proposed site coefficients(DRS-1) differ from the analysis results Particularly for theSC and SD site classes the DRS-1 does not accurately capturethe maximum spectral accelerations and the amplificationranges affected by the site periods ese results indicate that
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 Site class SB Fa = 108 Fv = 102
TG
(a)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 Site class SC Fa = 184 Fv = 135
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)IBC 2015 (SC)
TG
(b)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
DRS-1 Site class SD Fa = 163 Fv = 168
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
TG
(c)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
DRS-1 Site class SE Fa = 113 Fv = 224
TG
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
(d)
Figure 12 Comparison between numerical analysis results and DRS-1 (a) SB (b) SC (c) SD (d) SE sites
12 Advances in Civil Engineering
when the definitions for Fa and Fv coefficients of IBC areused the DRS-1 can lead to unsafe seismic designs ofstructures
As shown in Figures 8ndash11 although the site classes(VS30) are identical the site periods can differ significantlydepending on the stiffness and depth of the soil deposits Forexample for the SC site class (VS30) the site periods varyfrom 0058 to 066 s in Table 1 us it is unreasonable todefine the dynamic properties of the soils with the VS30values alone
322 Step-2 Site Classification and Site Coefficients Based onSite Period (DRS-2) As mentioned in the previous sectionsite classification based on the VS30 does not accuratelydescribe the characteristics of the site responses Furtherwhen the depth to bedrock is less than 30m the properties ofthe bedrock are included in the definition of VS30 Howeverwhen the depth to bedrock is greater than 30m the entiresoil strata are not included in the site classification
us in DRS-2 the site period was used as the site classcriterion and the short-period and midperiod site ampli-fication factors were defined according to the site period asproposed in Figure 13 e amplification factors are sum-marized in Tables 5 and 6 e proposed amplificationfactors according to the site periods were calculated asfollows
Fa 1
Ta minusTb1113946
Ta
Tb
RSsoil(T)
RSrock(T)dT (8a)
Ta min 13TG 065( 1113857 (8b)
Tb min 03TG 02( 1113857 (8c)
Fv 105
111394615
10
RSsoil(T)
RSrock(T)dT (9)
In equations (8a)ndash(8c) for Fa the ranges Ta and Tb ofthe integration are defined by the site period TG and themaximum period is limited to 065 s For Fv the range of theintegration in equation (9) is reduced to safely define theamplification factors in the constant-velocity range
In Figure 13(a) when the site periods are shorter than03 s the short-period amplification factors are greater thanthe amplification of 184 for the SC site in Figure 12(b)calculated from equation (6) When the site period is outsidethe integration range the amplification by the first mode ofthe soil deposits does not occur in the integration rangeus as the site periods increase beyond the integrationrange the short-period amplification factors decreasegradually
For the midperiod amplification factors as the site pe-riods increase the amplification by the first mode of the soildeposits is included in the integration range us themidperiod amplification factors increase gradually
When the sites are classified by the site period Figure 14shows the design response spectra (DRS-2) resulting fromthe site amplification factors depending on the site period
eDRS-2 was compared with the numerical analysis resultsand the response spectra of the IBC 2015 e EPGA was022 g
In Figures 14(a)ndash14(d) when the site periods were in therange of 005ndash04 s the short-period spectral accelerations ofthe DRS-2 calculated from equation (8a)ndash(8c) were close tothe maximum spectral accelerations corresponding to thefirst-mode period of the soil deposits
When the site periods range from 04 to 06 s(Figures 14(e) and 14(f )) the site period was increased bythe nonlinear properties of the soil deposits and the am-plification range was between the constant-accelerationrange and the constant-velocity range However themidperiod amplification factor Fv was defined at theperiod of 10 s us in Figures 14(e) and 14(f ) themidperiod site amplification factor of DRS-2 un-derestimates the response amplification by the in-termediate site period
Figures 14(g) and 14(h) show the DRS-2 of the sites withperiods greater than 06 s e responses of the long-periodstructures affected by the first mode site periods and theresponses of the short period structures affected by thehigher modes of the soil deposits are described well by themidperiod and the short-period site amplification factors
As shown in Figures 14(b)ndash14(e) the response ampli-fication occurred in the range of the site period Howeveralthough the site amplification factors were defined with thesite period DRS-2 did not describe the response amplifi-cation is is because the constant-acceleration range didnot capture the range of the site amplification is resultindicates that when the site period is used for the site classcriterion the form of the design response spectrum as well asthe site amplification factors should be defined by the siteperiod
323 Step-3 Proposed Design Response Spectrum-3 (DRS-3)e numerical analysis results showed that response am-plification occurred due to resonance between the soil andstructure and that the site periods varied with soil depth Toaddress these results a new form of design response spec-trum with three site classes is proposed
First the sites are classified into three site classes (1)short-period sites (TGlt 04 s) (2) midperiod sites(04ltTGlt 07 s) and (3) long-period sites (07 sltTG) Onthe basis of the amplification factors in Figure 13 ampli-fication factors corresponding to the three site classes areproposed in Table 7 In the case of IBC 2015 the constant-acceleration range is determined by Ts (Fv25Fa) andT0 02Ts
Figure 15 shows the proposed design response spectrum(DRS-3) that is defined by the site period TG To include thefirst-mode periods of short-period sites or second-modeperiods of midperiod and long-period sites the constant-acceleration ranges are extended to T1 T2 is a corner periodto include the response amplifications by the higher modesof soil deposits To define the constant-velocity range thespectral accelerations are moved horizontally by(T1 minusTs) Sa SD1(Tminus (T1 minusTs)) in Figure 15
Advances in Civil Engineering 13
In Figure 16 the proposed DRS-3 is compared with thenumerical analysis results and the DRS of IBC 2015 DRS-3agrees with the maximum accelerations and the constant-acceleration range calculated by the numerical analysesUnlike DRS-1 and DRS-2 DRS-3 provides a better de-scription of the range and magnitude of the maximumspectral values in the constant-acceleration range and lessamplified spectral accelerations in the constant-velocityrange
4 Conclusions
Numerical studies were performed to investigate the re-sponse spectra for 487 site conditions in Korea which is amoderate seismic zone with shallow soil depths e mag-nitudes of the earthquake accelerations were scaled to theEPGAs of moderate seismic zones (011 0154 and 022 g)Twelve existing earthquake records and six artificial accel-erations which were adjusted to the target EPGAs wereused for the input ground accelerations e numericalanalysis results were compared with design response spec-trum (DRS) values of IBC 2015 e results of the presentstudy can be summarized as follows
(1) Even within the same site class (VS30 in IBC 2015)the (elastic) periods of the sites varied significantlywith soil depth
(2) e spectral accelerations of structures were sig-nificantly amplified when the site period was close tothe structure period is result indicates that toaccurately predict the effects of soil the response-amplification factor (ie the soil factor) needs to bedefined by the site period rather than by the soilshear modulus (or soil shear velocity)
(3) e responses of structures were amplified by thehigher modes as well as by the first mode of the soildeposite higher modes amplified the responses ofshort-period structures
(4) When the site periods were less than 04 s thespectral accelerations were greater than the DRSvalues corresponding to the site class VS30 in IBC2015 When the site periods ranged from 04 to 06 sthe spectral accelerations were close to the DRSvalues of IBC 2015 When the site periods weregreater than 07 s the spectral accelerations were lessthan the DRS values of IBC 2015
(5) In particular in the case of SE soil (VS30lt 180ms)the spectral accelerations were significantly less thanthe SE DRS values and were close to the unamplifiedDRS values of SB
In this study three steps for the design response spec-trum (DRS) were performed to address the effect of shallowsoil deposits (in Korea) on structure responses In the firststep DRS-1 following the definitions of the site classifica-tion and the site coefficient of IBC 2015 themagnitude of thesite coefficient was estimated based on the numericalanalysis results In the second step DRS-2 the site periodwas used for the site classification and the integration rangesfor the amplification factors were modified In the third stepDRS-3 to enhance the accuracy of the DRS both themagnitude and ranges of the response amplification weredefined by the site period Results of the three steps aresummarized as follows
0 02 04 06 08 1 1205
1
15
2
25
Site period TG (s)
Am
plifi
catio
n fa
ctor
Fa
Mean + σProposed Fa
(a)
Am
plifi
catio
n fa
ctor
Fv
Mean + σProposed Fv
0 02 04 06 08 1 1205
1
15
2
25
3
Site period TG (s)
(b)
Figure 13 Site amplification factors according to site period (DRS-2) (a) Fa (b) Fv
Table 5 Short-period amplification factor according to site period(DRS-2)
TG (s) 00 03 10leTG
Fa 22 22 11
Table 6 Midperiod amplification factor according to site period(DRS-2)
TG (s) 00 04 07leTG
Fv 10 14 24
14 Advances in Civil Engineering
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-2 005 lt TG lt 01s Fa = 220 Fv = 110
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18Sp
ectr
al ac
cele
ratio
n (g
)
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Period T (s)
(a)
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-2 01 lt TG lt 02s Fa = 220 Fv = 115
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(b)
DRS-2 02 lt TG lt 03s Fa = 220 Fv = 125
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(c)
DRS-2 03 lt TG lt 04s Fa = 212 Fv = 135
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TGSp
ectr
al ac
cele
ratio
n (g
)
Period T (s)
(d)
DRS-2 04 lt TG lt 05s Fa = 196 Fv = 157
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(e)
DRS-2 05 lt TG lt 06s Fa = 161 Fv = 207
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2012 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(f )
Figure 14 Continued
Advances in Civil Engineering 15
(1) e DRS of the IBC was developed with theanalysis of seismic ground motions measured atsites located on the West Coast of the United Statesthat have deep soil deposits However in thisstudy DRS-1 underestimated the short-periodspectral accelerations resulting from numericalstudies with a large deviation is indicates thatthe site classification based on VS30 and theconstant-acceleration range did not rationallydescribe the responses of structures affected byshallow soil depth
(2) In DRS-2 the constant-acceleration range of theshort period sites did not accurately predict the rangeof the maximum responses resulting from the nu-merical analysis results us DRS-2 showed unsafevalues for sites with periods of 01ndash05 s
(3) DRS-3 generally agreed with the numerical resultsand described the characteristics of the responsespectrum affected by shallow soil deposits well Forshort site periods the constant-acceleration rangewas narrow and the magnitude was greater than thatof IBC 2015 As the site period increased the range of
DRS-2 06 lt TG lt 07s Fa = 165 Fv = 223
SCSD
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2012 (SB)
SE
(g)
DRS-2 07 lt TG lt 12s Fa = 126 Fv = 240
SCSD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2012 (SB)
(h)
Figure 14 Comparison between numerical analysis results and DRS-2
Table 7 Properties of the proposed DRS-3
TG Fa Fv
Constant-acceleration rangeis study IBC 2015
T2 T1 T0 TS
TGlt 04 s 22 14 01 04 0056 02804 sleTGlt 07 s 17 16 02 06 008 03807 sleTG 14 24 03 09 014 069
TT2 T1
Sa
SDS
Sa = SD1T ndash (T1 ndash TS)
10
SD1
TST0
Figure 15 New form of design response spectrum (DRS-3)
16 Advances in Civil Engineering
the constant acceleration increased being shifted togreater periods and the peak acceleration decreased
Data Availability
e Excel file data used to support the findings of this studyare available from the corresponding author upon request
Conflicts of Interest
e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest
Acknowledgments
is research was supported by the Korea Agency for In-frastructure Technology Advancement (KAIA) funded bythe Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Transport (No18AUDP-B106327-04) and the Basic Science ResearchProgram through the National Research Foundation of
Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education(NRF-2018R1A6A1A07025819)
References
[1] Architectural Institute of Korea (AIK) Korean Building CodeArchitectural Institute of Korea (AIK) Seoul Republic ofKorea 2016
[2] International Code Council (ICC) International BuildingCode International Code Council (ICC) 2015
[3] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) ldquoNEHRPrecommended provisions for seismic regulations for newbuildings and other structuresrdquo Report No FEMA-302Building Seismic Safety CouncilWashington DC USA 1997
[4] GB50011-2001 Code for Seismic Design of Buildings ChinaBuilding Industry Press Beijing China 2001
[5] A Tena-Colunga U Mena-Hernandez L Perez-RochaJ Aviles M Ordaz and J Vilar ldquoUpdated seismic designguidelines for model building code of Mexicordquo EarthquakeSpectra vol 25 no 4 pp 869ndash898 2009
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 TG lt 04s Fa = 220 Fv = 140
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
(a)
05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 04 lt TG lt 07s Fa = 170 Fv = 160
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0
(b)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 07s lt TG Fa = 140 Fv = 240
TG
(c)
Figure 16 Comparison between numerical analysis results and DRS-3 (a) short-period sites (b) Midperiod sites (c) Long-period sites
Advances in Civil Engineering 17
[6] European Committee for Standardization Eurocode 8 Designof Structures for Earthquake Resistance British StandardLondon UK 2003
[7] Mid-America Earthquake Center (MAE Center) ldquoUniformhazard ground motion and response spectra for mid-Americacitiesrdquo MAE Center Report 03-07 Mid-America EarthquakeCenter (MAE Center) Urbana IL USA 2003
[8] H H M Hwang H Lin and J-R Huo ldquoSite coefficients fordesign of buildings in eastern United Statesrdquo Soil Dynamicsand Earthquake Engineering vol 16 no 1 pp 29ndash40 1997
[9] D-S Kim and J-K Yoon ldquoDevelopment of new site classi-fication system for the regions of shallow bedrock in KoreardquoJournal of Earthquake Engineering vol 10 no 3 pp 331ndash3582006
[10] C-G Sun H-S Kim C-K Chung and H-C Chi ldquoSpatialzonations for regional assessment of seismic site effects in theSeoul metropolitan areardquo Soil Dynamics and EarthquakeEngineering vol 56 pp 44ndash56 2014
[11] S-H Lee C-G Sun J-K Yoon and D-S Kim ldquoDevelop-ment and verification of a new site classification system andsite coefficients for regions of shallow bedrock in KoreardquoJournal of Earthquake Engineering vol 16 no 6 pp 795ndash8192012
[12] D S Kim and Y W Choo ldquoDynamic deformation charac-teristics of cohesionless soils in Korea using resonant columntestsrdquo Journal of the Korean Geotechnical Society vol 17 no 5pp 115ndash138 2001
[13] I M Idriss and J I Sun A Computer Program for ConductingEquivalent Linear Seismic Response Analysis of HorizontallyLayered Soil Deposits Civil Engineering Department Centerfor Geotechnical Modelling UC Davis Davis CA USA1992
[14] httpngawest2berkeleyedu[15] S A Nikolaou A GIS Platform for Earthquake Risk Analysis
PhD dissertation State University of New York Buffalo NYUSA 1998
[16] F Naeim A Alimoradi and S Pezeshk ldquoSelection and scalingof ground motion time histories for structural design usinggenetic algorithmsrdquo Earthquake Spectra vol 20 no 2pp 413ndash426 2004
[17] D A Gasparini and E H Vanmarche Simulated EarthquakeMotions Compatible with Prescribed Response Spectra ReportNo R76-4 MIT Department of Civil Engineering Cam-bridge MA USA 1976
[18] American Society of Civil Engineers Standard (ASCE) SeismicAnalysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures and Commen-tary ASCE 4-98 Reston VA USA 2000
[19] Ministry of Construction and Transportation (MCT) SeismicDesign Standard Research Ministry of Construction andTransportation (MCT) Seoul Korea 1997
18 Advances in Civil Engineering
International Journal of
AerospaceEngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
RoboticsJournal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Active and Passive Electronic Components
VLSI Design
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Shock and Vibration
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Civil EngineeringAdvances in
Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Journal of
Advances inOptoElectronics
Hindawiwwwhindawicom
Volume 2018
Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013Hindawiwwwhindawicom
The Scientific World Journal
Volume 2018
Control Scienceand Engineering
Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom
Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2018
SensorsJournal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
International Journal of
RotatingMachinery
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Modelling ampSimulationin EngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and
Propagation
International Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Navigation and Observation
International Journal of
Hindawi
wwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in
Multimedia
Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom
Figure 11 shows the response spectra for four SE sitesFor the long-period structures the spectral accelerationswere close to the SE DRS For the short-period structures thespectral accelerations were greater than the SB DRS but weresignificantly less than the SE DRS
321 Step-1 Site Classification and Site Coefficients Based onVS30 (DRS-1) In IBC 2015 the DRS acceleration is definedas two-thirds of the maximum considered earthquake (MCE)
spectral acceleration with a return period of 2400 years espectral accelerations are defined as follows [2]
Sa 06SDS
T0T + 04SDS 0leTleT0 (3)
Sa SDS T0 leTleTs (4)
Sa SD1T
Ts leT (5)
0 05 1 15 20
04
08
12
Period T (s)Sp
ectr
al ac
cele
ratio
n (g
)
Figure 6 Average response spectra of input accelerations
0 05 1 15 20
04
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
08
12
Period T (s)
Site class SBNumber of sites 9
IBC 2015 (SB)
(a)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
08
16
24Site class SC
Number of sites 302
IBC 2015 (SC)IBC 2015 (SB)
(b)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SD)
IBC 2015 (SB)0
08
16
24Site class SD
Number of sites 161
(c)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SE)
IBC 2015 (SB)0
08
16
24Site class SE
Number of sites 15
(d)
Figure 7 Response spectrum resulting from numerical analysis for 487 sites (reference effective peak ground acceleration (EPGA) 022 g)for (a) SB (b) SC (c) SD (d) SE
8 Advances in Civil Engineering
0 05 1 15 20
04
08
12
Period T (s)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
larr Site period TG = 0048s
Depth to bedrock = 61mVS30 = 8010ms
(a)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
04
08
12
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
Depth to bedrock = 65mVS30 = 8356ms
larr Site period TG = 0048s
(b)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
04
08
12
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
Depth to bedrock = 80mVS30 = 7652ms
larr Site period TG = 0063s
(c)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
04
08
12
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
Depth to bedrock = 101mVS30 = 7694ms
larr Site period TG = 0075s
(d)
Figure 8 Response spectrum resulting from numerical analysis of four SB sites with depth to bedrock (a) 61m (b) 65m (c) 80m (d) 101m
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
06
12
18
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SC)IBC 2015 (SB)
larr Site period TG = 013s
Depth to bedrock = 112mVS30 = 4536ms
(a)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
06
12
18
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)IBC 2015 (SC)
larr Site period TG = 022s
Depth to bedrock = 260mVS30 = 4542ms
(b)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
06
12
18
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)IBC 2015 (SC)
larr Site period TG = 032s
Depth to bedrock = 435mVS30 = 4562ms
(c)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
06
12
18
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)IBC 2015 (SC)
larr Site period TG = 044s
Depth to bedrock = 609mVS30 = 4700ms
(d)
Figure 9 Response spectrum resulting fromnumerical analysis of four SC sites with depth to bedrock (a) 112m (b) 260m (c) 435m (d) 609m
Advances in Civil Engineering 9
where SDS and SD1 are the design spectral accelerationsfor short periods and 1 s period respectively SDS Stimes
25 times Fa times (23) and SD1 S times Fv times (23) S is the referenceeffective ground acceleration for the rock site Ts SD1SDSand T0 02 (SD1SDS) Equations (4) and (5) indicate thedesign spectral accelerations for the constant-accelerationrange and the constant-velocity range respectively
To address the numerical analysis results in the DRS andsoil factors the short-period (constant acceleration-related)amplification factor Fa and themidperiod (constant velocity-related) amplification factor Fv were evaluated e ampli-fication factors were calculated as the ratio (RRS) of theresponse spectral value for the soil to the spectral value forthe outcropping rock According to FEMA 1997 Fa and Fvare defined as follows
Fa(RRS) Rsoil
Rrock
104
111394605
01
RSsoil(T)
RSrock(T)dT (6)
Fv(RRS) Rsoil
Rrock
116
111394620
04
RSsoil(T)
RSrock(T)dT (7)
where RSsoil(T) and RSrock(T) are the spectral accelerationscorresponding to the soil and rock respectively at a givenstructure period T and Rsoil and Rrock are the hypocentral
distances from the soil and rock stationse ratio RsoilRrockwas assumed to be 10 in this study
e calculated Fa and Fv are presented in Tables 3 and 4according to the level of the EPGA In the tables ldquoIBC 2015rdquorefers to the amplification factors specified in IBC 2015 andldquoAnalysis resultrdquo refers to the amplification factors (fromequations (6) and (7)) based on the results of numericalanalyses e constant acceleration-related amplificationfactor Fa in IBC 2015 continues to increase as the site classchanges from SB to SE However in the proposed DRS-1 theFa value of SC is greater than those of the SD and SE sites Forthe SE site because the increased damping ratio due to thenonlinearity of soil reduced the site responses of higherorders the mean value of Fa is less than 10
In the case of the proposed Fv values the responseamplification increases as the site class changes from SB toSE However the amplification is less than that of IBC 2015As the EPGA increases the proposed Fv values decreases toclose to those of IBC 2015 which is attributed to the de-creased stiffness and increased damping of the nonlinear soilbehavior
Figure 12 compares the response spectra from (1) nu-merical analysis (2) the proposed amplification factor (DRS-1) and (3) IBC 2015 e EPGA was 022 g For the am-plification factors of DRS-1 the mean (+) standard deviation
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
larr Site period TG = 026s
Depth to bedrock = 205mVS30 = 3454ms
(a)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
larr Site period TG = 038s
Depth to bedrock = 320mVS30 = 3427ms
(b)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
larr Site period TG = 058s
Depth to bedrock = 508mVS30 = 3428ms
(c)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
larr Site period TG = 095s
Depth to bedrock = 800mVS30 = 3308ms
(d)
Figure 10 Response spectrum resulting from numerical analysis of four SD sites with depth to bedrock (a) 205m (b) 320m (c) 508m (d)800m
10 Advances in Civil Engineering
in Tables 3 and 4 was used Figure 12 shows the responsespectra obtained from the numerical analysis results for the487 sites in Korea A response spectrum curve in the figureindicates the average of the response spectra for 18 input
accelerations for a site conditione numerical results wereclassified as SB to SE by the site class criterion VS30 enumber of sites that belonged to SB SC SD and SE were 9302 161 and 15 respectively
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
larr Site period TG = 054s
Depth to bedrock = 305mVS30 = 1723ms
(a)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
larr Site period TG = 069s
Depth to bedrock = 370mVS30 = 1790ms
(b)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
larr Site period TG = 091s
Depth to bedrock = 403mVS30 = 1747ms
(c)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
Site period TG = 114s rarr
Depth to bedrock = 507mVS30 = 1710ms
(d)
Figure 11 Response spectrum resulting from numerical analysis of four SE sites with depth to bedrock (a) 305m (b) 370m (c) 403m (d)507m
Table 3 Short-period amplification factor (DRS-1)
500-year return period (011 g) 1000-year return period (0154 g) 2400-year return period (022 g)
IBC 2015Analysis result
IBC 2015Analysis result
IBC 2015Analysis result
Mean σlowast Mean σ Mean σSB 100 106 0019 100 106 0019 100 106 0024SC 120 158 0296 120 155 0307 118 151 0320SD 158 150 0328 149 142 0337 136 127 0359SE 244 106 0336 218 098 0338 178 082 0316lowastStandard deviation
Table 4 Midperiod amplification factor (DRS-1)
500-year return period (011 g) 1000-year return period (0154 g) 2400-year return period (022 g)
IBC 2015Analysis result
IBC 2015Analysis result
IBC 2015Analysis result
Mean σlowast Mean σ Mean σSB 100 100 0001 100 101 0001 100 100 0021SC 169 115 0123 165 117 0130 158 121 0148SD 236 149 0141 218 151 0141 196 156 0126SE 347 201 0265 334 197 0300 312 185 0384
Advances in Civil Engineering 11
In Figure 12(a) for the SB sites the site coefficients Faand Fv estimated from numerical analysis were close to 10(Tables 3 and 4) e proposed response spectrum of DRS-1is similar to the DRS in IBC 2015 except for the very short-period range For the SB sites in Korea (based on VS30)because the depth of the soil deposits was very shallowranging from 60 to 100m the dynamic period of the soil isvery short For this reason in the numerical results thestructure responses in the range of very short periods wereamplified significantly due to resonance between the soil andthe structure However because Fa is defined in a relativelylarge range of short periods (01ndash05 s (equation (6))) thehigh response amplification for very short periods less than02 s was not properly captured by the definition of Fa
In the case of the SC sites (Figure 12(b)) the proposed Favalue (mean + σ) is greater than that of the SC class in IBC2015 whereas the Fv value (mean + σ) is smaller As the siteperiods of the SC class range from 006 to 066 s the max-imum response amplification occurred in this range istrend agrees with the results from previous studies ([9 11])for the shallow soil conditions in Korea When the proposed
site coefficients were used in the range of 02ndash07 s theresponse spectral values of DRS-1 underestimated themaximum values obtained from the numerical analysis InFigure 12(c) the trend of the DRS-1 for the SD sites wassimilar to that for the SC sitese response spectral values ofDRS-1 underestimated the maximum numerical results inthe range of 03ndash08 s For the SE sites having VS30 values lessthan 180ms (Figure 12(d)) the proposed Fa value(mean + σ) was 113 In the short-period range the DRS-1was significantly less than the SE DRS values in IBC 2015 andwas close to the SB DRS values e proposed Fv value(mean + σ) was close to that of the SD DRS values in IBC2015 ese results indicate that response amplificationoccurred only for the long-period structures and that theamplification was not significant
In terms of the trends of the response amplificationdesign response spectra using the proposed site coefficients(DRS-1) differ from the analysis results Particularly for theSC and SD site classes the DRS-1 does not accurately capturethe maximum spectral accelerations and the amplificationranges affected by the site periods ese results indicate that
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 Site class SB Fa = 108 Fv = 102
TG
(a)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 Site class SC Fa = 184 Fv = 135
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)IBC 2015 (SC)
TG
(b)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
DRS-1 Site class SD Fa = 163 Fv = 168
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
TG
(c)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
DRS-1 Site class SE Fa = 113 Fv = 224
TG
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
(d)
Figure 12 Comparison between numerical analysis results and DRS-1 (a) SB (b) SC (c) SD (d) SE sites
12 Advances in Civil Engineering
when the definitions for Fa and Fv coefficients of IBC areused the DRS-1 can lead to unsafe seismic designs ofstructures
As shown in Figures 8ndash11 although the site classes(VS30) are identical the site periods can differ significantlydepending on the stiffness and depth of the soil deposits Forexample for the SC site class (VS30) the site periods varyfrom 0058 to 066 s in Table 1 us it is unreasonable todefine the dynamic properties of the soils with the VS30values alone
322 Step-2 Site Classification and Site Coefficients Based onSite Period (DRS-2) As mentioned in the previous sectionsite classification based on the VS30 does not accuratelydescribe the characteristics of the site responses Furtherwhen the depth to bedrock is less than 30m the properties ofthe bedrock are included in the definition of VS30 Howeverwhen the depth to bedrock is greater than 30m the entiresoil strata are not included in the site classification
us in DRS-2 the site period was used as the site classcriterion and the short-period and midperiod site ampli-fication factors were defined according to the site period asproposed in Figure 13 e amplification factors are sum-marized in Tables 5 and 6 e proposed amplificationfactors according to the site periods were calculated asfollows
Fa 1
Ta minusTb1113946
Ta
Tb
RSsoil(T)
RSrock(T)dT (8a)
Ta min 13TG 065( 1113857 (8b)
Tb min 03TG 02( 1113857 (8c)
Fv 105
111394615
10
RSsoil(T)
RSrock(T)dT (9)
In equations (8a)ndash(8c) for Fa the ranges Ta and Tb ofthe integration are defined by the site period TG and themaximum period is limited to 065 s For Fv the range of theintegration in equation (9) is reduced to safely define theamplification factors in the constant-velocity range
In Figure 13(a) when the site periods are shorter than03 s the short-period amplification factors are greater thanthe amplification of 184 for the SC site in Figure 12(b)calculated from equation (6) When the site period is outsidethe integration range the amplification by the first mode ofthe soil deposits does not occur in the integration rangeus as the site periods increase beyond the integrationrange the short-period amplification factors decreasegradually
For the midperiod amplification factors as the site pe-riods increase the amplification by the first mode of the soildeposits is included in the integration range us themidperiod amplification factors increase gradually
When the sites are classified by the site period Figure 14shows the design response spectra (DRS-2) resulting fromthe site amplification factors depending on the site period
eDRS-2 was compared with the numerical analysis resultsand the response spectra of the IBC 2015 e EPGA was022 g
In Figures 14(a)ndash14(d) when the site periods were in therange of 005ndash04 s the short-period spectral accelerations ofthe DRS-2 calculated from equation (8a)ndash(8c) were close tothe maximum spectral accelerations corresponding to thefirst-mode period of the soil deposits
When the site periods range from 04 to 06 s(Figures 14(e) and 14(f )) the site period was increased bythe nonlinear properties of the soil deposits and the am-plification range was between the constant-accelerationrange and the constant-velocity range However themidperiod amplification factor Fv was defined at theperiod of 10 s us in Figures 14(e) and 14(f ) themidperiod site amplification factor of DRS-2 un-derestimates the response amplification by the in-termediate site period
Figures 14(g) and 14(h) show the DRS-2 of the sites withperiods greater than 06 s e responses of the long-periodstructures affected by the first mode site periods and theresponses of the short period structures affected by thehigher modes of the soil deposits are described well by themidperiod and the short-period site amplification factors
As shown in Figures 14(b)ndash14(e) the response ampli-fication occurred in the range of the site period Howeveralthough the site amplification factors were defined with thesite period DRS-2 did not describe the response amplifi-cation is is because the constant-acceleration range didnot capture the range of the site amplification is resultindicates that when the site period is used for the site classcriterion the form of the design response spectrum as well asthe site amplification factors should be defined by the siteperiod
323 Step-3 Proposed Design Response Spectrum-3 (DRS-3)e numerical analysis results showed that response am-plification occurred due to resonance between the soil andstructure and that the site periods varied with soil depth Toaddress these results a new form of design response spec-trum with three site classes is proposed
First the sites are classified into three site classes (1)short-period sites (TGlt 04 s) (2) midperiod sites(04ltTGlt 07 s) and (3) long-period sites (07 sltTG) Onthe basis of the amplification factors in Figure 13 ampli-fication factors corresponding to the three site classes areproposed in Table 7 In the case of IBC 2015 the constant-acceleration range is determined by Ts (Fv25Fa) andT0 02Ts
Figure 15 shows the proposed design response spectrum(DRS-3) that is defined by the site period TG To include thefirst-mode periods of short-period sites or second-modeperiods of midperiod and long-period sites the constant-acceleration ranges are extended to T1 T2 is a corner periodto include the response amplifications by the higher modesof soil deposits To define the constant-velocity range thespectral accelerations are moved horizontally by(T1 minusTs) Sa SD1(Tminus (T1 minusTs)) in Figure 15
Advances in Civil Engineering 13
In Figure 16 the proposed DRS-3 is compared with thenumerical analysis results and the DRS of IBC 2015 DRS-3agrees with the maximum accelerations and the constant-acceleration range calculated by the numerical analysesUnlike DRS-1 and DRS-2 DRS-3 provides a better de-scription of the range and magnitude of the maximumspectral values in the constant-acceleration range and lessamplified spectral accelerations in the constant-velocityrange
4 Conclusions
Numerical studies were performed to investigate the re-sponse spectra for 487 site conditions in Korea which is amoderate seismic zone with shallow soil depths e mag-nitudes of the earthquake accelerations were scaled to theEPGAs of moderate seismic zones (011 0154 and 022 g)Twelve existing earthquake records and six artificial accel-erations which were adjusted to the target EPGAs wereused for the input ground accelerations e numericalanalysis results were compared with design response spec-trum (DRS) values of IBC 2015 e results of the presentstudy can be summarized as follows
(1) Even within the same site class (VS30 in IBC 2015)the (elastic) periods of the sites varied significantlywith soil depth
(2) e spectral accelerations of structures were sig-nificantly amplified when the site period was close tothe structure period is result indicates that toaccurately predict the effects of soil the response-amplification factor (ie the soil factor) needs to bedefined by the site period rather than by the soilshear modulus (or soil shear velocity)
(3) e responses of structures were amplified by thehigher modes as well as by the first mode of the soildeposite higher modes amplified the responses ofshort-period structures
(4) When the site periods were less than 04 s thespectral accelerations were greater than the DRSvalues corresponding to the site class VS30 in IBC2015 When the site periods ranged from 04 to 06 sthe spectral accelerations were close to the DRSvalues of IBC 2015 When the site periods weregreater than 07 s the spectral accelerations were lessthan the DRS values of IBC 2015
(5) In particular in the case of SE soil (VS30lt 180ms)the spectral accelerations were significantly less thanthe SE DRS values and were close to the unamplifiedDRS values of SB
In this study three steps for the design response spec-trum (DRS) were performed to address the effect of shallowsoil deposits (in Korea) on structure responses In the firststep DRS-1 following the definitions of the site classifica-tion and the site coefficient of IBC 2015 themagnitude of thesite coefficient was estimated based on the numericalanalysis results In the second step DRS-2 the site periodwas used for the site classification and the integration rangesfor the amplification factors were modified In the third stepDRS-3 to enhance the accuracy of the DRS both themagnitude and ranges of the response amplification weredefined by the site period Results of the three steps aresummarized as follows
0 02 04 06 08 1 1205
1
15
2
25
Site period TG (s)
Am
plifi
catio
n fa
ctor
Fa
Mean + σProposed Fa
(a)
Am
plifi
catio
n fa
ctor
Fv
Mean + σProposed Fv
0 02 04 06 08 1 1205
1
15
2
25
3
Site period TG (s)
(b)
Figure 13 Site amplification factors according to site period (DRS-2) (a) Fa (b) Fv
Table 5 Short-period amplification factor according to site period(DRS-2)
TG (s) 00 03 10leTG
Fa 22 22 11
Table 6 Midperiod amplification factor according to site period(DRS-2)
TG (s) 00 04 07leTG
Fv 10 14 24
14 Advances in Civil Engineering
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-2 005 lt TG lt 01s Fa = 220 Fv = 110
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18Sp
ectr
al ac
cele
ratio
n (g
)
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Period T (s)
(a)
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-2 01 lt TG lt 02s Fa = 220 Fv = 115
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(b)
DRS-2 02 lt TG lt 03s Fa = 220 Fv = 125
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(c)
DRS-2 03 lt TG lt 04s Fa = 212 Fv = 135
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TGSp
ectr
al ac
cele
ratio
n (g
)
Period T (s)
(d)
DRS-2 04 lt TG lt 05s Fa = 196 Fv = 157
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(e)
DRS-2 05 lt TG lt 06s Fa = 161 Fv = 207
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2012 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(f )
Figure 14 Continued
Advances in Civil Engineering 15
(1) e DRS of the IBC was developed with theanalysis of seismic ground motions measured atsites located on the West Coast of the United Statesthat have deep soil deposits However in thisstudy DRS-1 underestimated the short-periodspectral accelerations resulting from numericalstudies with a large deviation is indicates thatthe site classification based on VS30 and theconstant-acceleration range did not rationallydescribe the responses of structures affected byshallow soil depth
(2) In DRS-2 the constant-acceleration range of theshort period sites did not accurately predict the rangeof the maximum responses resulting from the nu-merical analysis results us DRS-2 showed unsafevalues for sites with periods of 01ndash05 s
(3) DRS-3 generally agreed with the numerical resultsand described the characteristics of the responsespectrum affected by shallow soil deposits well Forshort site periods the constant-acceleration rangewas narrow and the magnitude was greater than thatof IBC 2015 As the site period increased the range of
DRS-2 06 lt TG lt 07s Fa = 165 Fv = 223
SCSD
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2012 (SB)
SE
(g)
DRS-2 07 lt TG lt 12s Fa = 126 Fv = 240
SCSD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2012 (SB)
(h)
Figure 14 Comparison between numerical analysis results and DRS-2
Table 7 Properties of the proposed DRS-3
TG Fa Fv
Constant-acceleration rangeis study IBC 2015
T2 T1 T0 TS
TGlt 04 s 22 14 01 04 0056 02804 sleTGlt 07 s 17 16 02 06 008 03807 sleTG 14 24 03 09 014 069
TT2 T1
Sa
SDS
Sa = SD1T ndash (T1 ndash TS)
10
SD1
TST0
Figure 15 New form of design response spectrum (DRS-3)
16 Advances in Civil Engineering
the constant acceleration increased being shifted togreater periods and the peak acceleration decreased
Data Availability
e Excel file data used to support the findings of this studyare available from the corresponding author upon request
Conflicts of Interest
e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest
Acknowledgments
is research was supported by the Korea Agency for In-frastructure Technology Advancement (KAIA) funded bythe Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Transport (No18AUDP-B106327-04) and the Basic Science ResearchProgram through the National Research Foundation of
Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education(NRF-2018R1A6A1A07025819)
References
[1] Architectural Institute of Korea (AIK) Korean Building CodeArchitectural Institute of Korea (AIK) Seoul Republic ofKorea 2016
[2] International Code Council (ICC) International BuildingCode International Code Council (ICC) 2015
[3] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) ldquoNEHRPrecommended provisions for seismic regulations for newbuildings and other structuresrdquo Report No FEMA-302Building Seismic Safety CouncilWashington DC USA 1997
[4] GB50011-2001 Code for Seismic Design of Buildings ChinaBuilding Industry Press Beijing China 2001
[5] A Tena-Colunga U Mena-Hernandez L Perez-RochaJ Aviles M Ordaz and J Vilar ldquoUpdated seismic designguidelines for model building code of Mexicordquo EarthquakeSpectra vol 25 no 4 pp 869ndash898 2009
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 TG lt 04s Fa = 220 Fv = 140
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
(a)
05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 04 lt TG lt 07s Fa = 170 Fv = 160
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0
(b)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 07s lt TG Fa = 140 Fv = 240
TG
(c)
Figure 16 Comparison between numerical analysis results and DRS-3 (a) short-period sites (b) Midperiod sites (c) Long-period sites
Advances in Civil Engineering 17
[6] European Committee for Standardization Eurocode 8 Designof Structures for Earthquake Resistance British StandardLondon UK 2003
[7] Mid-America Earthquake Center (MAE Center) ldquoUniformhazard ground motion and response spectra for mid-Americacitiesrdquo MAE Center Report 03-07 Mid-America EarthquakeCenter (MAE Center) Urbana IL USA 2003
[8] H H M Hwang H Lin and J-R Huo ldquoSite coefficients fordesign of buildings in eastern United Statesrdquo Soil Dynamicsand Earthquake Engineering vol 16 no 1 pp 29ndash40 1997
[9] D-S Kim and J-K Yoon ldquoDevelopment of new site classi-fication system for the regions of shallow bedrock in KoreardquoJournal of Earthquake Engineering vol 10 no 3 pp 331ndash3582006
[10] C-G Sun H-S Kim C-K Chung and H-C Chi ldquoSpatialzonations for regional assessment of seismic site effects in theSeoul metropolitan areardquo Soil Dynamics and EarthquakeEngineering vol 56 pp 44ndash56 2014
[11] S-H Lee C-G Sun J-K Yoon and D-S Kim ldquoDevelop-ment and verification of a new site classification system andsite coefficients for regions of shallow bedrock in KoreardquoJournal of Earthquake Engineering vol 16 no 6 pp 795ndash8192012
[12] D S Kim and Y W Choo ldquoDynamic deformation charac-teristics of cohesionless soils in Korea using resonant columntestsrdquo Journal of the Korean Geotechnical Society vol 17 no 5pp 115ndash138 2001
[13] I M Idriss and J I Sun A Computer Program for ConductingEquivalent Linear Seismic Response Analysis of HorizontallyLayered Soil Deposits Civil Engineering Department Centerfor Geotechnical Modelling UC Davis Davis CA USA1992
[14] httpngawest2berkeleyedu[15] S A Nikolaou A GIS Platform for Earthquake Risk Analysis
PhD dissertation State University of New York Buffalo NYUSA 1998
[16] F Naeim A Alimoradi and S Pezeshk ldquoSelection and scalingof ground motion time histories for structural design usinggenetic algorithmsrdquo Earthquake Spectra vol 20 no 2pp 413ndash426 2004
[17] D A Gasparini and E H Vanmarche Simulated EarthquakeMotions Compatible with Prescribed Response Spectra ReportNo R76-4 MIT Department of Civil Engineering Cam-bridge MA USA 1976
[18] American Society of Civil Engineers Standard (ASCE) SeismicAnalysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures and Commen-tary ASCE 4-98 Reston VA USA 2000
[19] Ministry of Construction and Transportation (MCT) SeismicDesign Standard Research Ministry of Construction andTransportation (MCT) Seoul Korea 1997
18 Advances in Civil Engineering
International Journal of
AerospaceEngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
RoboticsJournal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Active and Passive Electronic Components
VLSI Design
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Shock and Vibration
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Civil EngineeringAdvances in
Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Journal of
Advances inOptoElectronics
Hindawiwwwhindawicom
Volume 2018
Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013Hindawiwwwhindawicom
The Scientific World Journal
Volume 2018
Control Scienceand Engineering
Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom
Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2018
SensorsJournal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
International Journal of
RotatingMachinery
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Modelling ampSimulationin EngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and
Propagation
International Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Navigation and Observation
International Journal of
Hindawi
wwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in
Multimedia
Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom
0 05 1 15 20
04
08
12
Period T (s)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
larr Site period TG = 0048s
Depth to bedrock = 61mVS30 = 8010ms
(a)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
04
08
12
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
Depth to bedrock = 65mVS30 = 8356ms
larr Site period TG = 0048s
(b)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
04
08
12
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
Depth to bedrock = 80mVS30 = 7652ms
larr Site period TG = 0063s
(c)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
04
08
12
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
Depth to bedrock = 101mVS30 = 7694ms
larr Site period TG = 0075s
(d)
Figure 8 Response spectrum resulting from numerical analysis of four SB sites with depth to bedrock (a) 61m (b) 65m (c) 80m (d) 101m
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
06
12
18
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SC)IBC 2015 (SB)
larr Site period TG = 013s
Depth to bedrock = 112mVS30 = 4536ms
(a)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
06
12
18
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)IBC 2015 (SC)
larr Site period TG = 022s
Depth to bedrock = 260mVS30 = 4542ms
(b)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
06
12
18
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)IBC 2015 (SC)
larr Site period TG = 032s
Depth to bedrock = 435mVS30 = 4562ms
(c)
0 05 1 15 2Period T (s)
0
06
12
18
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)IBC 2015 (SC)
larr Site period TG = 044s
Depth to bedrock = 609mVS30 = 4700ms
(d)
Figure 9 Response spectrum resulting fromnumerical analysis of four SC sites with depth to bedrock (a) 112m (b) 260m (c) 435m (d) 609m
Advances in Civil Engineering 9
where SDS and SD1 are the design spectral accelerationsfor short periods and 1 s period respectively SDS Stimes
25 times Fa times (23) and SD1 S times Fv times (23) S is the referenceeffective ground acceleration for the rock site Ts SD1SDSand T0 02 (SD1SDS) Equations (4) and (5) indicate thedesign spectral accelerations for the constant-accelerationrange and the constant-velocity range respectively
To address the numerical analysis results in the DRS andsoil factors the short-period (constant acceleration-related)amplification factor Fa and themidperiod (constant velocity-related) amplification factor Fv were evaluated e ampli-fication factors were calculated as the ratio (RRS) of theresponse spectral value for the soil to the spectral value forthe outcropping rock According to FEMA 1997 Fa and Fvare defined as follows
Fa(RRS) Rsoil
Rrock
104
111394605
01
RSsoil(T)
RSrock(T)dT (6)
Fv(RRS) Rsoil
Rrock
116
111394620
04
RSsoil(T)
RSrock(T)dT (7)
where RSsoil(T) and RSrock(T) are the spectral accelerationscorresponding to the soil and rock respectively at a givenstructure period T and Rsoil and Rrock are the hypocentral
distances from the soil and rock stationse ratio RsoilRrockwas assumed to be 10 in this study
e calculated Fa and Fv are presented in Tables 3 and 4according to the level of the EPGA In the tables ldquoIBC 2015rdquorefers to the amplification factors specified in IBC 2015 andldquoAnalysis resultrdquo refers to the amplification factors (fromequations (6) and (7)) based on the results of numericalanalyses e constant acceleration-related amplificationfactor Fa in IBC 2015 continues to increase as the site classchanges from SB to SE However in the proposed DRS-1 theFa value of SC is greater than those of the SD and SE sites Forthe SE site because the increased damping ratio due to thenonlinearity of soil reduced the site responses of higherorders the mean value of Fa is less than 10
In the case of the proposed Fv values the responseamplification increases as the site class changes from SB toSE However the amplification is less than that of IBC 2015As the EPGA increases the proposed Fv values decreases toclose to those of IBC 2015 which is attributed to the de-creased stiffness and increased damping of the nonlinear soilbehavior
Figure 12 compares the response spectra from (1) nu-merical analysis (2) the proposed amplification factor (DRS-1) and (3) IBC 2015 e EPGA was 022 g For the am-plification factors of DRS-1 the mean (+) standard deviation
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
larr Site period TG = 026s
Depth to bedrock = 205mVS30 = 3454ms
(a)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
larr Site period TG = 038s
Depth to bedrock = 320mVS30 = 3427ms
(b)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
larr Site period TG = 058s
Depth to bedrock = 508mVS30 = 3428ms
(c)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
larr Site period TG = 095s
Depth to bedrock = 800mVS30 = 3308ms
(d)
Figure 10 Response spectrum resulting from numerical analysis of four SD sites with depth to bedrock (a) 205m (b) 320m (c) 508m (d)800m
10 Advances in Civil Engineering
in Tables 3 and 4 was used Figure 12 shows the responsespectra obtained from the numerical analysis results for the487 sites in Korea A response spectrum curve in the figureindicates the average of the response spectra for 18 input
accelerations for a site conditione numerical results wereclassified as SB to SE by the site class criterion VS30 enumber of sites that belonged to SB SC SD and SE were 9302 161 and 15 respectively
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
larr Site period TG = 054s
Depth to bedrock = 305mVS30 = 1723ms
(a)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
larr Site period TG = 069s
Depth to bedrock = 370mVS30 = 1790ms
(b)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
larr Site period TG = 091s
Depth to bedrock = 403mVS30 = 1747ms
(c)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
Site period TG = 114s rarr
Depth to bedrock = 507mVS30 = 1710ms
(d)
Figure 11 Response spectrum resulting from numerical analysis of four SE sites with depth to bedrock (a) 305m (b) 370m (c) 403m (d)507m
Table 3 Short-period amplification factor (DRS-1)
500-year return period (011 g) 1000-year return period (0154 g) 2400-year return period (022 g)
IBC 2015Analysis result
IBC 2015Analysis result
IBC 2015Analysis result
Mean σlowast Mean σ Mean σSB 100 106 0019 100 106 0019 100 106 0024SC 120 158 0296 120 155 0307 118 151 0320SD 158 150 0328 149 142 0337 136 127 0359SE 244 106 0336 218 098 0338 178 082 0316lowastStandard deviation
Table 4 Midperiod amplification factor (DRS-1)
500-year return period (011 g) 1000-year return period (0154 g) 2400-year return period (022 g)
IBC 2015Analysis result
IBC 2015Analysis result
IBC 2015Analysis result
Mean σlowast Mean σ Mean σSB 100 100 0001 100 101 0001 100 100 0021SC 169 115 0123 165 117 0130 158 121 0148SD 236 149 0141 218 151 0141 196 156 0126SE 347 201 0265 334 197 0300 312 185 0384
Advances in Civil Engineering 11
In Figure 12(a) for the SB sites the site coefficients Faand Fv estimated from numerical analysis were close to 10(Tables 3 and 4) e proposed response spectrum of DRS-1is similar to the DRS in IBC 2015 except for the very short-period range For the SB sites in Korea (based on VS30)because the depth of the soil deposits was very shallowranging from 60 to 100m the dynamic period of the soil isvery short For this reason in the numerical results thestructure responses in the range of very short periods wereamplified significantly due to resonance between the soil andthe structure However because Fa is defined in a relativelylarge range of short periods (01ndash05 s (equation (6))) thehigh response amplification for very short periods less than02 s was not properly captured by the definition of Fa
In the case of the SC sites (Figure 12(b)) the proposed Favalue (mean + σ) is greater than that of the SC class in IBC2015 whereas the Fv value (mean + σ) is smaller As the siteperiods of the SC class range from 006 to 066 s the max-imum response amplification occurred in this range istrend agrees with the results from previous studies ([9 11])for the shallow soil conditions in Korea When the proposed
site coefficients were used in the range of 02ndash07 s theresponse spectral values of DRS-1 underestimated themaximum values obtained from the numerical analysis InFigure 12(c) the trend of the DRS-1 for the SD sites wassimilar to that for the SC sitese response spectral values ofDRS-1 underestimated the maximum numerical results inthe range of 03ndash08 s For the SE sites having VS30 values lessthan 180ms (Figure 12(d)) the proposed Fa value(mean + σ) was 113 In the short-period range the DRS-1was significantly less than the SE DRS values in IBC 2015 andwas close to the SB DRS values e proposed Fv value(mean + σ) was close to that of the SD DRS values in IBC2015 ese results indicate that response amplificationoccurred only for the long-period structures and that theamplification was not significant
In terms of the trends of the response amplificationdesign response spectra using the proposed site coefficients(DRS-1) differ from the analysis results Particularly for theSC and SD site classes the DRS-1 does not accurately capturethe maximum spectral accelerations and the amplificationranges affected by the site periods ese results indicate that
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 Site class SB Fa = 108 Fv = 102
TG
(a)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 Site class SC Fa = 184 Fv = 135
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)IBC 2015 (SC)
TG
(b)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
DRS-1 Site class SD Fa = 163 Fv = 168
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
TG
(c)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
DRS-1 Site class SE Fa = 113 Fv = 224
TG
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
(d)
Figure 12 Comparison between numerical analysis results and DRS-1 (a) SB (b) SC (c) SD (d) SE sites
12 Advances in Civil Engineering
when the definitions for Fa and Fv coefficients of IBC areused the DRS-1 can lead to unsafe seismic designs ofstructures
As shown in Figures 8ndash11 although the site classes(VS30) are identical the site periods can differ significantlydepending on the stiffness and depth of the soil deposits Forexample for the SC site class (VS30) the site periods varyfrom 0058 to 066 s in Table 1 us it is unreasonable todefine the dynamic properties of the soils with the VS30values alone
322 Step-2 Site Classification and Site Coefficients Based onSite Period (DRS-2) As mentioned in the previous sectionsite classification based on the VS30 does not accuratelydescribe the characteristics of the site responses Furtherwhen the depth to bedrock is less than 30m the properties ofthe bedrock are included in the definition of VS30 Howeverwhen the depth to bedrock is greater than 30m the entiresoil strata are not included in the site classification
us in DRS-2 the site period was used as the site classcriterion and the short-period and midperiod site ampli-fication factors were defined according to the site period asproposed in Figure 13 e amplification factors are sum-marized in Tables 5 and 6 e proposed amplificationfactors according to the site periods were calculated asfollows
Fa 1
Ta minusTb1113946
Ta
Tb
RSsoil(T)
RSrock(T)dT (8a)
Ta min 13TG 065( 1113857 (8b)
Tb min 03TG 02( 1113857 (8c)
Fv 105
111394615
10
RSsoil(T)
RSrock(T)dT (9)
In equations (8a)ndash(8c) for Fa the ranges Ta and Tb ofthe integration are defined by the site period TG and themaximum period is limited to 065 s For Fv the range of theintegration in equation (9) is reduced to safely define theamplification factors in the constant-velocity range
In Figure 13(a) when the site periods are shorter than03 s the short-period amplification factors are greater thanthe amplification of 184 for the SC site in Figure 12(b)calculated from equation (6) When the site period is outsidethe integration range the amplification by the first mode ofthe soil deposits does not occur in the integration rangeus as the site periods increase beyond the integrationrange the short-period amplification factors decreasegradually
For the midperiod amplification factors as the site pe-riods increase the amplification by the first mode of the soildeposits is included in the integration range us themidperiod amplification factors increase gradually
When the sites are classified by the site period Figure 14shows the design response spectra (DRS-2) resulting fromthe site amplification factors depending on the site period
eDRS-2 was compared with the numerical analysis resultsand the response spectra of the IBC 2015 e EPGA was022 g
In Figures 14(a)ndash14(d) when the site periods were in therange of 005ndash04 s the short-period spectral accelerations ofthe DRS-2 calculated from equation (8a)ndash(8c) were close tothe maximum spectral accelerations corresponding to thefirst-mode period of the soil deposits
When the site periods range from 04 to 06 s(Figures 14(e) and 14(f )) the site period was increased bythe nonlinear properties of the soil deposits and the am-plification range was between the constant-accelerationrange and the constant-velocity range However themidperiod amplification factor Fv was defined at theperiod of 10 s us in Figures 14(e) and 14(f ) themidperiod site amplification factor of DRS-2 un-derestimates the response amplification by the in-termediate site period
Figures 14(g) and 14(h) show the DRS-2 of the sites withperiods greater than 06 s e responses of the long-periodstructures affected by the first mode site periods and theresponses of the short period structures affected by thehigher modes of the soil deposits are described well by themidperiod and the short-period site amplification factors
As shown in Figures 14(b)ndash14(e) the response ampli-fication occurred in the range of the site period Howeveralthough the site amplification factors were defined with thesite period DRS-2 did not describe the response amplifi-cation is is because the constant-acceleration range didnot capture the range of the site amplification is resultindicates that when the site period is used for the site classcriterion the form of the design response spectrum as well asthe site amplification factors should be defined by the siteperiod
323 Step-3 Proposed Design Response Spectrum-3 (DRS-3)e numerical analysis results showed that response am-plification occurred due to resonance between the soil andstructure and that the site periods varied with soil depth Toaddress these results a new form of design response spec-trum with three site classes is proposed
First the sites are classified into three site classes (1)short-period sites (TGlt 04 s) (2) midperiod sites(04ltTGlt 07 s) and (3) long-period sites (07 sltTG) Onthe basis of the amplification factors in Figure 13 ampli-fication factors corresponding to the three site classes areproposed in Table 7 In the case of IBC 2015 the constant-acceleration range is determined by Ts (Fv25Fa) andT0 02Ts
Figure 15 shows the proposed design response spectrum(DRS-3) that is defined by the site period TG To include thefirst-mode periods of short-period sites or second-modeperiods of midperiod and long-period sites the constant-acceleration ranges are extended to T1 T2 is a corner periodto include the response amplifications by the higher modesof soil deposits To define the constant-velocity range thespectral accelerations are moved horizontally by(T1 minusTs) Sa SD1(Tminus (T1 minusTs)) in Figure 15
Advances in Civil Engineering 13
In Figure 16 the proposed DRS-3 is compared with thenumerical analysis results and the DRS of IBC 2015 DRS-3agrees with the maximum accelerations and the constant-acceleration range calculated by the numerical analysesUnlike DRS-1 and DRS-2 DRS-3 provides a better de-scription of the range and magnitude of the maximumspectral values in the constant-acceleration range and lessamplified spectral accelerations in the constant-velocityrange
4 Conclusions
Numerical studies were performed to investigate the re-sponse spectra for 487 site conditions in Korea which is amoderate seismic zone with shallow soil depths e mag-nitudes of the earthquake accelerations were scaled to theEPGAs of moderate seismic zones (011 0154 and 022 g)Twelve existing earthquake records and six artificial accel-erations which were adjusted to the target EPGAs wereused for the input ground accelerations e numericalanalysis results were compared with design response spec-trum (DRS) values of IBC 2015 e results of the presentstudy can be summarized as follows
(1) Even within the same site class (VS30 in IBC 2015)the (elastic) periods of the sites varied significantlywith soil depth
(2) e spectral accelerations of structures were sig-nificantly amplified when the site period was close tothe structure period is result indicates that toaccurately predict the effects of soil the response-amplification factor (ie the soil factor) needs to bedefined by the site period rather than by the soilshear modulus (or soil shear velocity)
(3) e responses of structures were amplified by thehigher modes as well as by the first mode of the soildeposite higher modes amplified the responses ofshort-period structures
(4) When the site periods were less than 04 s thespectral accelerations were greater than the DRSvalues corresponding to the site class VS30 in IBC2015 When the site periods ranged from 04 to 06 sthe spectral accelerations were close to the DRSvalues of IBC 2015 When the site periods weregreater than 07 s the spectral accelerations were lessthan the DRS values of IBC 2015
(5) In particular in the case of SE soil (VS30lt 180ms)the spectral accelerations were significantly less thanthe SE DRS values and were close to the unamplifiedDRS values of SB
In this study three steps for the design response spec-trum (DRS) were performed to address the effect of shallowsoil deposits (in Korea) on structure responses In the firststep DRS-1 following the definitions of the site classifica-tion and the site coefficient of IBC 2015 themagnitude of thesite coefficient was estimated based on the numericalanalysis results In the second step DRS-2 the site periodwas used for the site classification and the integration rangesfor the amplification factors were modified In the third stepDRS-3 to enhance the accuracy of the DRS both themagnitude and ranges of the response amplification weredefined by the site period Results of the three steps aresummarized as follows
0 02 04 06 08 1 1205
1
15
2
25
Site period TG (s)
Am
plifi
catio
n fa
ctor
Fa
Mean + σProposed Fa
(a)
Am
plifi
catio
n fa
ctor
Fv
Mean + σProposed Fv
0 02 04 06 08 1 1205
1
15
2
25
3
Site period TG (s)
(b)
Figure 13 Site amplification factors according to site period (DRS-2) (a) Fa (b) Fv
Table 5 Short-period amplification factor according to site period(DRS-2)
TG (s) 00 03 10leTG
Fa 22 22 11
Table 6 Midperiod amplification factor according to site period(DRS-2)
TG (s) 00 04 07leTG
Fv 10 14 24
14 Advances in Civil Engineering
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-2 005 lt TG lt 01s Fa = 220 Fv = 110
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18Sp
ectr
al ac
cele
ratio
n (g
)
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Period T (s)
(a)
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-2 01 lt TG lt 02s Fa = 220 Fv = 115
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(b)
DRS-2 02 lt TG lt 03s Fa = 220 Fv = 125
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(c)
DRS-2 03 lt TG lt 04s Fa = 212 Fv = 135
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TGSp
ectr
al ac
cele
ratio
n (g
)
Period T (s)
(d)
DRS-2 04 lt TG lt 05s Fa = 196 Fv = 157
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(e)
DRS-2 05 lt TG lt 06s Fa = 161 Fv = 207
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2012 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(f )
Figure 14 Continued
Advances in Civil Engineering 15
(1) e DRS of the IBC was developed with theanalysis of seismic ground motions measured atsites located on the West Coast of the United Statesthat have deep soil deposits However in thisstudy DRS-1 underestimated the short-periodspectral accelerations resulting from numericalstudies with a large deviation is indicates thatthe site classification based on VS30 and theconstant-acceleration range did not rationallydescribe the responses of structures affected byshallow soil depth
(2) In DRS-2 the constant-acceleration range of theshort period sites did not accurately predict the rangeof the maximum responses resulting from the nu-merical analysis results us DRS-2 showed unsafevalues for sites with periods of 01ndash05 s
(3) DRS-3 generally agreed with the numerical resultsand described the characteristics of the responsespectrum affected by shallow soil deposits well Forshort site periods the constant-acceleration rangewas narrow and the magnitude was greater than thatof IBC 2015 As the site period increased the range of
DRS-2 06 lt TG lt 07s Fa = 165 Fv = 223
SCSD
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2012 (SB)
SE
(g)
DRS-2 07 lt TG lt 12s Fa = 126 Fv = 240
SCSD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2012 (SB)
(h)
Figure 14 Comparison between numerical analysis results and DRS-2
Table 7 Properties of the proposed DRS-3
TG Fa Fv
Constant-acceleration rangeis study IBC 2015
T2 T1 T0 TS
TGlt 04 s 22 14 01 04 0056 02804 sleTGlt 07 s 17 16 02 06 008 03807 sleTG 14 24 03 09 014 069
TT2 T1
Sa
SDS
Sa = SD1T ndash (T1 ndash TS)
10
SD1
TST0
Figure 15 New form of design response spectrum (DRS-3)
16 Advances in Civil Engineering
the constant acceleration increased being shifted togreater periods and the peak acceleration decreased
Data Availability
e Excel file data used to support the findings of this studyare available from the corresponding author upon request
Conflicts of Interest
e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest
Acknowledgments
is research was supported by the Korea Agency for In-frastructure Technology Advancement (KAIA) funded bythe Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Transport (No18AUDP-B106327-04) and the Basic Science ResearchProgram through the National Research Foundation of
Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education(NRF-2018R1A6A1A07025819)
References
[1] Architectural Institute of Korea (AIK) Korean Building CodeArchitectural Institute of Korea (AIK) Seoul Republic ofKorea 2016
[2] International Code Council (ICC) International BuildingCode International Code Council (ICC) 2015
[3] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) ldquoNEHRPrecommended provisions for seismic regulations for newbuildings and other structuresrdquo Report No FEMA-302Building Seismic Safety CouncilWashington DC USA 1997
[4] GB50011-2001 Code for Seismic Design of Buildings ChinaBuilding Industry Press Beijing China 2001
[5] A Tena-Colunga U Mena-Hernandez L Perez-RochaJ Aviles M Ordaz and J Vilar ldquoUpdated seismic designguidelines for model building code of Mexicordquo EarthquakeSpectra vol 25 no 4 pp 869ndash898 2009
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 TG lt 04s Fa = 220 Fv = 140
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
(a)
05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 04 lt TG lt 07s Fa = 170 Fv = 160
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0
(b)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 07s lt TG Fa = 140 Fv = 240
TG
(c)
Figure 16 Comparison between numerical analysis results and DRS-3 (a) short-period sites (b) Midperiod sites (c) Long-period sites
Advances in Civil Engineering 17
[6] European Committee for Standardization Eurocode 8 Designof Structures for Earthquake Resistance British StandardLondon UK 2003
[7] Mid-America Earthquake Center (MAE Center) ldquoUniformhazard ground motion and response spectra for mid-Americacitiesrdquo MAE Center Report 03-07 Mid-America EarthquakeCenter (MAE Center) Urbana IL USA 2003
[8] H H M Hwang H Lin and J-R Huo ldquoSite coefficients fordesign of buildings in eastern United Statesrdquo Soil Dynamicsand Earthquake Engineering vol 16 no 1 pp 29ndash40 1997
[9] D-S Kim and J-K Yoon ldquoDevelopment of new site classi-fication system for the regions of shallow bedrock in KoreardquoJournal of Earthquake Engineering vol 10 no 3 pp 331ndash3582006
[10] C-G Sun H-S Kim C-K Chung and H-C Chi ldquoSpatialzonations for regional assessment of seismic site effects in theSeoul metropolitan areardquo Soil Dynamics and EarthquakeEngineering vol 56 pp 44ndash56 2014
[11] S-H Lee C-G Sun J-K Yoon and D-S Kim ldquoDevelop-ment and verification of a new site classification system andsite coefficients for regions of shallow bedrock in KoreardquoJournal of Earthquake Engineering vol 16 no 6 pp 795ndash8192012
[12] D S Kim and Y W Choo ldquoDynamic deformation charac-teristics of cohesionless soils in Korea using resonant columntestsrdquo Journal of the Korean Geotechnical Society vol 17 no 5pp 115ndash138 2001
[13] I M Idriss and J I Sun A Computer Program for ConductingEquivalent Linear Seismic Response Analysis of HorizontallyLayered Soil Deposits Civil Engineering Department Centerfor Geotechnical Modelling UC Davis Davis CA USA1992
[14] httpngawest2berkeleyedu[15] S A Nikolaou A GIS Platform for Earthquake Risk Analysis
PhD dissertation State University of New York Buffalo NYUSA 1998
[16] F Naeim A Alimoradi and S Pezeshk ldquoSelection and scalingof ground motion time histories for structural design usinggenetic algorithmsrdquo Earthquake Spectra vol 20 no 2pp 413ndash426 2004
[17] D A Gasparini and E H Vanmarche Simulated EarthquakeMotions Compatible with Prescribed Response Spectra ReportNo R76-4 MIT Department of Civil Engineering Cam-bridge MA USA 1976
[18] American Society of Civil Engineers Standard (ASCE) SeismicAnalysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures and Commen-tary ASCE 4-98 Reston VA USA 2000
[19] Ministry of Construction and Transportation (MCT) SeismicDesign Standard Research Ministry of Construction andTransportation (MCT) Seoul Korea 1997
18 Advances in Civil Engineering
International Journal of
AerospaceEngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
RoboticsJournal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Active and Passive Electronic Components
VLSI Design
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Shock and Vibration
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Civil EngineeringAdvances in
Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Journal of
Advances inOptoElectronics
Hindawiwwwhindawicom
Volume 2018
Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013Hindawiwwwhindawicom
The Scientific World Journal
Volume 2018
Control Scienceand Engineering
Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom
Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2018
SensorsJournal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
International Journal of
RotatingMachinery
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Modelling ampSimulationin EngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and
Propagation
International Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Navigation and Observation
International Journal of
Hindawi
wwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in
Multimedia
Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom
where SDS and SD1 are the design spectral accelerationsfor short periods and 1 s period respectively SDS Stimes
25 times Fa times (23) and SD1 S times Fv times (23) S is the referenceeffective ground acceleration for the rock site Ts SD1SDSand T0 02 (SD1SDS) Equations (4) and (5) indicate thedesign spectral accelerations for the constant-accelerationrange and the constant-velocity range respectively
To address the numerical analysis results in the DRS andsoil factors the short-period (constant acceleration-related)amplification factor Fa and themidperiod (constant velocity-related) amplification factor Fv were evaluated e ampli-fication factors were calculated as the ratio (RRS) of theresponse spectral value for the soil to the spectral value forthe outcropping rock According to FEMA 1997 Fa and Fvare defined as follows
Fa(RRS) Rsoil
Rrock
104
111394605
01
RSsoil(T)
RSrock(T)dT (6)
Fv(RRS) Rsoil
Rrock
116
111394620
04
RSsoil(T)
RSrock(T)dT (7)
where RSsoil(T) and RSrock(T) are the spectral accelerationscorresponding to the soil and rock respectively at a givenstructure period T and Rsoil and Rrock are the hypocentral
distances from the soil and rock stationse ratio RsoilRrockwas assumed to be 10 in this study
e calculated Fa and Fv are presented in Tables 3 and 4according to the level of the EPGA In the tables ldquoIBC 2015rdquorefers to the amplification factors specified in IBC 2015 andldquoAnalysis resultrdquo refers to the amplification factors (fromequations (6) and (7)) based on the results of numericalanalyses e constant acceleration-related amplificationfactor Fa in IBC 2015 continues to increase as the site classchanges from SB to SE However in the proposed DRS-1 theFa value of SC is greater than those of the SD and SE sites Forthe SE site because the increased damping ratio due to thenonlinearity of soil reduced the site responses of higherorders the mean value of Fa is less than 10
In the case of the proposed Fv values the responseamplification increases as the site class changes from SB toSE However the amplification is less than that of IBC 2015As the EPGA increases the proposed Fv values decreases toclose to those of IBC 2015 which is attributed to the de-creased stiffness and increased damping of the nonlinear soilbehavior
Figure 12 compares the response spectra from (1) nu-merical analysis (2) the proposed amplification factor (DRS-1) and (3) IBC 2015 e EPGA was 022 g For the am-plification factors of DRS-1 the mean (+) standard deviation
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
larr Site period TG = 026s
Depth to bedrock = 205mVS30 = 3454ms
(a)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
larr Site period TG = 038s
Depth to bedrock = 320mVS30 = 3427ms
(b)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
larr Site period TG = 058s
Depth to bedrock = 508mVS30 = 3428ms
(c)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
larr Site period TG = 095s
Depth to bedrock = 800mVS30 = 3308ms
(d)
Figure 10 Response spectrum resulting from numerical analysis of four SD sites with depth to bedrock (a) 205m (b) 320m (c) 508m (d)800m
10 Advances in Civil Engineering
in Tables 3 and 4 was used Figure 12 shows the responsespectra obtained from the numerical analysis results for the487 sites in Korea A response spectrum curve in the figureindicates the average of the response spectra for 18 input
accelerations for a site conditione numerical results wereclassified as SB to SE by the site class criterion VS30 enumber of sites that belonged to SB SC SD and SE were 9302 161 and 15 respectively
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
larr Site period TG = 054s
Depth to bedrock = 305mVS30 = 1723ms
(a)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
larr Site period TG = 069s
Depth to bedrock = 370mVS30 = 1790ms
(b)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
larr Site period TG = 091s
Depth to bedrock = 403mVS30 = 1747ms
(c)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
Site period TG = 114s rarr
Depth to bedrock = 507mVS30 = 1710ms
(d)
Figure 11 Response spectrum resulting from numerical analysis of four SE sites with depth to bedrock (a) 305m (b) 370m (c) 403m (d)507m
Table 3 Short-period amplification factor (DRS-1)
500-year return period (011 g) 1000-year return period (0154 g) 2400-year return period (022 g)
IBC 2015Analysis result
IBC 2015Analysis result
IBC 2015Analysis result
Mean σlowast Mean σ Mean σSB 100 106 0019 100 106 0019 100 106 0024SC 120 158 0296 120 155 0307 118 151 0320SD 158 150 0328 149 142 0337 136 127 0359SE 244 106 0336 218 098 0338 178 082 0316lowastStandard deviation
Table 4 Midperiod amplification factor (DRS-1)
500-year return period (011 g) 1000-year return period (0154 g) 2400-year return period (022 g)
IBC 2015Analysis result
IBC 2015Analysis result
IBC 2015Analysis result
Mean σlowast Mean σ Mean σSB 100 100 0001 100 101 0001 100 100 0021SC 169 115 0123 165 117 0130 158 121 0148SD 236 149 0141 218 151 0141 196 156 0126SE 347 201 0265 334 197 0300 312 185 0384
Advances in Civil Engineering 11
In Figure 12(a) for the SB sites the site coefficients Faand Fv estimated from numerical analysis were close to 10(Tables 3 and 4) e proposed response spectrum of DRS-1is similar to the DRS in IBC 2015 except for the very short-period range For the SB sites in Korea (based on VS30)because the depth of the soil deposits was very shallowranging from 60 to 100m the dynamic period of the soil isvery short For this reason in the numerical results thestructure responses in the range of very short periods wereamplified significantly due to resonance between the soil andthe structure However because Fa is defined in a relativelylarge range of short periods (01ndash05 s (equation (6))) thehigh response amplification for very short periods less than02 s was not properly captured by the definition of Fa
In the case of the SC sites (Figure 12(b)) the proposed Favalue (mean + σ) is greater than that of the SC class in IBC2015 whereas the Fv value (mean + σ) is smaller As the siteperiods of the SC class range from 006 to 066 s the max-imum response amplification occurred in this range istrend agrees with the results from previous studies ([9 11])for the shallow soil conditions in Korea When the proposed
site coefficients were used in the range of 02ndash07 s theresponse spectral values of DRS-1 underestimated themaximum values obtained from the numerical analysis InFigure 12(c) the trend of the DRS-1 for the SD sites wassimilar to that for the SC sitese response spectral values ofDRS-1 underestimated the maximum numerical results inthe range of 03ndash08 s For the SE sites having VS30 values lessthan 180ms (Figure 12(d)) the proposed Fa value(mean + σ) was 113 In the short-period range the DRS-1was significantly less than the SE DRS values in IBC 2015 andwas close to the SB DRS values e proposed Fv value(mean + σ) was close to that of the SD DRS values in IBC2015 ese results indicate that response amplificationoccurred only for the long-period structures and that theamplification was not significant
In terms of the trends of the response amplificationdesign response spectra using the proposed site coefficients(DRS-1) differ from the analysis results Particularly for theSC and SD site classes the DRS-1 does not accurately capturethe maximum spectral accelerations and the amplificationranges affected by the site periods ese results indicate that
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 Site class SB Fa = 108 Fv = 102
TG
(a)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 Site class SC Fa = 184 Fv = 135
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)IBC 2015 (SC)
TG
(b)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
DRS-1 Site class SD Fa = 163 Fv = 168
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
TG
(c)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
DRS-1 Site class SE Fa = 113 Fv = 224
TG
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
(d)
Figure 12 Comparison between numerical analysis results and DRS-1 (a) SB (b) SC (c) SD (d) SE sites
12 Advances in Civil Engineering
when the definitions for Fa and Fv coefficients of IBC areused the DRS-1 can lead to unsafe seismic designs ofstructures
As shown in Figures 8ndash11 although the site classes(VS30) are identical the site periods can differ significantlydepending on the stiffness and depth of the soil deposits Forexample for the SC site class (VS30) the site periods varyfrom 0058 to 066 s in Table 1 us it is unreasonable todefine the dynamic properties of the soils with the VS30values alone
322 Step-2 Site Classification and Site Coefficients Based onSite Period (DRS-2) As mentioned in the previous sectionsite classification based on the VS30 does not accuratelydescribe the characteristics of the site responses Furtherwhen the depth to bedrock is less than 30m the properties ofthe bedrock are included in the definition of VS30 Howeverwhen the depth to bedrock is greater than 30m the entiresoil strata are not included in the site classification
us in DRS-2 the site period was used as the site classcriterion and the short-period and midperiod site ampli-fication factors were defined according to the site period asproposed in Figure 13 e amplification factors are sum-marized in Tables 5 and 6 e proposed amplificationfactors according to the site periods were calculated asfollows
Fa 1
Ta minusTb1113946
Ta
Tb
RSsoil(T)
RSrock(T)dT (8a)
Ta min 13TG 065( 1113857 (8b)
Tb min 03TG 02( 1113857 (8c)
Fv 105
111394615
10
RSsoil(T)
RSrock(T)dT (9)
In equations (8a)ndash(8c) for Fa the ranges Ta and Tb ofthe integration are defined by the site period TG and themaximum period is limited to 065 s For Fv the range of theintegration in equation (9) is reduced to safely define theamplification factors in the constant-velocity range
In Figure 13(a) when the site periods are shorter than03 s the short-period amplification factors are greater thanthe amplification of 184 for the SC site in Figure 12(b)calculated from equation (6) When the site period is outsidethe integration range the amplification by the first mode ofthe soil deposits does not occur in the integration rangeus as the site periods increase beyond the integrationrange the short-period amplification factors decreasegradually
For the midperiod amplification factors as the site pe-riods increase the amplification by the first mode of the soildeposits is included in the integration range us themidperiod amplification factors increase gradually
When the sites are classified by the site period Figure 14shows the design response spectra (DRS-2) resulting fromthe site amplification factors depending on the site period
eDRS-2 was compared with the numerical analysis resultsand the response spectra of the IBC 2015 e EPGA was022 g
In Figures 14(a)ndash14(d) when the site periods were in therange of 005ndash04 s the short-period spectral accelerations ofthe DRS-2 calculated from equation (8a)ndash(8c) were close tothe maximum spectral accelerations corresponding to thefirst-mode period of the soil deposits
When the site periods range from 04 to 06 s(Figures 14(e) and 14(f )) the site period was increased bythe nonlinear properties of the soil deposits and the am-plification range was between the constant-accelerationrange and the constant-velocity range However themidperiod amplification factor Fv was defined at theperiod of 10 s us in Figures 14(e) and 14(f ) themidperiod site amplification factor of DRS-2 un-derestimates the response amplification by the in-termediate site period
Figures 14(g) and 14(h) show the DRS-2 of the sites withperiods greater than 06 s e responses of the long-periodstructures affected by the first mode site periods and theresponses of the short period structures affected by thehigher modes of the soil deposits are described well by themidperiod and the short-period site amplification factors
As shown in Figures 14(b)ndash14(e) the response ampli-fication occurred in the range of the site period Howeveralthough the site amplification factors were defined with thesite period DRS-2 did not describe the response amplifi-cation is is because the constant-acceleration range didnot capture the range of the site amplification is resultindicates that when the site period is used for the site classcriterion the form of the design response spectrum as well asthe site amplification factors should be defined by the siteperiod
323 Step-3 Proposed Design Response Spectrum-3 (DRS-3)e numerical analysis results showed that response am-plification occurred due to resonance between the soil andstructure and that the site periods varied with soil depth Toaddress these results a new form of design response spec-trum with three site classes is proposed
First the sites are classified into three site classes (1)short-period sites (TGlt 04 s) (2) midperiod sites(04ltTGlt 07 s) and (3) long-period sites (07 sltTG) Onthe basis of the amplification factors in Figure 13 ampli-fication factors corresponding to the three site classes areproposed in Table 7 In the case of IBC 2015 the constant-acceleration range is determined by Ts (Fv25Fa) andT0 02Ts
Figure 15 shows the proposed design response spectrum(DRS-3) that is defined by the site period TG To include thefirst-mode periods of short-period sites or second-modeperiods of midperiod and long-period sites the constant-acceleration ranges are extended to T1 T2 is a corner periodto include the response amplifications by the higher modesof soil deposits To define the constant-velocity range thespectral accelerations are moved horizontally by(T1 minusTs) Sa SD1(Tminus (T1 minusTs)) in Figure 15
Advances in Civil Engineering 13
In Figure 16 the proposed DRS-3 is compared with thenumerical analysis results and the DRS of IBC 2015 DRS-3agrees with the maximum accelerations and the constant-acceleration range calculated by the numerical analysesUnlike DRS-1 and DRS-2 DRS-3 provides a better de-scription of the range and magnitude of the maximumspectral values in the constant-acceleration range and lessamplified spectral accelerations in the constant-velocityrange
4 Conclusions
Numerical studies were performed to investigate the re-sponse spectra for 487 site conditions in Korea which is amoderate seismic zone with shallow soil depths e mag-nitudes of the earthquake accelerations were scaled to theEPGAs of moderate seismic zones (011 0154 and 022 g)Twelve existing earthquake records and six artificial accel-erations which were adjusted to the target EPGAs wereused for the input ground accelerations e numericalanalysis results were compared with design response spec-trum (DRS) values of IBC 2015 e results of the presentstudy can be summarized as follows
(1) Even within the same site class (VS30 in IBC 2015)the (elastic) periods of the sites varied significantlywith soil depth
(2) e spectral accelerations of structures were sig-nificantly amplified when the site period was close tothe structure period is result indicates that toaccurately predict the effects of soil the response-amplification factor (ie the soil factor) needs to bedefined by the site period rather than by the soilshear modulus (or soil shear velocity)
(3) e responses of structures were amplified by thehigher modes as well as by the first mode of the soildeposite higher modes amplified the responses ofshort-period structures
(4) When the site periods were less than 04 s thespectral accelerations were greater than the DRSvalues corresponding to the site class VS30 in IBC2015 When the site periods ranged from 04 to 06 sthe spectral accelerations were close to the DRSvalues of IBC 2015 When the site periods weregreater than 07 s the spectral accelerations were lessthan the DRS values of IBC 2015
(5) In particular in the case of SE soil (VS30lt 180ms)the spectral accelerations were significantly less thanthe SE DRS values and were close to the unamplifiedDRS values of SB
In this study three steps for the design response spec-trum (DRS) were performed to address the effect of shallowsoil deposits (in Korea) on structure responses In the firststep DRS-1 following the definitions of the site classifica-tion and the site coefficient of IBC 2015 themagnitude of thesite coefficient was estimated based on the numericalanalysis results In the second step DRS-2 the site periodwas used for the site classification and the integration rangesfor the amplification factors were modified In the third stepDRS-3 to enhance the accuracy of the DRS both themagnitude and ranges of the response amplification weredefined by the site period Results of the three steps aresummarized as follows
0 02 04 06 08 1 1205
1
15
2
25
Site period TG (s)
Am
plifi
catio
n fa
ctor
Fa
Mean + σProposed Fa
(a)
Am
plifi
catio
n fa
ctor
Fv
Mean + σProposed Fv
0 02 04 06 08 1 1205
1
15
2
25
3
Site period TG (s)
(b)
Figure 13 Site amplification factors according to site period (DRS-2) (a) Fa (b) Fv
Table 5 Short-period amplification factor according to site period(DRS-2)
TG (s) 00 03 10leTG
Fa 22 22 11
Table 6 Midperiod amplification factor according to site period(DRS-2)
TG (s) 00 04 07leTG
Fv 10 14 24
14 Advances in Civil Engineering
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-2 005 lt TG lt 01s Fa = 220 Fv = 110
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18Sp
ectr
al ac
cele
ratio
n (g
)
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Period T (s)
(a)
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-2 01 lt TG lt 02s Fa = 220 Fv = 115
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(b)
DRS-2 02 lt TG lt 03s Fa = 220 Fv = 125
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(c)
DRS-2 03 lt TG lt 04s Fa = 212 Fv = 135
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TGSp
ectr
al ac
cele
ratio
n (g
)
Period T (s)
(d)
DRS-2 04 lt TG lt 05s Fa = 196 Fv = 157
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(e)
DRS-2 05 lt TG lt 06s Fa = 161 Fv = 207
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2012 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(f )
Figure 14 Continued
Advances in Civil Engineering 15
(1) e DRS of the IBC was developed with theanalysis of seismic ground motions measured atsites located on the West Coast of the United Statesthat have deep soil deposits However in thisstudy DRS-1 underestimated the short-periodspectral accelerations resulting from numericalstudies with a large deviation is indicates thatthe site classification based on VS30 and theconstant-acceleration range did not rationallydescribe the responses of structures affected byshallow soil depth
(2) In DRS-2 the constant-acceleration range of theshort period sites did not accurately predict the rangeof the maximum responses resulting from the nu-merical analysis results us DRS-2 showed unsafevalues for sites with periods of 01ndash05 s
(3) DRS-3 generally agreed with the numerical resultsand described the characteristics of the responsespectrum affected by shallow soil deposits well Forshort site periods the constant-acceleration rangewas narrow and the magnitude was greater than thatof IBC 2015 As the site period increased the range of
DRS-2 06 lt TG lt 07s Fa = 165 Fv = 223
SCSD
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2012 (SB)
SE
(g)
DRS-2 07 lt TG lt 12s Fa = 126 Fv = 240
SCSD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2012 (SB)
(h)
Figure 14 Comparison between numerical analysis results and DRS-2
Table 7 Properties of the proposed DRS-3
TG Fa Fv
Constant-acceleration rangeis study IBC 2015
T2 T1 T0 TS
TGlt 04 s 22 14 01 04 0056 02804 sleTGlt 07 s 17 16 02 06 008 03807 sleTG 14 24 03 09 014 069
TT2 T1
Sa
SDS
Sa = SD1T ndash (T1 ndash TS)
10
SD1
TST0
Figure 15 New form of design response spectrum (DRS-3)
16 Advances in Civil Engineering
the constant acceleration increased being shifted togreater periods and the peak acceleration decreased
Data Availability
e Excel file data used to support the findings of this studyare available from the corresponding author upon request
Conflicts of Interest
e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest
Acknowledgments
is research was supported by the Korea Agency for In-frastructure Technology Advancement (KAIA) funded bythe Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Transport (No18AUDP-B106327-04) and the Basic Science ResearchProgram through the National Research Foundation of
Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education(NRF-2018R1A6A1A07025819)
References
[1] Architectural Institute of Korea (AIK) Korean Building CodeArchitectural Institute of Korea (AIK) Seoul Republic ofKorea 2016
[2] International Code Council (ICC) International BuildingCode International Code Council (ICC) 2015
[3] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) ldquoNEHRPrecommended provisions for seismic regulations for newbuildings and other structuresrdquo Report No FEMA-302Building Seismic Safety CouncilWashington DC USA 1997
[4] GB50011-2001 Code for Seismic Design of Buildings ChinaBuilding Industry Press Beijing China 2001
[5] A Tena-Colunga U Mena-Hernandez L Perez-RochaJ Aviles M Ordaz and J Vilar ldquoUpdated seismic designguidelines for model building code of Mexicordquo EarthquakeSpectra vol 25 no 4 pp 869ndash898 2009
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 TG lt 04s Fa = 220 Fv = 140
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
(a)
05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 04 lt TG lt 07s Fa = 170 Fv = 160
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0
(b)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 07s lt TG Fa = 140 Fv = 240
TG
(c)
Figure 16 Comparison between numerical analysis results and DRS-3 (a) short-period sites (b) Midperiod sites (c) Long-period sites
Advances in Civil Engineering 17
[6] European Committee for Standardization Eurocode 8 Designof Structures for Earthquake Resistance British StandardLondon UK 2003
[7] Mid-America Earthquake Center (MAE Center) ldquoUniformhazard ground motion and response spectra for mid-Americacitiesrdquo MAE Center Report 03-07 Mid-America EarthquakeCenter (MAE Center) Urbana IL USA 2003
[8] H H M Hwang H Lin and J-R Huo ldquoSite coefficients fordesign of buildings in eastern United Statesrdquo Soil Dynamicsand Earthquake Engineering vol 16 no 1 pp 29ndash40 1997
[9] D-S Kim and J-K Yoon ldquoDevelopment of new site classi-fication system for the regions of shallow bedrock in KoreardquoJournal of Earthquake Engineering vol 10 no 3 pp 331ndash3582006
[10] C-G Sun H-S Kim C-K Chung and H-C Chi ldquoSpatialzonations for regional assessment of seismic site effects in theSeoul metropolitan areardquo Soil Dynamics and EarthquakeEngineering vol 56 pp 44ndash56 2014
[11] S-H Lee C-G Sun J-K Yoon and D-S Kim ldquoDevelop-ment and verification of a new site classification system andsite coefficients for regions of shallow bedrock in KoreardquoJournal of Earthquake Engineering vol 16 no 6 pp 795ndash8192012
[12] D S Kim and Y W Choo ldquoDynamic deformation charac-teristics of cohesionless soils in Korea using resonant columntestsrdquo Journal of the Korean Geotechnical Society vol 17 no 5pp 115ndash138 2001
[13] I M Idriss and J I Sun A Computer Program for ConductingEquivalent Linear Seismic Response Analysis of HorizontallyLayered Soil Deposits Civil Engineering Department Centerfor Geotechnical Modelling UC Davis Davis CA USA1992
[14] httpngawest2berkeleyedu[15] S A Nikolaou A GIS Platform for Earthquake Risk Analysis
PhD dissertation State University of New York Buffalo NYUSA 1998
[16] F Naeim A Alimoradi and S Pezeshk ldquoSelection and scalingof ground motion time histories for structural design usinggenetic algorithmsrdquo Earthquake Spectra vol 20 no 2pp 413ndash426 2004
[17] D A Gasparini and E H Vanmarche Simulated EarthquakeMotions Compatible with Prescribed Response Spectra ReportNo R76-4 MIT Department of Civil Engineering Cam-bridge MA USA 1976
[18] American Society of Civil Engineers Standard (ASCE) SeismicAnalysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures and Commen-tary ASCE 4-98 Reston VA USA 2000
[19] Ministry of Construction and Transportation (MCT) SeismicDesign Standard Research Ministry of Construction andTransportation (MCT) Seoul Korea 1997
18 Advances in Civil Engineering
International Journal of
AerospaceEngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
RoboticsJournal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Active and Passive Electronic Components
VLSI Design
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Shock and Vibration
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Civil EngineeringAdvances in
Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Journal of
Advances inOptoElectronics
Hindawiwwwhindawicom
Volume 2018
Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013Hindawiwwwhindawicom
The Scientific World Journal
Volume 2018
Control Scienceand Engineering
Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom
Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2018
SensorsJournal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
International Journal of
RotatingMachinery
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Modelling ampSimulationin EngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and
Propagation
International Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Navigation and Observation
International Journal of
Hindawi
wwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in
Multimedia
Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom
in Tables 3 and 4 was used Figure 12 shows the responsespectra obtained from the numerical analysis results for the487 sites in Korea A response spectrum curve in the figureindicates the average of the response spectra for 18 input
accelerations for a site conditione numerical results wereclassified as SB to SE by the site class criterion VS30 enumber of sites that belonged to SB SC SD and SE were 9302 161 and 15 respectively
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
larr Site period TG = 054s
Depth to bedrock = 305mVS30 = 1723ms
(a)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
larr Site period TG = 069s
Depth to bedrock = 370mVS30 = 1790ms
(b)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
larr Site period TG = 091s
Depth to bedrock = 403mVS30 = 1747ms
(c)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
Site period TG = 114s rarr
Depth to bedrock = 507mVS30 = 1710ms
(d)
Figure 11 Response spectrum resulting from numerical analysis of four SE sites with depth to bedrock (a) 305m (b) 370m (c) 403m (d)507m
Table 3 Short-period amplification factor (DRS-1)
500-year return period (011 g) 1000-year return period (0154 g) 2400-year return period (022 g)
IBC 2015Analysis result
IBC 2015Analysis result
IBC 2015Analysis result
Mean σlowast Mean σ Mean σSB 100 106 0019 100 106 0019 100 106 0024SC 120 158 0296 120 155 0307 118 151 0320SD 158 150 0328 149 142 0337 136 127 0359SE 244 106 0336 218 098 0338 178 082 0316lowastStandard deviation
Table 4 Midperiod amplification factor (DRS-1)
500-year return period (011 g) 1000-year return period (0154 g) 2400-year return period (022 g)
IBC 2015Analysis result
IBC 2015Analysis result
IBC 2015Analysis result
Mean σlowast Mean σ Mean σSB 100 100 0001 100 101 0001 100 100 0021SC 169 115 0123 165 117 0130 158 121 0148SD 236 149 0141 218 151 0141 196 156 0126SE 347 201 0265 334 197 0300 312 185 0384
Advances in Civil Engineering 11
In Figure 12(a) for the SB sites the site coefficients Faand Fv estimated from numerical analysis were close to 10(Tables 3 and 4) e proposed response spectrum of DRS-1is similar to the DRS in IBC 2015 except for the very short-period range For the SB sites in Korea (based on VS30)because the depth of the soil deposits was very shallowranging from 60 to 100m the dynamic period of the soil isvery short For this reason in the numerical results thestructure responses in the range of very short periods wereamplified significantly due to resonance between the soil andthe structure However because Fa is defined in a relativelylarge range of short periods (01ndash05 s (equation (6))) thehigh response amplification for very short periods less than02 s was not properly captured by the definition of Fa
In the case of the SC sites (Figure 12(b)) the proposed Favalue (mean + σ) is greater than that of the SC class in IBC2015 whereas the Fv value (mean + σ) is smaller As the siteperiods of the SC class range from 006 to 066 s the max-imum response amplification occurred in this range istrend agrees with the results from previous studies ([9 11])for the shallow soil conditions in Korea When the proposed
site coefficients were used in the range of 02ndash07 s theresponse spectral values of DRS-1 underestimated themaximum values obtained from the numerical analysis InFigure 12(c) the trend of the DRS-1 for the SD sites wassimilar to that for the SC sitese response spectral values ofDRS-1 underestimated the maximum numerical results inthe range of 03ndash08 s For the SE sites having VS30 values lessthan 180ms (Figure 12(d)) the proposed Fa value(mean + σ) was 113 In the short-period range the DRS-1was significantly less than the SE DRS values in IBC 2015 andwas close to the SB DRS values e proposed Fv value(mean + σ) was close to that of the SD DRS values in IBC2015 ese results indicate that response amplificationoccurred only for the long-period structures and that theamplification was not significant
In terms of the trends of the response amplificationdesign response spectra using the proposed site coefficients(DRS-1) differ from the analysis results Particularly for theSC and SD site classes the DRS-1 does not accurately capturethe maximum spectral accelerations and the amplificationranges affected by the site periods ese results indicate that
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 Site class SB Fa = 108 Fv = 102
TG
(a)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 Site class SC Fa = 184 Fv = 135
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)IBC 2015 (SC)
TG
(b)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
DRS-1 Site class SD Fa = 163 Fv = 168
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
TG
(c)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
DRS-1 Site class SE Fa = 113 Fv = 224
TG
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
(d)
Figure 12 Comparison between numerical analysis results and DRS-1 (a) SB (b) SC (c) SD (d) SE sites
12 Advances in Civil Engineering
when the definitions for Fa and Fv coefficients of IBC areused the DRS-1 can lead to unsafe seismic designs ofstructures
As shown in Figures 8ndash11 although the site classes(VS30) are identical the site periods can differ significantlydepending on the stiffness and depth of the soil deposits Forexample for the SC site class (VS30) the site periods varyfrom 0058 to 066 s in Table 1 us it is unreasonable todefine the dynamic properties of the soils with the VS30values alone
322 Step-2 Site Classification and Site Coefficients Based onSite Period (DRS-2) As mentioned in the previous sectionsite classification based on the VS30 does not accuratelydescribe the characteristics of the site responses Furtherwhen the depth to bedrock is less than 30m the properties ofthe bedrock are included in the definition of VS30 Howeverwhen the depth to bedrock is greater than 30m the entiresoil strata are not included in the site classification
us in DRS-2 the site period was used as the site classcriterion and the short-period and midperiod site ampli-fication factors were defined according to the site period asproposed in Figure 13 e amplification factors are sum-marized in Tables 5 and 6 e proposed amplificationfactors according to the site periods were calculated asfollows
Fa 1
Ta minusTb1113946
Ta
Tb
RSsoil(T)
RSrock(T)dT (8a)
Ta min 13TG 065( 1113857 (8b)
Tb min 03TG 02( 1113857 (8c)
Fv 105
111394615
10
RSsoil(T)
RSrock(T)dT (9)
In equations (8a)ndash(8c) for Fa the ranges Ta and Tb ofthe integration are defined by the site period TG and themaximum period is limited to 065 s For Fv the range of theintegration in equation (9) is reduced to safely define theamplification factors in the constant-velocity range
In Figure 13(a) when the site periods are shorter than03 s the short-period amplification factors are greater thanthe amplification of 184 for the SC site in Figure 12(b)calculated from equation (6) When the site period is outsidethe integration range the amplification by the first mode ofthe soil deposits does not occur in the integration rangeus as the site periods increase beyond the integrationrange the short-period amplification factors decreasegradually
For the midperiod amplification factors as the site pe-riods increase the amplification by the first mode of the soildeposits is included in the integration range us themidperiod amplification factors increase gradually
When the sites are classified by the site period Figure 14shows the design response spectra (DRS-2) resulting fromthe site amplification factors depending on the site period
eDRS-2 was compared with the numerical analysis resultsand the response spectra of the IBC 2015 e EPGA was022 g
In Figures 14(a)ndash14(d) when the site periods were in therange of 005ndash04 s the short-period spectral accelerations ofthe DRS-2 calculated from equation (8a)ndash(8c) were close tothe maximum spectral accelerations corresponding to thefirst-mode period of the soil deposits
When the site periods range from 04 to 06 s(Figures 14(e) and 14(f )) the site period was increased bythe nonlinear properties of the soil deposits and the am-plification range was between the constant-accelerationrange and the constant-velocity range However themidperiod amplification factor Fv was defined at theperiod of 10 s us in Figures 14(e) and 14(f ) themidperiod site amplification factor of DRS-2 un-derestimates the response amplification by the in-termediate site period
Figures 14(g) and 14(h) show the DRS-2 of the sites withperiods greater than 06 s e responses of the long-periodstructures affected by the first mode site periods and theresponses of the short period structures affected by thehigher modes of the soil deposits are described well by themidperiod and the short-period site amplification factors
As shown in Figures 14(b)ndash14(e) the response ampli-fication occurred in the range of the site period Howeveralthough the site amplification factors were defined with thesite period DRS-2 did not describe the response amplifi-cation is is because the constant-acceleration range didnot capture the range of the site amplification is resultindicates that when the site period is used for the site classcriterion the form of the design response spectrum as well asthe site amplification factors should be defined by the siteperiod
323 Step-3 Proposed Design Response Spectrum-3 (DRS-3)e numerical analysis results showed that response am-plification occurred due to resonance between the soil andstructure and that the site periods varied with soil depth Toaddress these results a new form of design response spec-trum with three site classes is proposed
First the sites are classified into three site classes (1)short-period sites (TGlt 04 s) (2) midperiod sites(04ltTGlt 07 s) and (3) long-period sites (07 sltTG) Onthe basis of the amplification factors in Figure 13 ampli-fication factors corresponding to the three site classes areproposed in Table 7 In the case of IBC 2015 the constant-acceleration range is determined by Ts (Fv25Fa) andT0 02Ts
Figure 15 shows the proposed design response spectrum(DRS-3) that is defined by the site period TG To include thefirst-mode periods of short-period sites or second-modeperiods of midperiod and long-period sites the constant-acceleration ranges are extended to T1 T2 is a corner periodto include the response amplifications by the higher modesof soil deposits To define the constant-velocity range thespectral accelerations are moved horizontally by(T1 minusTs) Sa SD1(Tminus (T1 minusTs)) in Figure 15
Advances in Civil Engineering 13
In Figure 16 the proposed DRS-3 is compared with thenumerical analysis results and the DRS of IBC 2015 DRS-3agrees with the maximum accelerations and the constant-acceleration range calculated by the numerical analysesUnlike DRS-1 and DRS-2 DRS-3 provides a better de-scription of the range and magnitude of the maximumspectral values in the constant-acceleration range and lessamplified spectral accelerations in the constant-velocityrange
4 Conclusions
Numerical studies were performed to investigate the re-sponse spectra for 487 site conditions in Korea which is amoderate seismic zone with shallow soil depths e mag-nitudes of the earthquake accelerations were scaled to theEPGAs of moderate seismic zones (011 0154 and 022 g)Twelve existing earthquake records and six artificial accel-erations which were adjusted to the target EPGAs wereused for the input ground accelerations e numericalanalysis results were compared with design response spec-trum (DRS) values of IBC 2015 e results of the presentstudy can be summarized as follows
(1) Even within the same site class (VS30 in IBC 2015)the (elastic) periods of the sites varied significantlywith soil depth
(2) e spectral accelerations of structures were sig-nificantly amplified when the site period was close tothe structure period is result indicates that toaccurately predict the effects of soil the response-amplification factor (ie the soil factor) needs to bedefined by the site period rather than by the soilshear modulus (or soil shear velocity)
(3) e responses of structures were amplified by thehigher modes as well as by the first mode of the soildeposite higher modes amplified the responses ofshort-period structures
(4) When the site periods were less than 04 s thespectral accelerations were greater than the DRSvalues corresponding to the site class VS30 in IBC2015 When the site periods ranged from 04 to 06 sthe spectral accelerations were close to the DRSvalues of IBC 2015 When the site periods weregreater than 07 s the spectral accelerations were lessthan the DRS values of IBC 2015
(5) In particular in the case of SE soil (VS30lt 180ms)the spectral accelerations were significantly less thanthe SE DRS values and were close to the unamplifiedDRS values of SB
In this study three steps for the design response spec-trum (DRS) were performed to address the effect of shallowsoil deposits (in Korea) on structure responses In the firststep DRS-1 following the definitions of the site classifica-tion and the site coefficient of IBC 2015 themagnitude of thesite coefficient was estimated based on the numericalanalysis results In the second step DRS-2 the site periodwas used for the site classification and the integration rangesfor the amplification factors were modified In the third stepDRS-3 to enhance the accuracy of the DRS both themagnitude and ranges of the response amplification weredefined by the site period Results of the three steps aresummarized as follows
0 02 04 06 08 1 1205
1
15
2
25
Site period TG (s)
Am
plifi
catio
n fa
ctor
Fa
Mean + σProposed Fa
(a)
Am
plifi
catio
n fa
ctor
Fv
Mean + σProposed Fv
0 02 04 06 08 1 1205
1
15
2
25
3
Site period TG (s)
(b)
Figure 13 Site amplification factors according to site period (DRS-2) (a) Fa (b) Fv
Table 5 Short-period amplification factor according to site period(DRS-2)
TG (s) 00 03 10leTG
Fa 22 22 11
Table 6 Midperiod amplification factor according to site period(DRS-2)
TG (s) 00 04 07leTG
Fv 10 14 24
14 Advances in Civil Engineering
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-2 005 lt TG lt 01s Fa = 220 Fv = 110
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18Sp
ectr
al ac
cele
ratio
n (g
)
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Period T (s)
(a)
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-2 01 lt TG lt 02s Fa = 220 Fv = 115
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(b)
DRS-2 02 lt TG lt 03s Fa = 220 Fv = 125
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(c)
DRS-2 03 lt TG lt 04s Fa = 212 Fv = 135
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TGSp
ectr
al ac
cele
ratio
n (g
)
Period T (s)
(d)
DRS-2 04 lt TG lt 05s Fa = 196 Fv = 157
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(e)
DRS-2 05 lt TG lt 06s Fa = 161 Fv = 207
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2012 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(f )
Figure 14 Continued
Advances in Civil Engineering 15
(1) e DRS of the IBC was developed with theanalysis of seismic ground motions measured atsites located on the West Coast of the United Statesthat have deep soil deposits However in thisstudy DRS-1 underestimated the short-periodspectral accelerations resulting from numericalstudies with a large deviation is indicates thatthe site classification based on VS30 and theconstant-acceleration range did not rationallydescribe the responses of structures affected byshallow soil depth
(2) In DRS-2 the constant-acceleration range of theshort period sites did not accurately predict the rangeof the maximum responses resulting from the nu-merical analysis results us DRS-2 showed unsafevalues for sites with periods of 01ndash05 s
(3) DRS-3 generally agreed with the numerical resultsand described the characteristics of the responsespectrum affected by shallow soil deposits well Forshort site periods the constant-acceleration rangewas narrow and the magnitude was greater than thatof IBC 2015 As the site period increased the range of
DRS-2 06 lt TG lt 07s Fa = 165 Fv = 223
SCSD
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2012 (SB)
SE
(g)
DRS-2 07 lt TG lt 12s Fa = 126 Fv = 240
SCSD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2012 (SB)
(h)
Figure 14 Comparison between numerical analysis results and DRS-2
Table 7 Properties of the proposed DRS-3
TG Fa Fv
Constant-acceleration rangeis study IBC 2015
T2 T1 T0 TS
TGlt 04 s 22 14 01 04 0056 02804 sleTGlt 07 s 17 16 02 06 008 03807 sleTG 14 24 03 09 014 069
TT2 T1
Sa
SDS
Sa = SD1T ndash (T1 ndash TS)
10
SD1
TST0
Figure 15 New form of design response spectrum (DRS-3)
16 Advances in Civil Engineering
the constant acceleration increased being shifted togreater periods and the peak acceleration decreased
Data Availability
e Excel file data used to support the findings of this studyare available from the corresponding author upon request
Conflicts of Interest
e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest
Acknowledgments
is research was supported by the Korea Agency for In-frastructure Technology Advancement (KAIA) funded bythe Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Transport (No18AUDP-B106327-04) and the Basic Science ResearchProgram through the National Research Foundation of
Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education(NRF-2018R1A6A1A07025819)
References
[1] Architectural Institute of Korea (AIK) Korean Building CodeArchitectural Institute of Korea (AIK) Seoul Republic ofKorea 2016
[2] International Code Council (ICC) International BuildingCode International Code Council (ICC) 2015
[3] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) ldquoNEHRPrecommended provisions for seismic regulations for newbuildings and other structuresrdquo Report No FEMA-302Building Seismic Safety CouncilWashington DC USA 1997
[4] GB50011-2001 Code for Seismic Design of Buildings ChinaBuilding Industry Press Beijing China 2001
[5] A Tena-Colunga U Mena-Hernandez L Perez-RochaJ Aviles M Ordaz and J Vilar ldquoUpdated seismic designguidelines for model building code of Mexicordquo EarthquakeSpectra vol 25 no 4 pp 869ndash898 2009
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 TG lt 04s Fa = 220 Fv = 140
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
(a)
05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 04 lt TG lt 07s Fa = 170 Fv = 160
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0
(b)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 07s lt TG Fa = 140 Fv = 240
TG
(c)
Figure 16 Comparison between numerical analysis results and DRS-3 (a) short-period sites (b) Midperiod sites (c) Long-period sites
Advances in Civil Engineering 17
[6] European Committee for Standardization Eurocode 8 Designof Structures for Earthquake Resistance British StandardLondon UK 2003
[7] Mid-America Earthquake Center (MAE Center) ldquoUniformhazard ground motion and response spectra for mid-Americacitiesrdquo MAE Center Report 03-07 Mid-America EarthquakeCenter (MAE Center) Urbana IL USA 2003
[8] H H M Hwang H Lin and J-R Huo ldquoSite coefficients fordesign of buildings in eastern United Statesrdquo Soil Dynamicsand Earthquake Engineering vol 16 no 1 pp 29ndash40 1997
[9] D-S Kim and J-K Yoon ldquoDevelopment of new site classi-fication system for the regions of shallow bedrock in KoreardquoJournal of Earthquake Engineering vol 10 no 3 pp 331ndash3582006
[10] C-G Sun H-S Kim C-K Chung and H-C Chi ldquoSpatialzonations for regional assessment of seismic site effects in theSeoul metropolitan areardquo Soil Dynamics and EarthquakeEngineering vol 56 pp 44ndash56 2014
[11] S-H Lee C-G Sun J-K Yoon and D-S Kim ldquoDevelop-ment and verification of a new site classification system andsite coefficients for regions of shallow bedrock in KoreardquoJournal of Earthquake Engineering vol 16 no 6 pp 795ndash8192012
[12] D S Kim and Y W Choo ldquoDynamic deformation charac-teristics of cohesionless soils in Korea using resonant columntestsrdquo Journal of the Korean Geotechnical Society vol 17 no 5pp 115ndash138 2001
[13] I M Idriss and J I Sun A Computer Program for ConductingEquivalent Linear Seismic Response Analysis of HorizontallyLayered Soil Deposits Civil Engineering Department Centerfor Geotechnical Modelling UC Davis Davis CA USA1992
[14] httpngawest2berkeleyedu[15] S A Nikolaou A GIS Platform for Earthquake Risk Analysis
PhD dissertation State University of New York Buffalo NYUSA 1998
[16] F Naeim A Alimoradi and S Pezeshk ldquoSelection and scalingof ground motion time histories for structural design usinggenetic algorithmsrdquo Earthquake Spectra vol 20 no 2pp 413ndash426 2004
[17] D A Gasparini and E H Vanmarche Simulated EarthquakeMotions Compatible with Prescribed Response Spectra ReportNo R76-4 MIT Department of Civil Engineering Cam-bridge MA USA 1976
[18] American Society of Civil Engineers Standard (ASCE) SeismicAnalysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures and Commen-tary ASCE 4-98 Reston VA USA 2000
[19] Ministry of Construction and Transportation (MCT) SeismicDesign Standard Research Ministry of Construction andTransportation (MCT) Seoul Korea 1997
18 Advances in Civil Engineering
International Journal of
AerospaceEngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
RoboticsJournal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Active and Passive Electronic Components
VLSI Design
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Shock and Vibration
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Civil EngineeringAdvances in
Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Journal of
Advances inOptoElectronics
Hindawiwwwhindawicom
Volume 2018
Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013Hindawiwwwhindawicom
The Scientific World Journal
Volume 2018
Control Scienceand Engineering
Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom
Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2018
SensorsJournal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
International Journal of
RotatingMachinery
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Modelling ampSimulationin EngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and
Propagation
International Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Navigation and Observation
International Journal of
Hindawi
wwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in
Multimedia
Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom
In Figure 12(a) for the SB sites the site coefficients Faand Fv estimated from numerical analysis were close to 10(Tables 3 and 4) e proposed response spectrum of DRS-1is similar to the DRS in IBC 2015 except for the very short-period range For the SB sites in Korea (based on VS30)because the depth of the soil deposits was very shallowranging from 60 to 100m the dynamic period of the soil isvery short For this reason in the numerical results thestructure responses in the range of very short periods wereamplified significantly due to resonance between the soil andthe structure However because Fa is defined in a relativelylarge range of short periods (01ndash05 s (equation (6))) thehigh response amplification for very short periods less than02 s was not properly captured by the definition of Fa
In the case of the SC sites (Figure 12(b)) the proposed Favalue (mean + σ) is greater than that of the SC class in IBC2015 whereas the Fv value (mean + σ) is smaller As the siteperiods of the SC class range from 006 to 066 s the max-imum response amplification occurred in this range istrend agrees with the results from previous studies ([9 11])for the shallow soil conditions in Korea When the proposed
site coefficients were used in the range of 02ndash07 s theresponse spectral values of DRS-1 underestimated themaximum values obtained from the numerical analysis InFigure 12(c) the trend of the DRS-1 for the SD sites wassimilar to that for the SC sitese response spectral values ofDRS-1 underestimated the maximum numerical results inthe range of 03ndash08 s For the SE sites having VS30 values lessthan 180ms (Figure 12(d)) the proposed Fa value(mean + σ) was 113 In the short-period range the DRS-1was significantly less than the SE DRS values in IBC 2015 andwas close to the SB DRS values e proposed Fv value(mean + σ) was close to that of the SD DRS values in IBC2015 ese results indicate that response amplificationoccurred only for the long-period structures and that theamplification was not significant
In terms of the trends of the response amplificationdesign response spectra using the proposed site coefficients(DRS-1) differ from the analysis results Particularly for theSC and SD site classes the DRS-1 does not accurately capturethe maximum spectral accelerations and the amplificationranges affected by the site periods ese results indicate that
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB)
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 Site class SB Fa = 108 Fv = 102
TG
(a)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 Site class SC Fa = 184 Fv = 135
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)IBC 2015 (SC)
TG
(b)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
DRS-1 Site class SD Fa = 163 Fv = 168
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SD)
TG
(c)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
DRS-1 Site class SE Fa = 113 Fv = 224
TG
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB)
IBC 2015 (SE)
(d)
Figure 12 Comparison between numerical analysis results and DRS-1 (a) SB (b) SC (c) SD (d) SE sites
12 Advances in Civil Engineering
when the definitions for Fa and Fv coefficients of IBC areused the DRS-1 can lead to unsafe seismic designs ofstructures
As shown in Figures 8ndash11 although the site classes(VS30) are identical the site periods can differ significantlydepending on the stiffness and depth of the soil deposits Forexample for the SC site class (VS30) the site periods varyfrom 0058 to 066 s in Table 1 us it is unreasonable todefine the dynamic properties of the soils with the VS30values alone
322 Step-2 Site Classification and Site Coefficients Based onSite Period (DRS-2) As mentioned in the previous sectionsite classification based on the VS30 does not accuratelydescribe the characteristics of the site responses Furtherwhen the depth to bedrock is less than 30m the properties ofthe bedrock are included in the definition of VS30 Howeverwhen the depth to bedrock is greater than 30m the entiresoil strata are not included in the site classification
us in DRS-2 the site period was used as the site classcriterion and the short-period and midperiod site ampli-fication factors were defined according to the site period asproposed in Figure 13 e amplification factors are sum-marized in Tables 5 and 6 e proposed amplificationfactors according to the site periods were calculated asfollows
Fa 1
Ta minusTb1113946
Ta
Tb
RSsoil(T)
RSrock(T)dT (8a)
Ta min 13TG 065( 1113857 (8b)
Tb min 03TG 02( 1113857 (8c)
Fv 105
111394615
10
RSsoil(T)
RSrock(T)dT (9)
In equations (8a)ndash(8c) for Fa the ranges Ta and Tb ofthe integration are defined by the site period TG and themaximum period is limited to 065 s For Fv the range of theintegration in equation (9) is reduced to safely define theamplification factors in the constant-velocity range
In Figure 13(a) when the site periods are shorter than03 s the short-period amplification factors are greater thanthe amplification of 184 for the SC site in Figure 12(b)calculated from equation (6) When the site period is outsidethe integration range the amplification by the first mode ofthe soil deposits does not occur in the integration rangeus as the site periods increase beyond the integrationrange the short-period amplification factors decreasegradually
For the midperiod amplification factors as the site pe-riods increase the amplification by the first mode of the soildeposits is included in the integration range us themidperiod amplification factors increase gradually
When the sites are classified by the site period Figure 14shows the design response spectra (DRS-2) resulting fromthe site amplification factors depending on the site period
eDRS-2 was compared with the numerical analysis resultsand the response spectra of the IBC 2015 e EPGA was022 g
In Figures 14(a)ndash14(d) when the site periods were in therange of 005ndash04 s the short-period spectral accelerations ofthe DRS-2 calculated from equation (8a)ndash(8c) were close tothe maximum spectral accelerations corresponding to thefirst-mode period of the soil deposits
When the site periods range from 04 to 06 s(Figures 14(e) and 14(f )) the site period was increased bythe nonlinear properties of the soil deposits and the am-plification range was between the constant-accelerationrange and the constant-velocity range However themidperiod amplification factor Fv was defined at theperiod of 10 s us in Figures 14(e) and 14(f ) themidperiod site amplification factor of DRS-2 un-derestimates the response amplification by the in-termediate site period
Figures 14(g) and 14(h) show the DRS-2 of the sites withperiods greater than 06 s e responses of the long-periodstructures affected by the first mode site periods and theresponses of the short period structures affected by thehigher modes of the soil deposits are described well by themidperiod and the short-period site amplification factors
As shown in Figures 14(b)ndash14(e) the response ampli-fication occurred in the range of the site period Howeveralthough the site amplification factors were defined with thesite period DRS-2 did not describe the response amplifi-cation is is because the constant-acceleration range didnot capture the range of the site amplification is resultindicates that when the site period is used for the site classcriterion the form of the design response spectrum as well asthe site amplification factors should be defined by the siteperiod
323 Step-3 Proposed Design Response Spectrum-3 (DRS-3)e numerical analysis results showed that response am-plification occurred due to resonance between the soil andstructure and that the site periods varied with soil depth Toaddress these results a new form of design response spec-trum with three site classes is proposed
First the sites are classified into three site classes (1)short-period sites (TGlt 04 s) (2) midperiod sites(04ltTGlt 07 s) and (3) long-period sites (07 sltTG) Onthe basis of the amplification factors in Figure 13 ampli-fication factors corresponding to the three site classes areproposed in Table 7 In the case of IBC 2015 the constant-acceleration range is determined by Ts (Fv25Fa) andT0 02Ts
Figure 15 shows the proposed design response spectrum(DRS-3) that is defined by the site period TG To include thefirst-mode periods of short-period sites or second-modeperiods of midperiod and long-period sites the constant-acceleration ranges are extended to T1 T2 is a corner periodto include the response amplifications by the higher modesof soil deposits To define the constant-velocity range thespectral accelerations are moved horizontally by(T1 minusTs) Sa SD1(Tminus (T1 minusTs)) in Figure 15
Advances in Civil Engineering 13
In Figure 16 the proposed DRS-3 is compared with thenumerical analysis results and the DRS of IBC 2015 DRS-3agrees with the maximum accelerations and the constant-acceleration range calculated by the numerical analysesUnlike DRS-1 and DRS-2 DRS-3 provides a better de-scription of the range and magnitude of the maximumspectral values in the constant-acceleration range and lessamplified spectral accelerations in the constant-velocityrange
4 Conclusions
Numerical studies were performed to investigate the re-sponse spectra for 487 site conditions in Korea which is amoderate seismic zone with shallow soil depths e mag-nitudes of the earthquake accelerations were scaled to theEPGAs of moderate seismic zones (011 0154 and 022 g)Twelve existing earthquake records and six artificial accel-erations which were adjusted to the target EPGAs wereused for the input ground accelerations e numericalanalysis results were compared with design response spec-trum (DRS) values of IBC 2015 e results of the presentstudy can be summarized as follows
(1) Even within the same site class (VS30 in IBC 2015)the (elastic) periods of the sites varied significantlywith soil depth
(2) e spectral accelerations of structures were sig-nificantly amplified when the site period was close tothe structure period is result indicates that toaccurately predict the effects of soil the response-amplification factor (ie the soil factor) needs to bedefined by the site period rather than by the soilshear modulus (or soil shear velocity)
(3) e responses of structures were amplified by thehigher modes as well as by the first mode of the soildeposite higher modes amplified the responses ofshort-period structures
(4) When the site periods were less than 04 s thespectral accelerations were greater than the DRSvalues corresponding to the site class VS30 in IBC2015 When the site periods ranged from 04 to 06 sthe spectral accelerations were close to the DRSvalues of IBC 2015 When the site periods weregreater than 07 s the spectral accelerations were lessthan the DRS values of IBC 2015
(5) In particular in the case of SE soil (VS30lt 180ms)the spectral accelerations were significantly less thanthe SE DRS values and were close to the unamplifiedDRS values of SB
In this study three steps for the design response spec-trum (DRS) were performed to address the effect of shallowsoil deposits (in Korea) on structure responses In the firststep DRS-1 following the definitions of the site classifica-tion and the site coefficient of IBC 2015 themagnitude of thesite coefficient was estimated based on the numericalanalysis results In the second step DRS-2 the site periodwas used for the site classification and the integration rangesfor the amplification factors were modified In the third stepDRS-3 to enhance the accuracy of the DRS both themagnitude and ranges of the response amplification weredefined by the site period Results of the three steps aresummarized as follows
0 02 04 06 08 1 1205
1
15
2
25
Site period TG (s)
Am
plifi
catio
n fa
ctor
Fa
Mean + σProposed Fa
(a)
Am
plifi
catio
n fa
ctor
Fv
Mean + σProposed Fv
0 02 04 06 08 1 1205
1
15
2
25
3
Site period TG (s)
(b)
Figure 13 Site amplification factors according to site period (DRS-2) (a) Fa (b) Fv
Table 5 Short-period amplification factor according to site period(DRS-2)
TG (s) 00 03 10leTG
Fa 22 22 11
Table 6 Midperiod amplification factor according to site period(DRS-2)
TG (s) 00 04 07leTG
Fv 10 14 24
14 Advances in Civil Engineering
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-2 005 lt TG lt 01s Fa = 220 Fv = 110
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18Sp
ectr
al ac
cele
ratio
n (g
)
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Period T (s)
(a)
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-2 01 lt TG lt 02s Fa = 220 Fv = 115
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(b)
DRS-2 02 lt TG lt 03s Fa = 220 Fv = 125
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(c)
DRS-2 03 lt TG lt 04s Fa = 212 Fv = 135
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TGSp
ectr
al ac
cele
ratio
n (g
)
Period T (s)
(d)
DRS-2 04 lt TG lt 05s Fa = 196 Fv = 157
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(e)
DRS-2 05 lt TG lt 06s Fa = 161 Fv = 207
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2012 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(f )
Figure 14 Continued
Advances in Civil Engineering 15
(1) e DRS of the IBC was developed with theanalysis of seismic ground motions measured atsites located on the West Coast of the United Statesthat have deep soil deposits However in thisstudy DRS-1 underestimated the short-periodspectral accelerations resulting from numericalstudies with a large deviation is indicates thatthe site classification based on VS30 and theconstant-acceleration range did not rationallydescribe the responses of structures affected byshallow soil depth
(2) In DRS-2 the constant-acceleration range of theshort period sites did not accurately predict the rangeof the maximum responses resulting from the nu-merical analysis results us DRS-2 showed unsafevalues for sites with periods of 01ndash05 s
(3) DRS-3 generally agreed with the numerical resultsand described the characteristics of the responsespectrum affected by shallow soil deposits well Forshort site periods the constant-acceleration rangewas narrow and the magnitude was greater than thatof IBC 2015 As the site period increased the range of
DRS-2 06 lt TG lt 07s Fa = 165 Fv = 223
SCSD
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2012 (SB)
SE
(g)
DRS-2 07 lt TG lt 12s Fa = 126 Fv = 240
SCSD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2012 (SB)
(h)
Figure 14 Comparison between numerical analysis results and DRS-2
Table 7 Properties of the proposed DRS-3
TG Fa Fv
Constant-acceleration rangeis study IBC 2015
T2 T1 T0 TS
TGlt 04 s 22 14 01 04 0056 02804 sleTGlt 07 s 17 16 02 06 008 03807 sleTG 14 24 03 09 014 069
TT2 T1
Sa
SDS
Sa = SD1T ndash (T1 ndash TS)
10
SD1
TST0
Figure 15 New form of design response spectrum (DRS-3)
16 Advances in Civil Engineering
the constant acceleration increased being shifted togreater periods and the peak acceleration decreased
Data Availability
e Excel file data used to support the findings of this studyare available from the corresponding author upon request
Conflicts of Interest
e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest
Acknowledgments
is research was supported by the Korea Agency for In-frastructure Technology Advancement (KAIA) funded bythe Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Transport (No18AUDP-B106327-04) and the Basic Science ResearchProgram through the National Research Foundation of
Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education(NRF-2018R1A6A1A07025819)
References
[1] Architectural Institute of Korea (AIK) Korean Building CodeArchitectural Institute of Korea (AIK) Seoul Republic ofKorea 2016
[2] International Code Council (ICC) International BuildingCode International Code Council (ICC) 2015
[3] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) ldquoNEHRPrecommended provisions for seismic regulations for newbuildings and other structuresrdquo Report No FEMA-302Building Seismic Safety CouncilWashington DC USA 1997
[4] GB50011-2001 Code for Seismic Design of Buildings ChinaBuilding Industry Press Beijing China 2001
[5] A Tena-Colunga U Mena-Hernandez L Perez-RochaJ Aviles M Ordaz and J Vilar ldquoUpdated seismic designguidelines for model building code of Mexicordquo EarthquakeSpectra vol 25 no 4 pp 869ndash898 2009
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 TG lt 04s Fa = 220 Fv = 140
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
(a)
05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 04 lt TG lt 07s Fa = 170 Fv = 160
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0
(b)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 07s lt TG Fa = 140 Fv = 240
TG
(c)
Figure 16 Comparison between numerical analysis results and DRS-3 (a) short-period sites (b) Midperiod sites (c) Long-period sites
Advances in Civil Engineering 17
[6] European Committee for Standardization Eurocode 8 Designof Structures for Earthquake Resistance British StandardLondon UK 2003
[7] Mid-America Earthquake Center (MAE Center) ldquoUniformhazard ground motion and response spectra for mid-Americacitiesrdquo MAE Center Report 03-07 Mid-America EarthquakeCenter (MAE Center) Urbana IL USA 2003
[8] H H M Hwang H Lin and J-R Huo ldquoSite coefficients fordesign of buildings in eastern United Statesrdquo Soil Dynamicsand Earthquake Engineering vol 16 no 1 pp 29ndash40 1997
[9] D-S Kim and J-K Yoon ldquoDevelopment of new site classi-fication system for the regions of shallow bedrock in KoreardquoJournal of Earthquake Engineering vol 10 no 3 pp 331ndash3582006
[10] C-G Sun H-S Kim C-K Chung and H-C Chi ldquoSpatialzonations for regional assessment of seismic site effects in theSeoul metropolitan areardquo Soil Dynamics and EarthquakeEngineering vol 56 pp 44ndash56 2014
[11] S-H Lee C-G Sun J-K Yoon and D-S Kim ldquoDevelop-ment and verification of a new site classification system andsite coefficients for regions of shallow bedrock in KoreardquoJournal of Earthquake Engineering vol 16 no 6 pp 795ndash8192012
[12] D S Kim and Y W Choo ldquoDynamic deformation charac-teristics of cohesionless soils in Korea using resonant columntestsrdquo Journal of the Korean Geotechnical Society vol 17 no 5pp 115ndash138 2001
[13] I M Idriss and J I Sun A Computer Program for ConductingEquivalent Linear Seismic Response Analysis of HorizontallyLayered Soil Deposits Civil Engineering Department Centerfor Geotechnical Modelling UC Davis Davis CA USA1992
[14] httpngawest2berkeleyedu[15] S A Nikolaou A GIS Platform for Earthquake Risk Analysis
PhD dissertation State University of New York Buffalo NYUSA 1998
[16] F Naeim A Alimoradi and S Pezeshk ldquoSelection and scalingof ground motion time histories for structural design usinggenetic algorithmsrdquo Earthquake Spectra vol 20 no 2pp 413ndash426 2004
[17] D A Gasparini and E H Vanmarche Simulated EarthquakeMotions Compatible with Prescribed Response Spectra ReportNo R76-4 MIT Department of Civil Engineering Cam-bridge MA USA 1976
[18] American Society of Civil Engineers Standard (ASCE) SeismicAnalysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures and Commen-tary ASCE 4-98 Reston VA USA 2000
[19] Ministry of Construction and Transportation (MCT) SeismicDesign Standard Research Ministry of Construction andTransportation (MCT) Seoul Korea 1997
18 Advances in Civil Engineering
International Journal of
AerospaceEngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
RoboticsJournal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Active and Passive Electronic Components
VLSI Design
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Shock and Vibration
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Civil EngineeringAdvances in
Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Journal of
Advances inOptoElectronics
Hindawiwwwhindawicom
Volume 2018
Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013Hindawiwwwhindawicom
The Scientific World Journal
Volume 2018
Control Scienceand Engineering
Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom
Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2018
SensorsJournal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
International Journal of
RotatingMachinery
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Modelling ampSimulationin EngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and
Propagation
International Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Navigation and Observation
International Journal of
Hindawi
wwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in
Multimedia
Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom
when the definitions for Fa and Fv coefficients of IBC areused the DRS-1 can lead to unsafe seismic designs ofstructures
As shown in Figures 8ndash11 although the site classes(VS30) are identical the site periods can differ significantlydepending on the stiffness and depth of the soil deposits Forexample for the SC site class (VS30) the site periods varyfrom 0058 to 066 s in Table 1 us it is unreasonable todefine the dynamic properties of the soils with the VS30values alone
322 Step-2 Site Classification and Site Coefficients Based onSite Period (DRS-2) As mentioned in the previous sectionsite classification based on the VS30 does not accuratelydescribe the characteristics of the site responses Furtherwhen the depth to bedrock is less than 30m the properties ofthe bedrock are included in the definition of VS30 Howeverwhen the depth to bedrock is greater than 30m the entiresoil strata are not included in the site classification
us in DRS-2 the site period was used as the site classcriterion and the short-period and midperiod site ampli-fication factors were defined according to the site period asproposed in Figure 13 e amplification factors are sum-marized in Tables 5 and 6 e proposed amplificationfactors according to the site periods were calculated asfollows
Fa 1
Ta minusTb1113946
Ta
Tb
RSsoil(T)
RSrock(T)dT (8a)
Ta min 13TG 065( 1113857 (8b)
Tb min 03TG 02( 1113857 (8c)
Fv 105
111394615
10
RSsoil(T)
RSrock(T)dT (9)
In equations (8a)ndash(8c) for Fa the ranges Ta and Tb ofthe integration are defined by the site period TG and themaximum period is limited to 065 s For Fv the range of theintegration in equation (9) is reduced to safely define theamplification factors in the constant-velocity range
In Figure 13(a) when the site periods are shorter than03 s the short-period amplification factors are greater thanthe amplification of 184 for the SC site in Figure 12(b)calculated from equation (6) When the site period is outsidethe integration range the amplification by the first mode ofthe soil deposits does not occur in the integration rangeus as the site periods increase beyond the integrationrange the short-period amplification factors decreasegradually
For the midperiod amplification factors as the site pe-riods increase the amplification by the first mode of the soildeposits is included in the integration range us themidperiod amplification factors increase gradually
When the sites are classified by the site period Figure 14shows the design response spectra (DRS-2) resulting fromthe site amplification factors depending on the site period
eDRS-2 was compared with the numerical analysis resultsand the response spectra of the IBC 2015 e EPGA was022 g
In Figures 14(a)ndash14(d) when the site periods were in therange of 005ndash04 s the short-period spectral accelerations ofthe DRS-2 calculated from equation (8a)ndash(8c) were close tothe maximum spectral accelerations corresponding to thefirst-mode period of the soil deposits
When the site periods range from 04 to 06 s(Figures 14(e) and 14(f )) the site period was increased bythe nonlinear properties of the soil deposits and the am-plification range was between the constant-accelerationrange and the constant-velocity range However themidperiod amplification factor Fv was defined at theperiod of 10 s us in Figures 14(e) and 14(f ) themidperiod site amplification factor of DRS-2 un-derestimates the response amplification by the in-termediate site period
Figures 14(g) and 14(h) show the DRS-2 of the sites withperiods greater than 06 s e responses of the long-periodstructures affected by the first mode site periods and theresponses of the short period structures affected by thehigher modes of the soil deposits are described well by themidperiod and the short-period site amplification factors
As shown in Figures 14(b)ndash14(e) the response ampli-fication occurred in the range of the site period Howeveralthough the site amplification factors were defined with thesite period DRS-2 did not describe the response amplifi-cation is is because the constant-acceleration range didnot capture the range of the site amplification is resultindicates that when the site period is used for the site classcriterion the form of the design response spectrum as well asthe site amplification factors should be defined by the siteperiod
323 Step-3 Proposed Design Response Spectrum-3 (DRS-3)e numerical analysis results showed that response am-plification occurred due to resonance between the soil andstructure and that the site periods varied with soil depth Toaddress these results a new form of design response spec-trum with three site classes is proposed
First the sites are classified into three site classes (1)short-period sites (TGlt 04 s) (2) midperiod sites(04ltTGlt 07 s) and (3) long-period sites (07 sltTG) Onthe basis of the amplification factors in Figure 13 ampli-fication factors corresponding to the three site classes areproposed in Table 7 In the case of IBC 2015 the constant-acceleration range is determined by Ts (Fv25Fa) andT0 02Ts
Figure 15 shows the proposed design response spectrum(DRS-3) that is defined by the site period TG To include thefirst-mode periods of short-period sites or second-modeperiods of midperiod and long-period sites the constant-acceleration ranges are extended to T1 T2 is a corner periodto include the response amplifications by the higher modesof soil deposits To define the constant-velocity range thespectral accelerations are moved horizontally by(T1 minusTs) Sa SD1(Tminus (T1 minusTs)) in Figure 15
Advances in Civil Engineering 13
In Figure 16 the proposed DRS-3 is compared with thenumerical analysis results and the DRS of IBC 2015 DRS-3agrees with the maximum accelerations and the constant-acceleration range calculated by the numerical analysesUnlike DRS-1 and DRS-2 DRS-3 provides a better de-scription of the range and magnitude of the maximumspectral values in the constant-acceleration range and lessamplified spectral accelerations in the constant-velocityrange
4 Conclusions
Numerical studies were performed to investigate the re-sponse spectra for 487 site conditions in Korea which is amoderate seismic zone with shallow soil depths e mag-nitudes of the earthquake accelerations were scaled to theEPGAs of moderate seismic zones (011 0154 and 022 g)Twelve existing earthquake records and six artificial accel-erations which were adjusted to the target EPGAs wereused for the input ground accelerations e numericalanalysis results were compared with design response spec-trum (DRS) values of IBC 2015 e results of the presentstudy can be summarized as follows
(1) Even within the same site class (VS30 in IBC 2015)the (elastic) periods of the sites varied significantlywith soil depth
(2) e spectral accelerations of structures were sig-nificantly amplified when the site period was close tothe structure period is result indicates that toaccurately predict the effects of soil the response-amplification factor (ie the soil factor) needs to bedefined by the site period rather than by the soilshear modulus (or soil shear velocity)
(3) e responses of structures were amplified by thehigher modes as well as by the first mode of the soildeposite higher modes amplified the responses ofshort-period structures
(4) When the site periods were less than 04 s thespectral accelerations were greater than the DRSvalues corresponding to the site class VS30 in IBC2015 When the site periods ranged from 04 to 06 sthe spectral accelerations were close to the DRSvalues of IBC 2015 When the site periods weregreater than 07 s the spectral accelerations were lessthan the DRS values of IBC 2015
(5) In particular in the case of SE soil (VS30lt 180ms)the spectral accelerations were significantly less thanthe SE DRS values and were close to the unamplifiedDRS values of SB
In this study three steps for the design response spec-trum (DRS) were performed to address the effect of shallowsoil deposits (in Korea) on structure responses In the firststep DRS-1 following the definitions of the site classifica-tion and the site coefficient of IBC 2015 themagnitude of thesite coefficient was estimated based on the numericalanalysis results In the second step DRS-2 the site periodwas used for the site classification and the integration rangesfor the amplification factors were modified In the third stepDRS-3 to enhance the accuracy of the DRS both themagnitude and ranges of the response amplification weredefined by the site period Results of the three steps aresummarized as follows
0 02 04 06 08 1 1205
1
15
2
25
Site period TG (s)
Am
plifi
catio
n fa
ctor
Fa
Mean + σProposed Fa
(a)
Am
plifi
catio
n fa
ctor
Fv
Mean + σProposed Fv
0 02 04 06 08 1 1205
1
15
2
25
3
Site period TG (s)
(b)
Figure 13 Site amplification factors according to site period (DRS-2) (a) Fa (b) Fv
Table 5 Short-period amplification factor according to site period(DRS-2)
TG (s) 00 03 10leTG
Fa 22 22 11
Table 6 Midperiod amplification factor according to site period(DRS-2)
TG (s) 00 04 07leTG
Fv 10 14 24
14 Advances in Civil Engineering
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-2 005 lt TG lt 01s Fa = 220 Fv = 110
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18Sp
ectr
al ac
cele
ratio
n (g
)
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Period T (s)
(a)
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-2 01 lt TG lt 02s Fa = 220 Fv = 115
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(b)
DRS-2 02 lt TG lt 03s Fa = 220 Fv = 125
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(c)
DRS-2 03 lt TG lt 04s Fa = 212 Fv = 135
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TGSp
ectr
al ac
cele
ratio
n (g
)
Period T (s)
(d)
DRS-2 04 lt TG lt 05s Fa = 196 Fv = 157
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(e)
DRS-2 05 lt TG lt 06s Fa = 161 Fv = 207
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2012 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(f )
Figure 14 Continued
Advances in Civil Engineering 15
(1) e DRS of the IBC was developed with theanalysis of seismic ground motions measured atsites located on the West Coast of the United Statesthat have deep soil deposits However in thisstudy DRS-1 underestimated the short-periodspectral accelerations resulting from numericalstudies with a large deviation is indicates thatthe site classification based on VS30 and theconstant-acceleration range did not rationallydescribe the responses of structures affected byshallow soil depth
(2) In DRS-2 the constant-acceleration range of theshort period sites did not accurately predict the rangeof the maximum responses resulting from the nu-merical analysis results us DRS-2 showed unsafevalues for sites with periods of 01ndash05 s
(3) DRS-3 generally agreed with the numerical resultsand described the characteristics of the responsespectrum affected by shallow soil deposits well Forshort site periods the constant-acceleration rangewas narrow and the magnitude was greater than thatof IBC 2015 As the site period increased the range of
DRS-2 06 lt TG lt 07s Fa = 165 Fv = 223
SCSD
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2012 (SB)
SE
(g)
DRS-2 07 lt TG lt 12s Fa = 126 Fv = 240
SCSD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2012 (SB)
(h)
Figure 14 Comparison between numerical analysis results and DRS-2
Table 7 Properties of the proposed DRS-3
TG Fa Fv
Constant-acceleration rangeis study IBC 2015
T2 T1 T0 TS
TGlt 04 s 22 14 01 04 0056 02804 sleTGlt 07 s 17 16 02 06 008 03807 sleTG 14 24 03 09 014 069
TT2 T1
Sa
SDS
Sa = SD1T ndash (T1 ndash TS)
10
SD1
TST0
Figure 15 New form of design response spectrum (DRS-3)
16 Advances in Civil Engineering
the constant acceleration increased being shifted togreater periods and the peak acceleration decreased
Data Availability
e Excel file data used to support the findings of this studyare available from the corresponding author upon request
Conflicts of Interest
e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest
Acknowledgments
is research was supported by the Korea Agency for In-frastructure Technology Advancement (KAIA) funded bythe Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Transport (No18AUDP-B106327-04) and the Basic Science ResearchProgram through the National Research Foundation of
Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education(NRF-2018R1A6A1A07025819)
References
[1] Architectural Institute of Korea (AIK) Korean Building CodeArchitectural Institute of Korea (AIK) Seoul Republic ofKorea 2016
[2] International Code Council (ICC) International BuildingCode International Code Council (ICC) 2015
[3] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) ldquoNEHRPrecommended provisions for seismic regulations for newbuildings and other structuresrdquo Report No FEMA-302Building Seismic Safety CouncilWashington DC USA 1997
[4] GB50011-2001 Code for Seismic Design of Buildings ChinaBuilding Industry Press Beijing China 2001
[5] A Tena-Colunga U Mena-Hernandez L Perez-RochaJ Aviles M Ordaz and J Vilar ldquoUpdated seismic designguidelines for model building code of Mexicordquo EarthquakeSpectra vol 25 no 4 pp 869ndash898 2009
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 TG lt 04s Fa = 220 Fv = 140
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
(a)
05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 04 lt TG lt 07s Fa = 170 Fv = 160
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0
(b)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 07s lt TG Fa = 140 Fv = 240
TG
(c)
Figure 16 Comparison between numerical analysis results and DRS-3 (a) short-period sites (b) Midperiod sites (c) Long-period sites
Advances in Civil Engineering 17
[6] European Committee for Standardization Eurocode 8 Designof Structures for Earthquake Resistance British StandardLondon UK 2003
[7] Mid-America Earthquake Center (MAE Center) ldquoUniformhazard ground motion and response spectra for mid-Americacitiesrdquo MAE Center Report 03-07 Mid-America EarthquakeCenter (MAE Center) Urbana IL USA 2003
[8] H H M Hwang H Lin and J-R Huo ldquoSite coefficients fordesign of buildings in eastern United Statesrdquo Soil Dynamicsand Earthquake Engineering vol 16 no 1 pp 29ndash40 1997
[9] D-S Kim and J-K Yoon ldquoDevelopment of new site classi-fication system for the regions of shallow bedrock in KoreardquoJournal of Earthquake Engineering vol 10 no 3 pp 331ndash3582006
[10] C-G Sun H-S Kim C-K Chung and H-C Chi ldquoSpatialzonations for regional assessment of seismic site effects in theSeoul metropolitan areardquo Soil Dynamics and EarthquakeEngineering vol 56 pp 44ndash56 2014
[11] S-H Lee C-G Sun J-K Yoon and D-S Kim ldquoDevelop-ment and verification of a new site classification system andsite coefficients for regions of shallow bedrock in KoreardquoJournal of Earthquake Engineering vol 16 no 6 pp 795ndash8192012
[12] D S Kim and Y W Choo ldquoDynamic deformation charac-teristics of cohesionless soils in Korea using resonant columntestsrdquo Journal of the Korean Geotechnical Society vol 17 no 5pp 115ndash138 2001
[13] I M Idriss and J I Sun A Computer Program for ConductingEquivalent Linear Seismic Response Analysis of HorizontallyLayered Soil Deposits Civil Engineering Department Centerfor Geotechnical Modelling UC Davis Davis CA USA1992
[14] httpngawest2berkeleyedu[15] S A Nikolaou A GIS Platform for Earthquake Risk Analysis
PhD dissertation State University of New York Buffalo NYUSA 1998
[16] F Naeim A Alimoradi and S Pezeshk ldquoSelection and scalingof ground motion time histories for structural design usinggenetic algorithmsrdquo Earthquake Spectra vol 20 no 2pp 413ndash426 2004
[17] D A Gasparini and E H Vanmarche Simulated EarthquakeMotions Compatible with Prescribed Response Spectra ReportNo R76-4 MIT Department of Civil Engineering Cam-bridge MA USA 1976
[18] American Society of Civil Engineers Standard (ASCE) SeismicAnalysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures and Commen-tary ASCE 4-98 Reston VA USA 2000
[19] Ministry of Construction and Transportation (MCT) SeismicDesign Standard Research Ministry of Construction andTransportation (MCT) Seoul Korea 1997
18 Advances in Civil Engineering
International Journal of
AerospaceEngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
RoboticsJournal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Active and Passive Electronic Components
VLSI Design
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Shock and Vibration
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Civil EngineeringAdvances in
Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Journal of
Advances inOptoElectronics
Hindawiwwwhindawicom
Volume 2018
Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013Hindawiwwwhindawicom
The Scientific World Journal
Volume 2018
Control Scienceand Engineering
Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom
Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2018
SensorsJournal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
International Journal of
RotatingMachinery
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Modelling ampSimulationin EngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and
Propagation
International Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Navigation and Observation
International Journal of
Hindawi
wwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in
Multimedia
Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom
In Figure 16 the proposed DRS-3 is compared with thenumerical analysis results and the DRS of IBC 2015 DRS-3agrees with the maximum accelerations and the constant-acceleration range calculated by the numerical analysesUnlike DRS-1 and DRS-2 DRS-3 provides a better de-scription of the range and magnitude of the maximumspectral values in the constant-acceleration range and lessamplified spectral accelerations in the constant-velocityrange
4 Conclusions
Numerical studies were performed to investigate the re-sponse spectra for 487 site conditions in Korea which is amoderate seismic zone with shallow soil depths e mag-nitudes of the earthquake accelerations were scaled to theEPGAs of moderate seismic zones (011 0154 and 022 g)Twelve existing earthquake records and six artificial accel-erations which were adjusted to the target EPGAs wereused for the input ground accelerations e numericalanalysis results were compared with design response spec-trum (DRS) values of IBC 2015 e results of the presentstudy can be summarized as follows
(1) Even within the same site class (VS30 in IBC 2015)the (elastic) periods of the sites varied significantlywith soil depth
(2) e spectral accelerations of structures were sig-nificantly amplified when the site period was close tothe structure period is result indicates that toaccurately predict the effects of soil the response-amplification factor (ie the soil factor) needs to bedefined by the site period rather than by the soilshear modulus (or soil shear velocity)
(3) e responses of structures were amplified by thehigher modes as well as by the first mode of the soildeposite higher modes amplified the responses ofshort-period structures
(4) When the site periods were less than 04 s thespectral accelerations were greater than the DRSvalues corresponding to the site class VS30 in IBC2015 When the site periods ranged from 04 to 06 sthe spectral accelerations were close to the DRSvalues of IBC 2015 When the site periods weregreater than 07 s the spectral accelerations were lessthan the DRS values of IBC 2015
(5) In particular in the case of SE soil (VS30lt 180ms)the spectral accelerations were significantly less thanthe SE DRS values and were close to the unamplifiedDRS values of SB
In this study three steps for the design response spec-trum (DRS) were performed to address the effect of shallowsoil deposits (in Korea) on structure responses In the firststep DRS-1 following the definitions of the site classifica-tion and the site coefficient of IBC 2015 themagnitude of thesite coefficient was estimated based on the numericalanalysis results In the second step DRS-2 the site periodwas used for the site classification and the integration rangesfor the amplification factors were modified In the third stepDRS-3 to enhance the accuracy of the DRS both themagnitude and ranges of the response amplification weredefined by the site period Results of the three steps aresummarized as follows
0 02 04 06 08 1 1205
1
15
2
25
Site period TG (s)
Am
plifi
catio
n fa
ctor
Fa
Mean + σProposed Fa
(a)
Am
plifi
catio
n fa
ctor
Fv
Mean + σProposed Fv
0 02 04 06 08 1 1205
1
15
2
25
3
Site period TG (s)
(b)
Figure 13 Site amplification factors according to site period (DRS-2) (a) Fa (b) Fv
Table 5 Short-period amplification factor according to site period(DRS-2)
TG (s) 00 03 10leTG
Fa 22 22 11
Table 6 Midperiod amplification factor according to site period(DRS-2)
TG (s) 00 04 07leTG
Fv 10 14 24
14 Advances in Civil Engineering
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-2 005 lt TG lt 01s Fa = 220 Fv = 110
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18Sp
ectr
al ac
cele
ratio
n (g
)
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Period T (s)
(a)
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-2 01 lt TG lt 02s Fa = 220 Fv = 115
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(b)
DRS-2 02 lt TG lt 03s Fa = 220 Fv = 125
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(c)
DRS-2 03 lt TG lt 04s Fa = 212 Fv = 135
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TGSp
ectr
al ac
cele
ratio
n (g
)
Period T (s)
(d)
DRS-2 04 lt TG lt 05s Fa = 196 Fv = 157
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(e)
DRS-2 05 lt TG lt 06s Fa = 161 Fv = 207
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2012 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(f )
Figure 14 Continued
Advances in Civil Engineering 15
(1) e DRS of the IBC was developed with theanalysis of seismic ground motions measured atsites located on the West Coast of the United Statesthat have deep soil deposits However in thisstudy DRS-1 underestimated the short-periodspectral accelerations resulting from numericalstudies with a large deviation is indicates thatthe site classification based on VS30 and theconstant-acceleration range did not rationallydescribe the responses of structures affected byshallow soil depth
(2) In DRS-2 the constant-acceleration range of theshort period sites did not accurately predict the rangeof the maximum responses resulting from the nu-merical analysis results us DRS-2 showed unsafevalues for sites with periods of 01ndash05 s
(3) DRS-3 generally agreed with the numerical resultsand described the characteristics of the responsespectrum affected by shallow soil deposits well Forshort site periods the constant-acceleration rangewas narrow and the magnitude was greater than thatof IBC 2015 As the site period increased the range of
DRS-2 06 lt TG lt 07s Fa = 165 Fv = 223
SCSD
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2012 (SB)
SE
(g)
DRS-2 07 lt TG lt 12s Fa = 126 Fv = 240
SCSD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2012 (SB)
(h)
Figure 14 Comparison between numerical analysis results and DRS-2
Table 7 Properties of the proposed DRS-3
TG Fa Fv
Constant-acceleration rangeis study IBC 2015
T2 T1 T0 TS
TGlt 04 s 22 14 01 04 0056 02804 sleTGlt 07 s 17 16 02 06 008 03807 sleTG 14 24 03 09 014 069
TT2 T1
Sa
SDS
Sa = SD1T ndash (T1 ndash TS)
10
SD1
TST0
Figure 15 New form of design response spectrum (DRS-3)
16 Advances in Civil Engineering
the constant acceleration increased being shifted togreater periods and the peak acceleration decreased
Data Availability
e Excel file data used to support the findings of this studyare available from the corresponding author upon request
Conflicts of Interest
e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest
Acknowledgments
is research was supported by the Korea Agency for In-frastructure Technology Advancement (KAIA) funded bythe Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Transport (No18AUDP-B106327-04) and the Basic Science ResearchProgram through the National Research Foundation of
Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education(NRF-2018R1A6A1A07025819)
References
[1] Architectural Institute of Korea (AIK) Korean Building CodeArchitectural Institute of Korea (AIK) Seoul Republic ofKorea 2016
[2] International Code Council (ICC) International BuildingCode International Code Council (ICC) 2015
[3] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) ldquoNEHRPrecommended provisions for seismic regulations for newbuildings and other structuresrdquo Report No FEMA-302Building Seismic Safety CouncilWashington DC USA 1997
[4] GB50011-2001 Code for Seismic Design of Buildings ChinaBuilding Industry Press Beijing China 2001
[5] A Tena-Colunga U Mena-Hernandez L Perez-RochaJ Aviles M Ordaz and J Vilar ldquoUpdated seismic designguidelines for model building code of Mexicordquo EarthquakeSpectra vol 25 no 4 pp 869ndash898 2009
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 TG lt 04s Fa = 220 Fv = 140
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
(a)
05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 04 lt TG lt 07s Fa = 170 Fv = 160
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0
(b)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 07s lt TG Fa = 140 Fv = 240
TG
(c)
Figure 16 Comparison between numerical analysis results and DRS-3 (a) short-period sites (b) Midperiod sites (c) Long-period sites
Advances in Civil Engineering 17
[6] European Committee for Standardization Eurocode 8 Designof Structures for Earthquake Resistance British StandardLondon UK 2003
[7] Mid-America Earthquake Center (MAE Center) ldquoUniformhazard ground motion and response spectra for mid-Americacitiesrdquo MAE Center Report 03-07 Mid-America EarthquakeCenter (MAE Center) Urbana IL USA 2003
[8] H H M Hwang H Lin and J-R Huo ldquoSite coefficients fordesign of buildings in eastern United Statesrdquo Soil Dynamicsand Earthquake Engineering vol 16 no 1 pp 29ndash40 1997
[9] D-S Kim and J-K Yoon ldquoDevelopment of new site classi-fication system for the regions of shallow bedrock in KoreardquoJournal of Earthquake Engineering vol 10 no 3 pp 331ndash3582006
[10] C-G Sun H-S Kim C-K Chung and H-C Chi ldquoSpatialzonations for regional assessment of seismic site effects in theSeoul metropolitan areardquo Soil Dynamics and EarthquakeEngineering vol 56 pp 44ndash56 2014
[11] S-H Lee C-G Sun J-K Yoon and D-S Kim ldquoDevelop-ment and verification of a new site classification system andsite coefficients for regions of shallow bedrock in KoreardquoJournal of Earthquake Engineering vol 16 no 6 pp 795ndash8192012
[12] D S Kim and Y W Choo ldquoDynamic deformation charac-teristics of cohesionless soils in Korea using resonant columntestsrdquo Journal of the Korean Geotechnical Society vol 17 no 5pp 115ndash138 2001
[13] I M Idriss and J I Sun A Computer Program for ConductingEquivalent Linear Seismic Response Analysis of HorizontallyLayered Soil Deposits Civil Engineering Department Centerfor Geotechnical Modelling UC Davis Davis CA USA1992
[14] httpngawest2berkeleyedu[15] S A Nikolaou A GIS Platform for Earthquake Risk Analysis
PhD dissertation State University of New York Buffalo NYUSA 1998
[16] F Naeim A Alimoradi and S Pezeshk ldquoSelection and scalingof ground motion time histories for structural design usinggenetic algorithmsrdquo Earthquake Spectra vol 20 no 2pp 413ndash426 2004
[17] D A Gasparini and E H Vanmarche Simulated EarthquakeMotions Compatible with Prescribed Response Spectra ReportNo R76-4 MIT Department of Civil Engineering Cam-bridge MA USA 1976
[18] American Society of Civil Engineers Standard (ASCE) SeismicAnalysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures and Commen-tary ASCE 4-98 Reston VA USA 2000
[19] Ministry of Construction and Transportation (MCT) SeismicDesign Standard Research Ministry of Construction andTransportation (MCT) Seoul Korea 1997
18 Advances in Civil Engineering
International Journal of
AerospaceEngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
RoboticsJournal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Active and Passive Electronic Components
VLSI Design
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Shock and Vibration
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Civil EngineeringAdvances in
Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Journal of
Advances inOptoElectronics
Hindawiwwwhindawicom
Volume 2018
Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013Hindawiwwwhindawicom
The Scientific World Journal
Volume 2018
Control Scienceand Engineering
Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom
Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2018
SensorsJournal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
International Journal of
RotatingMachinery
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Modelling ampSimulationin EngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and
Propagation
International Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Navigation and Observation
International Journal of
Hindawi
wwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in
Multimedia
Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-2 005 lt TG lt 01s Fa = 220 Fv = 110
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18Sp
ectr
al ac
cele
ratio
n (g
)
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Period T (s)
(a)
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-2 01 lt TG lt 02s Fa = 220 Fv = 115
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(b)
DRS-2 02 lt TG lt 03s Fa = 220 Fv = 125
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(c)
DRS-2 03 lt TG lt 04s Fa = 212 Fv = 135
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TGSp
ectr
al ac
cele
ratio
n (g
)
Period T (s)
(d)
DRS-2 04 lt TG lt 05s Fa = 196 Fv = 157
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2015 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(e)
DRS-2 05 lt TG lt 06s Fa = 161 Fv = 207
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
IBC 2012 (SB)SC
SD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
Period T (s)
(f )
Figure 14 Continued
Advances in Civil Engineering 15
(1) e DRS of the IBC was developed with theanalysis of seismic ground motions measured atsites located on the West Coast of the United Statesthat have deep soil deposits However in thisstudy DRS-1 underestimated the short-periodspectral accelerations resulting from numericalstudies with a large deviation is indicates thatthe site classification based on VS30 and theconstant-acceleration range did not rationallydescribe the responses of structures affected byshallow soil depth
(2) In DRS-2 the constant-acceleration range of theshort period sites did not accurately predict the rangeof the maximum responses resulting from the nu-merical analysis results us DRS-2 showed unsafevalues for sites with periods of 01ndash05 s
(3) DRS-3 generally agreed with the numerical resultsand described the characteristics of the responsespectrum affected by shallow soil deposits well Forshort site periods the constant-acceleration rangewas narrow and the magnitude was greater than thatof IBC 2015 As the site period increased the range of
DRS-2 06 lt TG lt 07s Fa = 165 Fv = 223
SCSD
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2012 (SB)
SE
(g)
DRS-2 07 lt TG lt 12s Fa = 126 Fv = 240
SCSD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2012 (SB)
(h)
Figure 14 Comparison between numerical analysis results and DRS-2
Table 7 Properties of the proposed DRS-3
TG Fa Fv
Constant-acceleration rangeis study IBC 2015
T2 T1 T0 TS
TGlt 04 s 22 14 01 04 0056 02804 sleTGlt 07 s 17 16 02 06 008 03807 sleTG 14 24 03 09 014 069
TT2 T1
Sa
SDS
Sa = SD1T ndash (T1 ndash TS)
10
SD1
TST0
Figure 15 New form of design response spectrum (DRS-3)
16 Advances in Civil Engineering
the constant acceleration increased being shifted togreater periods and the peak acceleration decreased
Data Availability
e Excel file data used to support the findings of this studyare available from the corresponding author upon request
Conflicts of Interest
e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest
Acknowledgments
is research was supported by the Korea Agency for In-frastructure Technology Advancement (KAIA) funded bythe Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Transport (No18AUDP-B106327-04) and the Basic Science ResearchProgram through the National Research Foundation of
Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education(NRF-2018R1A6A1A07025819)
References
[1] Architectural Institute of Korea (AIK) Korean Building CodeArchitectural Institute of Korea (AIK) Seoul Republic ofKorea 2016
[2] International Code Council (ICC) International BuildingCode International Code Council (ICC) 2015
[3] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) ldquoNEHRPrecommended provisions for seismic regulations for newbuildings and other structuresrdquo Report No FEMA-302Building Seismic Safety CouncilWashington DC USA 1997
[4] GB50011-2001 Code for Seismic Design of Buildings ChinaBuilding Industry Press Beijing China 2001
[5] A Tena-Colunga U Mena-Hernandez L Perez-RochaJ Aviles M Ordaz and J Vilar ldquoUpdated seismic designguidelines for model building code of Mexicordquo EarthquakeSpectra vol 25 no 4 pp 869ndash898 2009
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 TG lt 04s Fa = 220 Fv = 140
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
(a)
05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 04 lt TG lt 07s Fa = 170 Fv = 160
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0
(b)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 07s lt TG Fa = 140 Fv = 240
TG
(c)
Figure 16 Comparison between numerical analysis results and DRS-3 (a) short-period sites (b) Midperiod sites (c) Long-period sites
Advances in Civil Engineering 17
[6] European Committee for Standardization Eurocode 8 Designof Structures for Earthquake Resistance British StandardLondon UK 2003
[7] Mid-America Earthquake Center (MAE Center) ldquoUniformhazard ground motion and response spectra for mid-Americacitiesrdquo MAE Center Report 03-07 Mid-America EarthquakeCenter (MAE Center) Urbana IL USA 2003
[8] H H M Hwang H Lin and J-R Huo ldquoSite coefficients fordesign of buildings in eastern United Statesrdquo Soil Dynamicsand Earthquake Engineering vol 16 no 1 pp 29ndash40 1997
[9] D-S Kim and J-K Yoon ldquoDevelopment of new site classi-fication system for the regions of shallow bedrock in KoreardquoJournal of Earthquake Engineering vol 10 no 3 pp 331ndash3582006
[10] C-G Sun H-S Kim C-K Chung and H-C Chi ldquoSpatialzonations for regional assessment of seismic site effects in theSeoul metropolitan areardquo Soil Dynamics and EarthquakeEngineering vol 56 pp 44ndash56 2014
[11] S-H Lee C-G Sun J-K Yoon and D-S Kim ldquoDevelop-ment and verification of a new site classification system andsite coefficients for regions of shallow bedrock in KoreardquoJournal of Earthquake Engineering vol 16 no 6 pp 795ndash8192012
[12] D S Kim and Y W Choo ldquoDynamic deformation charac-teristics of cohesionless soils in Korea using resonant columntestsrdquo Journal of the Korean Geotechnical Society vol 17 no 5pp 115ndash138 2001
[13] I M Idriss and J I Sun A Computer Program for ConductingEquivalent Linear Seismic Response Analysis of HorizontallyLayered Soil Deposits Civil Engineering Department Centerfor Geotechnical Modelling UC Davis Davis CA USA1992
[14] httpngawest2berkeleyedu[15] S A Nikolaou A GIS Platform for Earthquake Risk Analysis
PhD dissertation State University of New York Buffalo NYUSA 1998
[16] F Naeim A Alimoradi and S Pezeshk ldquoSelection and scalingof ground motion time histories for structural design usinggenetic algorithmsrdquo Earthquake Spectra vol 20 no 2pp 413ndash426 2004
[17] D A Gasparini and E H Vanmarche Simulated EarthquakeMotions Compatible with Prescribed Response Spectra ReportNo R76-4 MIT Department of Civil Engineering Cam-bridge MA USA 1976
[18] American Society of Civil Engineers Standard (ASCE) SeismicAnalysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures and Commen-tary ASCE 4-98 Reston VA USA 2000
[19] Ministry of Construction and Transportation (MCT) SeismicDesign Standard Research Ministry of Construction andTransportation (MCT) Seoul Korea 1997
18 Advances in Civil Engineering
International Journal of
AerospaceEngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
RoboticsJournal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Active and Passive Electronic Components
VLSI Design
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Shock and Vibration
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Civil EngineeringAdvances in
Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Journal of
Advances inOptoElectronics
Hindawiwwwhindawicom
Volume 2018
Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013Hindawiwwwhindawicom
The Scientific World Journal
Volume 2018
Control Scienceand Engineering
Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom
Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2018
SensorsJournal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
International Journal of
RotatingMachinery
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Modelling ampSimulationin EngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and
Propagation
International Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Navigation and Observation
International Journal of
Hindawi
wwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in
Multimedia
Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom
(1) e DRS of the IBC was developed with theanalysis of seismic ground motions measured atsites located on the West Coast of the United Statesthat have deep soil deposits However in thisstudy DRS-1 underestimated the short-periodspectral accelerations resulting from numericalstudies with a large deviation is indicates thatthe site classification based on VS30 and theconstant-acceleration range did not rationallydescribe the responses of structures affected byshallow soil depth
(2) In DRS-2 the constant-acceleration range of theshort period sites did not accurately predict the rangeof the maximum responses resulting from the nu-merical analysis results us DRS-2 showed unsafevalues for sites with periods of 01ndash05 s
(3) DRS-3 generally agreed with the numerical resultsand described the characteristics of the responsespectrum affected by shallow soil deposits well Forshort site periods the constant-acceleration rangewas narrow and the magnitude was greater than thatof IBC 2015 As the site period increased the range of
DRS-2 06 lt TG lt 07s Fa = 165 Fv = 223
SCSD
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2012 (SB)
SE
(g)
DRS-2 07 lt TG lt 12s Fa = 126 Fv = 240
SCSD
SE
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2012 (SB)
(h)
Figure 14 Comparison between numerical analysis results and DRS-2
Table 7 Properties of the proposed DRS-3
TG Fa Fv
Constant-acceleration rangeis study IBC 2015
T2 T1 T0 TS
TGlt 04 s 22 14 01 04 0056 02804 sleTGlt 07 s 17 16 02 06 008 03807 sleTG 14 24 03 09 014 069
TT2 T1
Sa
SDS
Sa = SD1T ndash (T1 ndash TS)
10
SD1
TST0
Figure 15 New form of design response spectrum (DRS-3)
16 Advances in Civil Engineering
the constant acceleration increased being shifted togreater periods and the peak acceleration decreased
Data Availability
e Excel file data used to support the findings of this studyare available from the corresponding author upon request
Conflicts of Interest
e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest
Acknowledgments
is research was supported by the Korea Agency for In-frastructure Technology Advancement (KAIA) funded bythe Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Transport (No18AUDP-B106327-04) and the Basic Science ResearchProgram through the National Research Foundation of
Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education(NRF-2018R1A6A1A07025819)
References
[1] Architectural Institute of Korea (AIK) Korean Building CodeArchitectural Institute of Korea (AIK) Seoul Republic ofKorea 2016
[2] International Code Council (ICC) International BuildingCode International Code Council (ICC) 2015
[3] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) ldquoNEHRPrecommended provisions for seismic regulations for newbuildings and other structuresrdquo Report No FEMA-302Building Seismic Safety CouncilWashington DC USA 1997
[4] GB50011-2001 Code for Seismic Design of Buildings ChinaBuilding Industry Press Beijing China 2001
[5] A Tena-Colunga U Mena-Hernandez L Perez-RochaJ Aviles M Ordaz and J Vilar ldquoUpdated seismic designguidelines for model building code of Mexicordquo EarthquakeSpectra vol 25 no 4 pp 869ndash898 2009
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 TG lt 04s Fa = 220 Fv = 140
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
(a)
05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 04 lt TG lt 07s Fa = 170 Fv = 160
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0
(b)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 07s lt TG Fa = 140 Fv = 240
TG
(c)
Figure 16 Comparison between numerical analysis results and DRS-3 (a) short-period sites (b) Midperiod sites (c) Long-period sites
Advances in Civil Engineering 17
[6] European Committee for Standardization Eurocode 8 Designof Structures for Earthquake Resistance British StandardLondon UK 2003
[7] Mid-America Earthquake Center (MAE Center) ldquoUniformhazard ground motion and response spectra for mid-Americacitiesrdquo MAE Center Report 03-07 Mid-America EarthquakeCenter (MAE Center) Urbana IL USA 2003
[8] H H M Hwang H Lin and J-R Huo ldquoSite coefficients fordesign of buildings in eastern United Statesrdquo Soil Dynamicsand Earthquake Engineering vol 16 no 1 pp 29ndash40 1997
[9] D-S Kim and J-K Yoon ldquoDevelopment of new site classi-fication system for the regions of shallow bedrock in KoreardquoJournal of Earthquake Engineering vol 10 no 3 pp 331ndash3582006
[10] C-G Sun H-S Kim C-K Chung and H-C Chi ldquoSpatialzonations for regional assessment of seismic site effects in theSeoul metropolitan areardquo Soil Dynamics and EarthquakeEngineering vol 56 pp 44ndash56 2014
[11] S-H Lee C-G Sun J-K Yoon and D-S Kim ldquoDevelop-ment and verification of a new site classification system andsite coefficients for regions of shallow bedrock in KoreardquoJournal of Earthquake Engineering vol 16 no 6 pp 795ndash8192012
[12] D S Kim and Y W Choo ldquoDynamic deformation charac-teristics of cohesionless soils in Korea using resonant columntestsrdquo Journal of the Korean Geotechnical Society vol 17 no 5pp 115ndash138 2001
[13] I M Idriss and J I Sun A Computer Program for ConductingEquivalent Linear Seismic Response Analysis of HorizontallyLayered Soil Deposits Civil Engineering Department Centerfor Geotechnical Modelling UC Davis Davis CA USA1992
[14] httpngawest2berkeleyedu[15] S A Nikolaou A GIS Platform for Earthquake Risk Analysis
PhD dissertation State University of New York Buffalo NYUSA 1998
[16] F Naeim A Alimoradi and S Pezeshk ldquoSelection and scalingof ground motion time histories for structural design usinggenetic algorithmsrdquo Earthquake Spectra vol 20 no 2pp 413ndash426 2004
[17] D A Gasparini and E H Vanmarche Simulated EarthquakeMotions Compatible with Prescribed Response Spectra ReportNo R76-4 MIT Department of Civil Engineering Cam-bridge MA USA 1976
[18] American Society of Civil Engineers Standard (ASCE) SeismicAnalysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures and Commen-tary ASCE 4-98 Reston VA USA 2000
[19] Ministry of Construction and Transportation (MCT) SeismicDesign Standard Research Ministry of Construction andTransportation (MCT) Seoul Korea 1997
18 Advances in Civil Engineering
International Journal of
AerospaceEngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
RoboticsJournal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Active and Passive Electronic Components
VLSI Design
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Shock and Vibration
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Civil EngineeringAdvances in
Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Journal of
Advances inOptoElectronics
Hindawiwwwhindawicom
Volume 2018
Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013Hindawiwwwhindawicom
The Scientific World Journal
Volume 2018
Control Scienceand Engineering
Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom
Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2018
SensorsJournal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
International Journal of
RotatingMachinery
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Modelling ampSimulationin EngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and
Propagation
International Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Navigation and Observation
International Journal of
Hindawi
wwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in
Multimedia
Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom
the constant acceleration increased being shifted togreater periods and the peak acceleration decreased
Data Availability
e Excel file data used to support the findings of this studyare available from the corresponding author upon request
Conflicts of Interest
e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest
Acknowledgments
is research was supported by the Korea Agency for In-frastructure Technology Advancement (KAIA) funded bythe Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Transport (No18AUDP-B106327-04) and the Basic Science ResearchProgram through the National Research Foundation of
Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education(NRF-2018R1A6A1A07025819)
References
[1] Architectural Institute of Korea (AIK) Korean Building CodeArchitectural Institute of Korea (AIK) Seoul Republic ofKorea 2016
[2] International Code Council (ICC) International BuildingCode International Code Council (ICC) 2015
[3] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) ldquoNEHRPrecommended provisions for seismic regulations for newbuildings and other structuresrdquo Report No FEMA-302Building Seismic Safety CouncilWashington DC USA 1997
[4] GB50011-2001 Code for Seismic Design of Buildings ChinaBuilding Industry Press Beijing China 2001
[5] A Tena-Colunga U Mena-Hernandez L Perez-RochaJ Aviles M Ordaz and J Vilar ldquoUpdated seismic designguidelines for model building code of Mexicordquo EarthquakeSpectra vol 25 no 4 pp 869ndash898 2009
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 TG lt 04s Fa = 220 Fv = 140
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
(a)
05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 04 lt TG lt 07s Fa = 170 Fv = 160
TG
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
0
(b)
0 05 1 15 20
06
12
18
Period T (s)
Spec
tral
acce
lera
tion
(g)
IBC 2015 (SB) SCSD
SE
Numerical analysis (mean)Numerical analysis (mean + σ)DRS-1 IBC formDRS-3 07s lt TG Fa = 140 Fv = 240
TG
(c)
Figure 16 Comparison between numerical analysis results and DRS-3 (a) short-period sites (b) Midperiod sites (c) Long-period sites
Advances in Civil Engineering 17
[6] European Committee for Standardization Eurocode 8 Designof Structures for Earthquake Resistance British StandardLondon UK 2003
[7] Mid-America Earthquake Center (MAE Center) ldquoUniformhazard ground motion and response spectra for mid-Americacitiesrdquo MAE Center Report 03-07 Mid-America EarthquakeCenter (MAE Center) Urbana IL USA 2003
[8] H H M Hwang H Lin and J-R Huo ldquoSite coefficients fordesign of buildings in eastern United Statesrdquo Soil Dynamicsand Earthquake Engineering vol 16 no 1 pp 29ndash40 1997
[9] D-S Kim and J-K Yoon ldquoDevelopment of new site classi-fication system for the regions of shallow bedrock in KoreardquoJournal of Earthquake Engineering vol 10 no 3 pp 331ndash3582006
[10] C-G Sun H-S Kim C-K Chung and H-C Chi ldquoSpatialzonations for regional assessment of seismic site effects in theSeoul metropolitan areardquo Soil Dynamics and EarthquakeEngineering vol 56 pp 44ndash56 2014
[11] S-H Lee C-G Sun J-K Yoon and D-S Kim ldquoDevelop-ment and verification of a new site classification system andsite coefficients for regions of shallow bedrock in KoreardquoJournal of Earthquake Engineering vol 16 no 6 pp 795ndash8192012
[12] D S Kim and Y W Choo ldquoDynamic deformation charac-teristics of cohesionless soils in Korea using resonant columntestsrdquo Journal of the Korean Geotechnical Society vol 17 no 5pp 115ndash138 2001
[13] I M Idriss and J I Sun A Computer Program for ConductingEquivalent Linear Seismic Response Analysis of HorizontallyLayered Soil Deposits Civil Engineering Department Centerfor Geotechnical Modelling UC Davis Davis CA USA1992
[14] httpngawest2berkeleyedu[15] S A Nikolaou A GIS Platform for Earthquake Risk Analysis
PhD dissertation State University of New York Buffalo NYUSA 1998
[16] F Naeim A Alimoradi and S Pezeshk ldquoSelection and scalingof ground motion time histories for structural design usinggenetic algorithmsrdquo Earthquake Spectra vol 20 no 2pp 413ndash426 2004
[17] D A Gasparini and E H Vanmarche Simulated EarthquakeMotions Compatible with Prescribed Response Spectra ReportNo R76-4 MIT Department of Civil Engineering Cam-bridge MA USA 1976
[18] American Society of Civil Engineers Standard (ASCE) SeismicAnalysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures and Commen-tary ASCE 4-98 Reston VA USA 2000
[19] Ministry of Construction and Transportation (MCT) SeismicDesign Standard Research Ministry of Construction andTransportation (MCT) Seoul Korea 1997
18 Advances in Civil Engineering
International Journal of
AerospaceEngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
RoboticsJournal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Active and Passive Electronic Components
VLSI Design
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Shock and Vibration
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Civil EngineeringAdvances in
Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Journal of
Advances inOptoElectronics
Hindawiwwwhindawicom
Volume 2018
Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013Hindawiwwwhindawicom
The Scientific World Journal
Volume 2018
Control Scienceand Engineering
Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom
Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2018
SensorsJournal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
International Journal of
RotatingMachinery
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Modelling ampSimulationin EngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and
Propagation
International Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Navigation and Observation
International Journal of
Hindawi
wwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in
Multimedia
Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom
[6] European Committee for Standardization Eurocode 8 Designof Structures for Earthquake Resistance British StandardLondon UK 2003
[7] Mid-America Earthquake Center (MAE Center) ldquoUniformhazard ground motion and response spectra for mid-Americacitiesrdquo MAE Center Report 03-07 Mid-America EarthquakeCenter (MAE Center) Urbana IL USA 2003
[8] H H M Hwang H Lin and J-R Huo ldquoSite coefficients fordesign of buildings in eastern United Statesrdquo Soil Dynamicsand Earthquake Engineering vol 16 no 1 pp 29ndash40 1997
[9] D-S Kim and J-K Yoon ldquoDevelopment of new site classi-fication system for the regions of shallow bedrock in KoreardquoJournal of Earthquake Engineering vol 10 no 3 pp 331ndash3582006
[10] C-G Sun H-S Kim C-K Chung and H-C Chi ldquoSpatialzonations for regional assessment of seismic site effects in theSeoul metropolitan areardquo Soil Dynamics and EarthquakeEngineering vol 56 pp 44ndash56 2014
[11] S-H Lee C-G Sun J-K Yoon and D-S Kim ldquoDevelop-ment and verification of a new site classification system andsite coefficients for regions of shallow bedrock in KoreardquoJournal of Earthquake Engineering vol 16 no 6 pp 795ndash8192012
[12] D S Kim and Y W Choo ldquoDynamic deformation charac-teristics of cohesionless soils in Korea using resonant columntestsrdquo Journal of the Korean Geotechnical Society vol 17 no 5pp 115ndash138 2001
[13] I M Idriss and J I Sun A Computer Program for ConductingEquivalent Linear Seismic Response Analysis of HorizontallyLayered Soil Deposits Civil Engineering Department Centerfor Geotechnical Modelling UC Davis Davis CA USA1992
[14] httpngawest2berkeleyedu[15] S A Nikolaou A GIS Platform for Earthquake Risk Analysis
PhD dissertation State University of New York Buffalo NYUSA 1998
[16] F Naeim A Alimoradi and S Pezeshk ldquoSelection and scalingof ground motion time histories for structural design usinggenetic algorithmsrdquo Earthquake Spectra vol 20 no 2pp 413ndash426 2004
[17] D A Gasparini and E H Vanmarche Simulated EarthquakeMotions Compatible with Prescribed Response Spectra ReportNo R76-4 MIT Department of Civil Engineering Cam-bridge MA USA 1976
[18] American Society of Civil Engineers Standard (ASCE) SeismicAnalysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures and Commen-tary ASCE 4-98 Reston VA USA 2000
[19] Ministry of Construction and Transportation (MCT) SeismicDesign Standard Research Ministry of Construction andTransportation (MCT) Seoul Korea 1997
18 Advances in Civil Engineering
International Journal of
AerospaceEngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
RoboticsJournal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Active and Passive Electronic Components
VLSI Design
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Shock and Vibration
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Civil EngineeringAdvances in
Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Journal of
Advances inOptoElectronics
Hindawiwwwhindawicom
Volume 2018
Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013Hindawiwwwhindawicom
The Scientific World Journal
Volume 2018
Control Scienceand Engineering
Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom
Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2018
SensorsJournal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
International Journal of
RotatingMachinery
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Modelling ampSimulationin EngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and
Propagation
International Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Navigation and Observation
International Journal of
Hindawi
wwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in
Multimedia
Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom
International Journal of
AerospaceEngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
RoboticsJournal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Active and Passive Electronic Components
VLSI Design
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Shock and Vibration
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Civil EngineeringAdvances in
Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Journal of
Advances inOptoElectronics
Hindawiwwwhindawicom
Volume 2018
Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013Hindawiwwwhindawicom
The Scientific World Journal
Volume 2018
Control Scienceand Engineering
Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom
Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2018
SensorsJournal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
International Journal of
RotatingMachinery
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Modelling ampSimulationin EngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and
Propagation
International Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Navigation and Observation
International Journal of
Hindawi
wwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in
Multimedia
Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom