Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Spatial variability of earthquake ground motions at the dam–foundation rock interface of Saint Guérin: experimental and numerical investigations

  • Original Research Paper
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The goal of the present study is to quantify the spatial variability of seismic ground motions (SVGM) at the arch dam–foundation rock interface, using data coming from a case study, and the effect of the presence of the structure and the local topography on it. For this purpose, a dense seismological network, consisting of 19 velocimeters, was deployed during 1 year in the Saint Guérin arch dam in France. Fifty-five recorded events are used for the analysis. Both amplitude (in terms of differences of Fourier amplitudes) and phase variability (in terms of lagged coherency) are evaluated at the dam–foundation rock interface and in the free-field. Two lagged coherency models, Menke et al. (Bull Seismol Soc Am 80:430–449, 1990) and Ancheta et al. (Proceedings of 4th IASPEI/IAEE international symposium on effects of surface geology on seismic motion, Aug 23–26, 2011) amplitude variability model are compared with the observations in Saint Guérin and the overall fit is satisfactory. The comparison with the free field motions and the existing models imply that local topography at the interface does not contribute to a significant increase of SVGM. However, higher phase and amplitude variability is observed around the frequencies of vibration of the structure. The numerical model of the dam and a simple representation of the surrounding site confirm the in situ observations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrahamson NA (1992) Generation of spatially incoherent strong motion time histories. In: Proceedings of the tenth world conference on earthquake engineering, Madrid, Spain

  • Abrahamson NA (1993) Spatial variation of multiple support inputs. In: Proceedings of the 1st US seminar on seismic evaluation and retrofit of steel bridges. A Caltrans and University of California at Berkeley Seminar, San Francisco, CA

  • Abrahamson NA (2007) Program on technology innovation: effects of spatial incoherence on seismic ground motions. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, 1015110

  • Abrahamson NA, Schneider JF, Stepp JC (1990) Spatial variation of strong ground motion for use in soil structure interaction analyses. In: Proceedings of the fourth U.S. national conference on earthquake engineering, Palm Springs, CA

  • Abrahamson NA, Schneider JF, Stepp JC (1991) Empirical spatial coherency functions for applications to soil–structure interaction analyses. Earthq Spectra 7(1):1–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alves SW, Hall JF (2006) Generation of spatially nonuniform ground motion for nonlinear analysis of a concrete arch dam. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35:1339–1357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ancheta TD, Stewart JP, Abrahamson NA (2011) Engineering characterization of earthquake ground motion coherency and amplitude variability. In: Proceedings of 4th IASPEI/IAEE international symposium on effects of surface geology on seismic motion, Aug 23–26

  • Bayraktar A, Dumanoglu AA (1998) The effect of the asynchronous ground motion on hydrodynamic pressures. Comput Struct 68:271–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bi K, Hao H (2009) Analysis of influences of an irregular site with uncertain soil properties on spatial seismic ground motion coherency. Newcastle earthquake 20 years on. In: McCue K, Lam N, Wilson J, Anderson S (eds) CD ROM Newcastle. The Australian Earthquake Engineering Society, Australia

  • Blacker TD, Bohnhoff WJ, Edwards TL (1994) Cubit mesh generation environment, vol 1: users manual. Technical report, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, USA

  • Bolt B, Loh C, Penzien J, Tsai Y, Yeh Y (1982) Preliminary report on the smart 1 strong motion array in Taiwan, Technical report, Earthquake Engineering Research Center Report No. UCB/EERC 82/13, University of California, Berkeley, CA

  • Bycroft GN (1980) E1 Centro California differential ground motion array. Technical report, U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File, Rept. 80-919, 1-13

  • Câmara RJ (2000) A method for coupled arch dam–foundation–reservoir seismic behaviour analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 29:441–460. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(200004)29:4<441:AID-EQE916>3.0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen MT, Harichandran RS (2001) Response of an earth dam to spatially varying earthquake ground motion. J Eng Mech ASCE 127:932–939

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clayton R, Engquist B (1977) Absorbing boundary conditions for acoustic and elastic wave equations. Bull Seismol Soc Am 67:1529–1540

    Google Scholar 

  • Enochson LD, Goodman NR (1965) Gaussian approximations to the distributions of sample coherence. Technical report, AFFDL-TR-65-57, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base

  • Goda K, Atkinson GM (2010) Intraevent spatial correlation of ground-motion parameters using SK-net data. Bull Seismol Soc Am 100(6):3055–3067

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harichandran RS, Vanmarcke EH (1986) Stochastic variation of earthquake ground motion in space and time. J Eng Mech ASCE 112:154–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hindy A, Novak M (1980) Pipeline response to random ground motion. J Eng Mech Div ASCE 106:339–360

    Google Scholar 

  • http://renass.unistra.fr

  • Iwan WD (1979) The deployment of strong-motion earthquake instrument arrays. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 7(5):413–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kato K, Takemura M, Konno T, Uchiyama S, Iizuka S, Nigbor RL (1998) Borego valley downhole array in southern California: instrumentation and preliminary site effect study. In: Proceedings of the second international symposium on the effects of surface geology on seismic motion. Yokohama, Japan, pp 1–3

  • Kojic SB, Trifunac MD (1991a) Earthquake stresses in arch dams. I: theory and antiplane excitation. J Eng Mech ASCE 117:532–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kojic SB, Trifunac MD (1991b) Earthquake stresses in arch dams. II: excitation by SV, P, and Rayleigh waves. J Eng Mech ASCE 117:553–574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Komatitsch D, Vilotte J-P (1998) The spectral element method: an efficient tool to simulate the seismic response of 2D and 3D geological structures. Bull Seismol Soc Am 88:368–392

    Google Scholar 

  • Konno K, Ohmachi T (1998) Ground-motion characteristics estimated from spectral ratio between horizontal and vertical components of microtremor. Bull Seismol Soc Am 88(1):228–241

    Google Scholar 

  • Koufoudi E, Chaljub E, Dufour F, Douste-Baqué I, Roussel S, Bard PY, Humbert N, Robbe E, Bourdarot E (2017) Experimental investigation of spatial variability of ground motions—monitoring of an arch dam. In: Proceedings of the 16th world conference on earthquake engineering, Santiago, Chile

  • Liao S, Li J (2002) A stochastic approach to site response component in seismic ground motion coherency model. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 22:813–820

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin G, Zhou J, Wang J (1996) Seismic response of arch dams to wave scattering and spatial variation of ground motions. In: Proceedings of the 11th world conference on earthquake engineering, Oxford, England

  • Luco J, Wong H (1986) Response of a rigid foundation to a spatially random ground motion. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 14:891–908

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maeso O, Aznarez JJ, Domınguez J (2002) Effects of space distribution of excitation on seismic response of arch dams. J Eng Mech ASCE 128:759–768

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menke W, Lerner Lam AL, Dubendorff B, Pacheco J (1990) Polarization and coherence of 5 to 30 Hz seismic wave fields at a hard rock site and their relevance to velocity heterogeneities in the crust. Bull Seismol Soc Am 80:430–449

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowak PS, Hall JF (1990) Arch dam response to nonuniform seismic input. J Eng Mech ASCE 116:125–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliveira CS, Hao H, Penzien J (1991) Ground motion modeling for multiple input structural analysis. Struct Saf 10:79–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peter D et al (2011a) Forward and adjoint simulations of seismic wave propagation on fully unstructured hexahedral meshes. Geophys J Int 186:721–739

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peter D, Komatitsch D, Luo Y, Martin R, Le Goff N, Casarotti E, Le Loher P, Magnoni F, Liu Q, Blitz C, Nissen-Meyer T, Basini P, Tromp J (2011b) Forward and adjoint simulations of seismic wave propagation on fully unstructured hexahedral meshes. Geophys J Int 186(2):721–739. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2011.05044.x.1,1.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poggi V, Edwards B, Fäh D (2011) Derivation of a reference shear-wave velocity model from empirical site amplification. Bull Seismol Soc Am 101(1):258–274. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120100060

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quarteroni A, Tagliani A, Zampieri E (1998) Generalized Galerkin approximations of elastic waves with absorbing boundary conditions. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 163:323–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riepl J, Oliveira CS, Bard P-Y (1997) Spatial coherence of seismic wave fields across an alluvial valley (weak motion). J Seismol 1(3):253–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider JF, Stepp JC, Abrahamson NA (1992) The spatial variation of earthquake ground motion and effects of local site conditions. In: Proceedings of the tenth world conference on earthquake engineering, Madrid, Spain

  • Stacey R (1988) Improved transparent boundary formulations for the elastic wave equation. Bull Seismol Soc Am 78(6):2089–2097

    Google Scholar 

  • Szczesiak T, Weber B, Bachmann H (1999) Nonuniform earthquake input for arch dam foundation interaction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 18:487–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walpersdorf A, Sue C, Baize S, Cotte N, Bascou P, Beauval C, Hautecoeur O (2015) Coherence between geodetic and seismic deformation in a context of slow tectonic activity (SW Alps, France). J Geodyn 85:58–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zerva A (2009) Spatial variation of seismic ground motions. CRS Press, Bocaraton, p 468

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zerva A, Harada T (1997) Effect of surface layer stochasticity on seismic ground motion coherence and strain estimates. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 16:445–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zerva A, Zervas V (2002) Spatial variation of seismic ground motions: an overview. Appl Mech Rev ASME 55(3):271–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang L, Chopra AK (1991a) Three dimensional analysis of spatially varying ground motions around a uniform canyon in a homogeneous half space. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 20:911–926

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang L, Chopra AK (1991b) Impedance functions for three dimensional foundation supported on an infinitely long canyon of uniform cross section in a homogeneous half-space. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 20:1011–1027

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Work performed thanks to the support of EDF in the context of Chair PERENITI run by the Fondation Partenariale Grenoble INP. Partners responsibility of the Chair cannot in any circumstances be blamed on the grounds of the content of the publication, which is only binding its author. We thank SISMOB-RESIF that provided the 19 seismological stations.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fondation Partenariale Grenoble INP, 38058, Grenoble, France

    E. Koufoudi & F. Dufour

  2. Université Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, 3SR, 38058, Grenoble, France

    E. Koufoudi & F. Dufour

  3. Université Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, ISTerre, 38000, Grenoble, France

    E. Chaljub & P. Y. Bard

  4. IFSTTAR, ISTerre, 38058, Grenoble, France

    P. Y. Bard

  5. Électricité de France, EDF, 73370, Le Bourget-du-Lac, Savoie, France

    N. Humbert & E. Robbe

Authors
  1. E. Koufoudi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. E. Chaljub
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. F. Dufour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. P. Y. Bard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. N. Humbert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. E. Robbe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. Koufoudi.

Appendix

Appendix

See Fig. 15 and Tables 1, 2.

Fig. 15
figure 15

Percentage (%) of missing records because of malfunctioning/absence of a station (blue bars) and because of SNR ≤ 3 (pink bars)

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Koufoudi, E., Chaljub, E., Dufour, F. et al. Spatial variability of earthquake ground motions at the dam–foundation rock interface of Saint Guérin: experimental and numerical investigations. Bull Earthquake Eng 16, 1751–1777 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0266-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0266-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation