In situ characterization of nonlinear soil behavior of vertical ground motion using KiK-net data

Abstract

Strong vertical ground motion has significant influences on the seismic response of engineered structures. However, the soil nonlinearity of vertical ground motion has received less attention compared with that of horizontal ground motion. In this study, seismic observations from KiK-net were used to investigate the soil nonlinearity of vertical ground motion. A new fitting formula was proposed to estimate the global constrained modulus degradation curve considering the influence of groundwater. The proposed formula was verified by the higher goodness of fit compared with a widely used fitting formula and the consistency with the theoretical solution from a former study. The order of the magnitude of the normal strain linear threshold was approximately 10−6 which is the same as that of the shear strain. Furthermore, different from the shear modulus, the constrained modulus of the selected stations decreased quickly when normal strain was between 10−5 and 10−4, and the reduction speed slowed down when it was above 10−4. This result was consistent with the theoretical result based on the laboratory test data from a previous study. Using the fitted relationships between the soil strain and peak ground acceleration (PGA), we found the PGA threshold for vertical nonlinearity could be as low as 30 cm/s2 and was generally higher than that for horizontal nonlinearity. Moreover, the difference in reduction between the shear modulus and constrained modulus after a strong earthquake was investigated which could be related to the change in Poisson’s ratio.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

References

  1. Abrahamson NA, Silva WJ, Kamai R (2014) Summary of the ASK14 ground motion relation for active crustal regions. Earthq Spectra 30(3):1025–1055

    Google Scholar 

  2. Aki K (1993) Local site effects on weak and strong ground motion. Tectonophysics 218(1–3):93–111

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ambraseys NN, Barazangi M (1989) The 1759 Earthquake in the Bekaa Valley: implications for earthquake hazard assessment in the Eastern Mediterranean Region. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 94(B4):4007–4013

    Google Scholar 

  4. Aoi S, Kunugi T, Fujiwara H (2004) Strong-motion seismograph network operated by NIED: K-net and KiK-net. J Jpn Assoc Earthq Eng 4(3):65–74

    Google Scholar 

  5. Aoi S, Kunugi T, Fujiwara H (2008) Trampoline effect in extreme ground motion. Science 322(5902):727–730

    Google Scholar 

  6. Askan A, Akcelik V, Bielak J, Ghattas O (2007) Full waveform inversion for seismic velocity and anelastic losses in heterogeneous structures. Bull Seismol Soc Am 97(6):1990–2008

    Google Scholar 

  7. Beresnev IA, Wen KL (1996) Nonlinear soil response—A reality? Bull Seismol Soc Am 86(6):1964–1978

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bonilla LF, Guéguen P, Ben-Zion Y (2019) Monitoring coseismic temporal changes of shallow material during strong ground motion with interferometry and autocorrelation. Bull Seismol Soc Am 109(1):187–198

    Google Scholar 

  9. Boore DM, Stewart JP, Seyhan E, Atkinson GM (2014) NGA-West2 equations for predicting PGA, PGV, and 5% damped PSA for shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthq Spectra 30(3):1057–1085

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bora SS, Scherbaum F, Kuehn N, Stafford P, Edwards B (2015) Development of a response spectral ground-motion prediction equation (GMPE) for seismic-hazard analysis from empirical Fourier spectral and duration models. Bull Seismol Soc Am 105(4):2192–2218

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bozorgina Y, Niazi M, Campbell KW (1995) Characteristics of free-field vertical ground motion during the Northridge earthquake. Earthq Spectra 11(4):515–525

    Google Scholar 

  12. Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) (2015) NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures, Washington D.C., FEMA P-1050

  13. Cadet H, Pierre-Yves B, Adrian RM (2012) Site effect assessment using KiK-net data: part 1. A simple correction procedure for surface/downhole spectral ratios. Bull Earthq Eng 10(2):421–448

    Google Scholar 

  14. Campbell KW, Bozorgnia Y (2014) NGA-West2 ground motion model for the average horizontal components of PGA, PGV, and 5% damped linear acceleration response spectra. Earthq Spectra 30(3):1087–1115

    Google Scholar 

  15. Chandra J, Guéguen P, Steidl JH, Bonilla LF (2015) In situ assessment of the G-γ curve for characterizing the nonlinear response of soil: application to the Garner Valley downhole array and the wildlife liquefaction array. Bull Seismol Soc Am 105(2A):993–1010

    Google Scholar 

  16. Chandra J, Guéguen P, Bonilla LF (2016) PGA-PGV/VS considered as a stress-strain proxy for predicting nonlinear soil response. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 85:146–160

    Google Scholar 

  17. Chin BH, Aki K (1991) Simultaneous study of the source, path, and site effects on strong ground motion during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake: a preliminary result on pervasive nonlinear site effects. Bull Seismol Soc Am 81(5):1859–1884

    Google Scholar 

  18. Chiou BSJ, Youngs RR (2014) Update of the Chiou and Youngs NGA model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra. Earthq Spectra 30(3):1117–1153

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cox BR, Stokoe KH, Rathje EM (2009) An in situ test method for evaluating the coupled pore pressure generation and nonlinear shear modulus behavior of liquefiable soils. Geotech Test J 32(1):11–21

    Google Scholar 

  20. Drnevich VP, Richart FE (1970) Dynamic prestraining of dry sand. J Soil Mech Found Div 96(2):453–469

    Google Scholar 

  21. Dutta TT, Saride S (2016) Influence of shear strain on the Poisson’s ratio of clean sands. Geotech Geol Eng 34(5):1359–1373

    Google Scholar 

  22. Field EH, Johnson PA, Beresnev IA, Zeng Y (1997) Nonlinear ground-motion amplification by sediments during the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Nature 390(6660):599

    Google Scholar 

  23. Frankel AD, Carver DL, Williams RA (2002) Nonlinear and linear site response and basin effects in Seattle for the M 6.8 Nisqually, Washington, earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 92(6):2090–2109

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ghofrani H, Atkinson GM, Goda K (2013) Implications of the 2011 M9.0 Tohoku Japan earthquake for the treatment of site effects in large earthquakes. Bull Earthq Eng 11(1):171–203

    Google Scholar 

  25. Gràcia E, Pallàs R, Soto JI, Comas M, Moreno X, Masana E et al (2006) Active faulting offshore SE Spain (Alboran Sea): implications for earthquake hazard assessment in the Southern Iberian Margin. Earth Planet Sci Lett 241(3):734–749

    Google Scholar 

  26. Griffiths SC, Cox BR, Rathje EM (2016) Challenges associated with site response analyses for soft soils subjected to high-intensity input ground motions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 85:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  27. Guéguen P (2016) Predicting nonlinear site response using spectral acceleration vs PGA/VS30: a case history using the Volvi-test site. Pure appl Geophys 173(6):2047–2063

    Google Scholar 

  28. Guéguen P, Bonilla LF, Douglas J (2019) Comparison of soil nonlinearity (in situ stress-strain relation and G/Gmax reduction) observed in strong-motion databases and modeled in ground-motion prediction equations. Bull Seismol Soc Am 109(1):178–186

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hall WJ, Newmark NM (1978) Seismic design criteria for pipelines and facilities. J Techn Counc ASCE 104(1):91–107

    Google Scholar 

  30. Han B, Zdravkovic L, Kontoe S, Taborda DMG (2017) Numerical investigation of multi-directional site response based on KiK-net downhole array monitoring data. Comput Geotech 89:55–70

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hardin BO, Black WL (1969) Closure to vibration modulus of normally consolidated clays. J Soil Mech Found Div 94(2):1531–1537

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hardin BO, Drnevich VP (1972) Shear modulus and damping in soils: measurement and parameter effects. J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE 98(SM6):603–624

    Google Scholar 

  33. Idriss IM (2011) Use of VS30 to represent local site condition. In: 4th IASPEI/IAEE international symposium: effects of source geology on seismic motion,. 23–26 August, 2011, University of Santa Barbara California

  34. Idriss IM (2014) An NGA-West2 empirical model for estimating the horizontal spectral values generated by shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthq Spectra 30(3):1155–1177

    Google Scholar 

  35. Jardine RJ (1992) Nonlinear stiffness parameters from undrained pressuremeter tests. Can Geotech J 29(3):436–447

    Google Scholar 

  36. Johnson PA, Jia XP (2005) Nonlinear dynamics, granular media and dynamic earthquake triggering. Nature 437(7060):871–874

    Google Scholar 

  37. Kaklamanos J, Baise LG, Thompson EM, Dorfmann L (2015) Comparison of 1D linear, equivalent-linear, and nonlinear site response models at six KiK-net validation sites. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 69:207–219

    Google Scholar 

  38. Kamai R, Pe’er G, (2018) Site response of the vertical ground-motion. Geotech Earthq Eng Soil Dyn V GSP 291:608–618

    Google Scholar 

  39. Kim B, Hashash YM (2013) Site response analysis using downhole array recordings during the March 2011 Tohoku-Oki earthquake and the effect of long-duration ground motions. Earthq Spectra 29(s1):S37–S54

    Google Scholar 

  40. Kim B, Hashash YM, Stewart JP, Rathje EM, Harmon JA, Musgrove MI, Silva WJ (2016) Relative differences between nonlinear and equivalent-linear 1-D site response analyses. Earthq Spectra 32(3):1845–1865

    Google Scholar 

  41. Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  42. Li G, Motamed R, Dickenson S (2018) Evaluation of one-dimensional multi-directional site response analyses using geotechnical downhole array data in California and Japan. Earthq Spectra 34(1):349–376

    Google Scholar 

  43. Miao Y, Shi Y, Wang SY (2018) Temporal change of near-surface shear wave velocity associated with rainfall in Northeast Honshu, Japan. Earth Planets Space 70(1):204

    Google Scholar 

  44. Miao Y, Shi Y, Zhuang HY, Wang SY, Yu XB (2019) Influence of seasonal frozen soil on near surface shear wave velocity in Eastern Hokkaido, Japan. Geophys Res Lett 30:596–607

    Google Scholar 

  45. Nakata N, Snieder R (2012) Estimating near-surface shear wave velocities in Japan by applying seismic interferometry to KiK-net data. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 117(1):B01308

    Google Scholar 

  46. Obermann A, Planès T, Larose E, Campillo M (2013) Imaging preeruptive and coeruptive structural and mechanical changes of a volcano with ambient seismic noise. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 118(12):6285–6294

    Google Scholar 

  47. Papazoglou AJ, Elnashai AS (1996) Analytical and field evidence of the damaging effect of vertical earthquake ground motion. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 25(10):1109–1137

    Google Scholar 

  48. Pavlenko O, Irikura K (2002) Nonlinearity in the response of soils in the 1995 Kobe earthquake in vertical components of records. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 22(9):967–975

    Google Scholar 

  49. Pyke RM (1993) Modeling of dynamic soil properties, Guidelines for Determining Design Bases Ground Motions, Appendix 7.A. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California, 7.A-1–7.A-90

  50. Rathje EM, Chang WJ, Stokoe KH, Cox BR (2004) Evaluation of ground strain from in situ dynamic response. In: Proceeding of the 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, 1–6 August, 2004, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

  51. Regnier J, Cadet H, Bonilla LF, Bertrand E, Semblat JF (2013) Assessing nonlinear behavior of soils in seismic site sesponse: statistical analysis on KiK-net strong-motion data. Bull Seismol Soc Am 103(3):1750–1770

    Google Scholar 

  52. Ren Y, Wen R, Yao X, Ji K (2017) Five parameters for the evaluation of the soil nonlinearity during the Ms8.0 Wenchuan earthquake using the HVSR method. Earth Planets Space 69(1):116

    Google Scholar 

  53. Rubinstein JL (2011) Nonlinear site response in medium magnitude earthquakes near Parkfield, California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 101(1):275–286

    Google Scholar 

  54. Sawazaki K, Sato H, Nakahara H, Nishimura T (2009) Time-lapse changes of seismic velocity in the shallow ground caused by strong ground motion shock of the 2000 Western-Tottori earthquake, Japan, as revealed from coda deconvolution analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99(1):352–366

    Google Scholar 

  55. Stewart JP, Afshari K, Hashash YM (2014) Guidelines for performing hazard-consistent one-dimensional ground response analysis for ground motion prediction. PEER Rep 2014:16

    Google Scholar 

  56. Stokoe KHII (1999) Dynamic soil properties: laboratory, field and correlation studies. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering 3, pp 811–845. January, 1999, Lisbon, Portugal

  57. Takagi R, Okada T (2012) Temporal change in shear velocity and polarization anisotropy related to the 2011 M9.0 Tohoku-Oki earthquake examined using KiK-net vertical array data. Geophys Res Lett 39(9):L09310

    Google Scholar 

  58. Tsai CC, Liu HW (2017a) Amplification behavior of vertical motion observed from downhole arrays. In: Proceedings of the 16th world conference on earthquake, 2017, Santiago, Chile

  59. Tsai CC, Liu HW (2017b) Site response analysis of vertical ground motion in consideration of soil nonlinearity. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 102:124–136

    Google Scholar 

  60. Vasconcelos I, Snieder R (2008) Interferometry by deconvolution: part 1-theory for acoustic waves and numerical examples. Geophysics 73(3):S115–S128

    Google Scholar 

  61. Vucetic M (1994) Cyclic threshold shear strains in soils. J Geotech Eng 120(12):2208–2228

    Google Scholar 

  62. Vucetic M, Dobry R (1991) Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response. J Geotech Eng 117(1):89–107

    Google Scholar 

  63. Wang HY, Jiang WP, Wang SY, Miao Y (2018) In situ assessment of soil dynamic parameters for characterizing nonlinear seismic site response using KiK-net vertical array data. Bull Earthq Eng 17(5):2331–2360

    Google Scholar 

  64. Wen KL, Beresnev IA, Yeh YT (1994) Nonlinear soil amplification inferred from downhole strong seismic motion data. Geophys Res Lett 21(24):2625–2628

    Google Scholar 

  65. Wu CQ, Peng ZG, Ben-Zion Y (2010) Refined thresholds for non-linear ground motion and temporal changes of site response associated with medium-size earthquakes. Geophys J Int 182(3):1567–1576

    Google Scholar 

  66. Yamada M, Mori J, Ohmi S (2010) Temporal changes of subsurface velocities during strong shaking as seen from seismic interferometry. J Geophys Res 115(B3):B03302

    Google Scholar 

  67. Yang J, Sato T (2000) Interpretation of seismic vertical amplification observed at an array site. Bull Seismol Soc Am 90(2):275–285

    Google Scholar 

  68. Yang ZF, Yuan J, Liu JW, Han B (2017) Shear modulus degradation curves of gravelly and clayey soils based on KiK-Net in situ seismic observations. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 143(9):06017008

    Google Scholar 

  69. Zalachoris G, Rathje EM (2015) Evaluation of one-dimensional site response techniques using borehole arrays. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 141(12):04015053

    Google Scholar 

  70. Zeghal M, Elgamal AW (1994) Analysis of site liquefaction using earthquake records. J Geotech Eng 120(6):996–1017

    Google Scholar 

  71. Zhang JF, Andrus RD, Juang CH (2005) Normalized shear modulus and material damping ratio relationships. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 131(4):453–464

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was financially supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (No. 2016YFC0800200), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 51778260 and 51378234), the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (No. 2018M642845). We are grateful for the use of the velocity profiles and earthquake records provided by National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Resilience (NIED) in Japan. The data DOI is listed as follows: https://doi.org/10.17598/NIED.0004.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yu Miao.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shi, Y., Wang, S., Cheng, K. et al. In situ characterization of nonlinear soil behavior of vertical ground motion using KiK-net data. Bull Earthquake Eng (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00893-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Soil nonlinearity
  • Vertical ground motion
  • Seismic interferometry
  • KiK-net vertical arrays
  • Constrained modulus degradation curve