Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Divergence Between Nonlinear and Equivalent-Linear 1D Site Response Analyses for Different V S Realizations of Typical Clay Sites

  • Published:
Pure and Applied Geophysics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Surface ground motions can be obtained via various methods of analysis such as equivalent-linear (EL) and nonlinear (NL) one-dimensional numerical simulations. Selection of analysis method would be a challenging issue due to difficulty of input data preparation. The uncertainty inherent in soil parameters and shear wave velocity has significant impact on the soil surface hazard analysis through amplification function. In the present study, realizations of two clay sites in Shiraz city, southern Iran, along with three hypothetical sites are selected to examine the divergence between EL and NL ground response analyses. Two constitutive models, namely modified hyperbolic Kondner–Zelasko (MKZ) and general quadratic/hyperbolic (GQ/H), are implemented in site response analyses of synthetic profiles generated for reference profiles. The GQ/H model requires user-defined shear strength to simulate soil behavior. Two approaches of shear strength estimation are utilized in the current study. Several issues related to site response analysis are investigated such as effect of shear strength estimation method, input ground-motion intensity, and soil condition on the divergence between EL and NL spectral accelerations. The obtained EL/NL spectral response ratios are presented as a function of either shear strain index or oscillator period for the abovementioned issues. Moreover, 20% difference thresholds of the shear strain index are computed and compared with those from previous researches.

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
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Assimaki, D., & Li, W. (2012). Correlation of arias intensity with amplitude, duration and cumulative intensity measures. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 32, 143–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barani, S., Ferrari, R. De., & Ferretti, G. (2013). Influence of soil modeling uncertainties on site response. Earthquake Spectra, 29(3), 705–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC). (2003). National earthquake hazards reduction program recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures (FEMA-450), part 1: provisions. Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlton, B., & Tokimatsu, K. (2016). Comparison of equivalent linear and nonlinear site response analysis results and model to estimate maximum shear strain. Earthquake Spectra, 32(3), 1867–1887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandra, J., Gueguen, P., & Bonilla, L. F. (2016). PGA-PGV/Vs considered as a stress-strain proxy for predicting nonlinear soil response. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 85, 146–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darendeli, M. B. (2001). Development of a new family of normalized modulus reduction and material damping curves. Ph.D. thesis, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas.

  • Dickenson, S. E. (1994). Dynamic response of soft and deep cohesive soils during the Loma Prieta earthquake of October 14, 1989. Berkeley: University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, S. C., Cox, B. R., & Rathje, E. M. (2016a). Challenges associated with site response analyses for soft soils subjected to high-intensity input ground motions. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 85, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, S., Cox, B., Rathje, E., & Teague, D. (2016b). Mapping dispersion misfit and uncertainty in Vs profiles to variability in site response estimates. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001553. (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Groholski, D. R., Cox, B., Hashash, Y. M. A., Kim, B., Musgrove, M., Harmon, J., et al. (2016). Simplified model for small-strain nonlinearity and strength in 1D seismic site response analysis. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartzell, S., Bonilla, L. F., & Williams, R. A. (2004). Prediction of nonlinear soil effects. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 94(5), 1609–1629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hashash, Y. M. A., Musgrove, M. I., Harmon, J. A., Groholski, D. R., Phillips, C. A., & Park, D. (2016) DEEPSOIL 6.1, user manual.

  • Hashash, Y. M. A., & Park, D. (2001). Non-linear one-dimensional wave propagation in the Mississippi Embayment. Engineering Geology, 62, 185–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Idriss, I. M. (2011). Use of Vs30 to represent local site conditions. Proc, 4th LASPEI/IAEE Int. Symposium Effects of Surface Geology on Strong Ground Motions, Santa Barbara, California.

  • Kaklamanos, J., Bradley, B. A., Thompson, E. M., & Baise, L. G. (2013). Critical parameters affecting bias and variability in site response analyses using KiK-net downhole array data. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 103, 1733–1749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaklamanos, J., Baise, L. G., Thompson, E. M., & Dorfmann, L. (2015). Comparison of 1D linear, equivalent-linear, and nonlinear site response models at six KiK-net validation sites. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 69, 207–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, B., & Hashash, Y. M. A. (2013). Sire response analysis using downhole array recordings during March 2011 Tohoku-Oki earthquake and the effect of long-duration ground motions. Earthquake Spectra, 29, 37–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, B., Hashash, Y. M. A., Kottke, A. R., Assimaki, D., Li, W., Rathje, E. M., Campell, K. W., Silva, W. J., & Stewart, J. P. (2013). A predictive model for the telative differences between nonlinear and equivalent-linear site response analyses. Proc. of 22nd Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology (SMiRT22), Sao Francisco, August 18–23.

  • Kim, B., Hashash, Y. M. A., Stewart, J. P., Rathje, E. M., Harmon, J. A., Musgrove, M. I., Campell, K. W., & Silva, W. J. (2016). Relative differences between nonlinear and equivalent-linear 1D site response analyses. Earthquake Spectra, 32(3), 1845–1865.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kondner, R. L., & Zelasko, J. S. (1963) A hyperbolic stress–strain formulation of sands. Proc. of 2nd Pan American Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Sao Paulo, Brazil, pp. 289–324.

  • Kottke, W., & Rathje, E. M. (2013). Comparison of time series and random-vibration theory site-response methods. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 103(3), 2111–2127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ladd, C. C., & Foott, R. (1974). A new design procedure for stability of soft clays. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division ASCE, 100(GT7), 763–786.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, W., & Assimaki, D. (2010). Site- and motion-dependent parametric uncertainty of site-response analyses in earthquake simulations. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 100(9), 954–968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massarsch, K. R. (1979) Lateral earth pressure in normally consolidated clay. Pro. 7th Europ. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Brighton, England, Vol. 2, pp. 245–250.

  • Matasovic, N. (1993). Seismic response of composite horizontally-layered soil deposits. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Los Angeles, p. xxix (452 leaves).

  • Mayne, P. (2014). Interpretation of geotechnical parameters from seismic piezocone tests. Proc. 3rd Int. Symp. on Cone Pentrometer Testing, CPT. pp. 47–73.

  • Papaspiliou, M., Kontoe, S., & Bommer, J. J. (2012a). On the incorporation of site response into PSHA; part I: issues on the performance of site response analysis. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 42, 302–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papaspiliou, M., Kontoe, S., & Bommer, J. J. (2012b). On the incorporation of site response into PSHA; part II: impact on the surface hazard curve. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 42, 316–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pehlivan, M., Rathje, E. M., & Gilbert, R. B. (2016). Factors influencing soil surface seismic hazard curves. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 83, 180–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, C., & Hashash, Y. M. A. (2009). Damping formulation for non-linear 1D site response analyses. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 29, 1143–1158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rathje, E. M., & Kottke, A. R. (2011). Relative differences between equivalent linear and nonlinear site response methods. Pro., 5th Int. Conf. on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Santiago, Chile, January 10–13.

  • Rathje, E. M., Kottke, A. R., & Trent, W. L. (2010). Influence of input motion and site property variabilities on seismic site response analysis. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Régnier, J., Bonilla, L. F., Bard, P.-Y., Bertrand, E., Hollender, F., Kawase, H., et al. (2016). International benchmark on numerical simulations for 1D, nonlinear site response (PRENOLIN): Verification phase based on canonical cases. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. doi:10.1785/0120150284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez-Marek, A., Rathje, E. M., Bommer, J. J., Scherbaum, F., & Stafford, P. J. (2014). Application of single-station sigma and site-response characterization in a PSHA for a new nuclear site. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 104(4), 1601–1619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheahan, T. C., Ladd, C. C., & Germaine, J. T. (1996). Rate-dependent undrained shear behavior of saturated clay. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 122(2), 99–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toro, G. R. (1995). Probabilistic models of site velocity profiles for generic and site-specific ground-motion amplification studies. Technical Report 779574, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York.

  • Tsai, C. C., & Chen, C. W. (2016). Comparison study of 1D site response analysis methods. Earthquake Spectra, 32(2), 1075–1095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yagoda-Biran, G., & Anderson, J. G. (2015). Investigation of the ground-motion variability associated with site response for sites with V S30 over 500 m/s. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 105(2A), 1011–1028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zakeri, A. (1999). Seismic microzonation of parts of Shiraz Plain. M.Sc. thesis, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Fars (in Persian).

  • Zalachoris, G., & Rathje, E. (2015). Evaluation of one-dimensional site response techniques using borehole arrays. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001366.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would hereby like to thank Nader Hataf and Hooman Heydarian, for providing us with the data set of Shiraz site profile features. This paper is also benefited from helpful comments of Amir Hossein Shafiee. The corresponding author also thanks the continuing support of the International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology. We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments that helped to improve the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Shiraz University, Zand Street, Shiraz, Iran

    Alireza Eskandarinejad & Mojtaba Jahanandish

  2. International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (IIEES), No. 26, Arghavan Street, North Dibajee, Farmanieh, Tehran, Iran

    Hamid Zafarani

Authors
  1. Alireza Eskandarinejad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mojtaba Jahanandish
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hamid Zafarani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hamid Zafarani.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Eskandarinejad, A., Jahanandish, M. & Zafarani, H. Divergence Between Nonlinear and Equivalent-Linear 1D Site Response Analyses for Different V S Realizations of Typical Clay Sites. Pure Appl. Geophys. 174, 3955–3978 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-017-1586-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-017-1586-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation