Volume 43 Issue 4
Jul.  2021
Turn off MathJax
Article Contents
Zhou J,Li X J,Li Y Q,Kang C C. 2021. Comparative analysis and transformation relations between China and the US site classification systems in building seismic code provisions. Acta Seismologica Sinica,43(4):521−532 doi: 10.11939/jass.20200164
Citation: Zhou J,Li X J,Li Y Q,Kang C C. 2021. Comparative analysis and transformation relations between China and the US site classification systems in building seismic code provisions. Acta Seismologica Sinica43(4):521−532 doi: 10.11939/jass.20200164

Comparative analysis and transformation relations between China and the US site classification systems in building seismic code provisions

doi: 10.11939/jass.20200164
  • Received Date: 2020-09-25
  • Rev Recd Date: 2021-04-15
  • Available Online: 2021-09-08
  • Publish Date: 2021-07-15
  • In this study, based on 6 824 borehole profiles, we subdivide the site classes in GB 50011-2010 Code for Seismic Design of Buildings (Chinese code) into more homogeneous sub-classes by different values of the equivalent shear wave velocity (vSe) and site overlaying layers (D), and quantitatively analysis the effect of each parameters in the site classification schedule in the code. We build the relation between these sub-classes of the China code and classes of the US seismic design code National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures, carry out comparative analysis on two classification schedules, and build the probabilistic transformation relations for interconverting China site classes and the US site classes. The results show that: It is not appropriate to take the average shear wave velocity to a depth of 20 m (vS20) as the proxy for vSe in site classification of China code; for China site class Ⅱ and Ⅲ, different sub-classes have significantly different corresponding relations with the US site classes; the D effectively distinguishes the sites those velocity structures are similar at shallow layers while different at deeper layers; the main part of China site class Ⅱ and Ⅲ are both corresponding to the US site class D, the China site class Ⅱ leans to the US site class C, while the China site class Ⅲ leans to the US site class E; China site class Ⅳ is corresponding to the US site class E; most of the US site class C and D are both corresponding to China site class Ⅱ.It implies that the range of China site class Ⅱ is relatively vast.

     

  • loading
  • [1]
    Geographical Information Monitoring Cloud Platform. 2015. China land use data[DB/OL]. [2020-06-16]. http://www.dsac.cn/ (in Chinese).
    [2]
    Li G J,Zhao Y,Wang W Z,Zhang T W. 2009. Analysis to the effect of site condition to the maximum of design response spectra[J]. Earthquake Resistant Engineering and Retrofitting,31(1):114–118 (in Chinese).
    [3]
    Li X J. 2013. Adjustment of seismic ground motion parameters considering site effects in seismic zonation map[J]. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,35(S2):21–29 (in Chinese).
    [4]
    Li X J,Peng Q. 2001. Calculation and analysis of earthquake ground motion parameters for different site categories[J]. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration,21(1):29–36 (in Chinese).
    [5]
    Liu P X,Liu H S,Zhao J S,Liu Y Q. 2015. Comparison of site classification between Chinese and American seismic codes based on data of Japanese Kik-net station[J]. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Dynamics,35(6):42–46 (in Chinese).
    [6]
    Lü H S,Zhao F X. 2007. Site coefficients suitable to china site category[J]. Acta Seismologica Sinica,29(1):67–76 (in Chinese).
    [7]
    Su J Y,Li H. 1996. Comparison and analysis of site classification methods in seismic design codes provisions[J]. Seismic Fortification Engineering,(2):43–46 (in Chinese).
    [8]
    General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People's Republic of China, Standardization Administration of the People's Republic of China. 2005. GB 17741—2005 Evaluation of Seismic Safety for Engineering Sites[S]. Beijing: Standards Press of China: 5 (in Chinese).
    [9]
    Ministry of Construction of the People’s Republic of China, General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China. 2009. GB50021—2001 Code for Investigation of Geotechnical Engineering [S]. Beijing: China Architecture & Building Press: 113 (in Chinese).
    [10]
    Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China, General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People's Republic of China. 2016. GB50011—2010 Code for Seismic Design of Buildings[S]. Beijing: China Architecture & Building Press: 18–20 (in Chinese).
    [11]
    Zhou X Y, Wang G J, Su J Y. 1990. Site, Foundation, and Design Ground Motion[M]. Beijing: Seismological Press: 22–25(in Chinese).
    [12]
    Zhou X Y,Fan S Y,Su J Y. 1999. Site classification and characteristic period of the response spectrum:Introduction of the revised provisions for GB50011—1998Code for Seismic Design of Buildings (8th)[J]. Seismic Fortification Engineering,(4):3–8 (in Chinese).
    [13]
    American Society of Civil Engineers. 2013. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE/SEI 7-10)[M]. Youngstown, Ohio: American Society of Civil Engineers: 203–204.
    [14]
    Boore D M. 2004. Estimating VS30(or NEHRP site classes)from shallow velocity models(depths<30 m)[J]. Bull Seismol Soc Am,94(2):591–597. doi: 10.1785/0120030105
    [15]
    Boore D M,Thompson E M,Cadet H. 2011. Regional correlations of VS30 and velocities averaged over depths less than and greater than 30 m[J]. Bull Seismol Soc Am,101(6):3046–3059. doi: 10.1785/0120110071
    [16]
    Borcherdt R D,Glassmoyer G. 1992. On the characteristics of local geology and their influence on ground motions generated by the Loma Prieta earthquake in the San Francisco Bay region,California[J]. Bull Seismol Soc Am,82(2):603–641.
    [17]
    Borcherdt R D. 1994. Estimates of site-dependent response spectra for design:Methodology and justification[J]. Earthq Spectra,10(4):617–653. doi: 10.1193/1.1585791
    [18]
    Borcherdt R D. 2002. Empirical evidence for site coefficients in building code provisions[J]. Earthq Spectra,18(2):189–217. doi: 10.1193/1.1486243
    [19]
    Cadet H,Dural A M. 2009. A shear wave velocity study based on the Kik-net borehole data:A short note[J]. Seismol Res Lett,80(3):440–445. doi: 10.1785/gssrl.80.3.440
    [20]
    Castellaro S,Mulargia F,Rossi P L. 2008. VS30:Proxy for seismic amplification?[J]. Seismol Res Lett,79(4):540–543. doi: 10.1785/gssrl.79.4.540
    [21]
    Dai Z J,Li X J,Hou C. 2013. A shear-wave velocity model for VS30 estimation based on a conditional independence property[J]. Bull Seismol Soc Am,103(6):3354–3361. doi: 10.1785/0120130025
    [22]
    Dobry R,Borcherdt R D,Crouse C B,Idriss I M,Joyner W B,Martin G R,Power M S,Rinne E E,Seed R B. 2000. New site coeffi-cients and site classification system used in recent building seismic code provisions[J]. Earthq Spectra,16(1):41–67. doi: 10.1193/1.1586082
    [23]
    Lee V W,Trifunac M D. 2010. Should average shear-wave velocity in the top 30 m of soil be used to describe seismic amplification? [J]. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng,30(11):1250–1258. doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.05.007
    [24]
    Moss R E S. 2008. Quantifying measurement uncertainty of thirty-meter shear-wave velocity[J]. Bull Seismol Soc Am,98(3):1399–1411. doi: 10.1785/0120070101
    [25]
    National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. 2015. Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures (2015 edition)[S]. Washington D C: Building Seismic Safety Council: 14.
    [26]
    Ohta Y,Goto N. 1978. Empirical shear wave velocity equations in terms of characteristic soil indexes[J]. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn,6(2):167–187. doi: 10.1002/eqe.4290060205
    [27]
    Scasserra G,Stewart J P,Kayen R E,Lanzo G. 2009. Database for earthquake strong motion studies in Italy[J]. J Earthq Eng,13(6):852–881. doi: 10.1080/13632460802566997
    [28]
    Seyhan E,Stewart J P. 2014. Semi-Empirical nonlinear site amplification from NGA-West2 data and simulations[J]. Earthq Spectra,30(3):1241–1256. doi: 10.1193/063013EQS181M
    [29]
    Thompson E M,Baise L G,Kayen R E. 2007. Spatial correlation of shear-wave velocity in the San Francisco Bay Area sediments[J]. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng,27(2):144–152. doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2006.05.004
    [30]
    The European Committee for Standardization. 2004. Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance, Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings[S]. Brussels: European Committee for Standardization: 10–12.
    [31]
    Wang H Y,Wang S Y. 2015. A new method for estimating VS30 from a shallow shear-wave velocity profile (depth<30 m)[J]. Bull Seismol Soc Am,105(3):1359–1370. doi: 10.1785/0120140103
    [32]
    Wills C J,Petersen M D,Bryant W A,Reichle M,Saucedo G J,Tan S,Taylor G C,Treiman J A. 2000. A site-conditions map for California based on geology and shear-wave velocity[J]. Bull Seismol Soc Am,90(6B):S187–S208. doi: 10.1785/0120000503
    [33]
    Zhou J,Li X J,Dai Z J,Chen K. 2021. Parametrical model for estimating VS30 from shallow borehole profiles using a database for China[J]. Bull Seismol Soc Am,111(3):1199–1220. doi: 10.1785/0120200178
  • 加载中

Catalog

    通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
    • 1. 

      沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

    1. 本站搜索
    2. 百度学术搜索
    3. 万方数据库搜索
    4. CNKI搜索

    Figures(2)  / Tables(7)

    Article Metrics

    Article views (143) PDF downloads(43) Cited by()
    Proportional views
    Related

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return