Natural Hazards

, Volume 64, Issue 2, pp 1731–1752 | Cite as

An effective procedure for seismic hazard analysis including nonlinear soil response

  • Saman Yaghmaei-Sabegh
  • Roya Motallebzade
Original Paper


This paper presents probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) of Tehran, Iran, accounting the effect of nonlinear soil response. It is well-known that soil nonlinearity and its accurate prediction could play important role in seismic hazard study. For this purpose, two different approaches have been carried out for predicting the hazard curves by (1) applying site modifications to the ground motion prediction equation based on generic site classes and use of constant coefficients (2) using a close-form solution that modifies the hazard results at the rock level. Also, efficiency of the Monte Carlo method in modeling of amplification function for the six selected sites in the study area was examined. Results showed important effect of nonlinear soil response mainly for frequencies lower than 8 Hz, which should be considered properly in hazard estimation. As an interesting subject, influence of soil plasticity index (PI) on hazard estimation of clayey sites including the nonlinear soil response was evaluated.


Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis Soil nonlinearity Surface response spectra Amplification function Hazard estimation Tehran 


  1. Abrahamson NA, Silva WJ (1997) Empirical response spectra attenuation relations for shallow crustal earthquakes. Seismol Res Lett 68:94–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abrahamson N, Atkinson G, Boore D, Bozorgnia Y, Campbell K, Chiou B, Idriss M, Silva W, Youngs R (2008) Comparisons of the NGA ground-motion relations. Earthquake Spectra 24(1):45–66Google Scholar
  3. Aghabarati H, Tehranizade M (2009) Near-source ground motion attenuation relationship for PGA and PSA of the vertical and horizontal components. Bull Earthquake Eng 7:609–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amico V, Albarello D, Mucciarelli M (2002) Validation through HVSR measurements of a method for the quick detection of site amplification effects from intensity data: an application to a seismic area in Northern Italy. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 22(6):475–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Assimaki D, Li W (2012) Site and ground motion-dependent nonlinear effects in seismological model predictions. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 3:143–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Atkinson GM, Cassidy JF (2000) Integrated use of seismograph and strong-motion data to determine soil amplification: response of the Fraser River Delta to the Duvall and Georgia Strait earthquakes. Bull Seism Soc Am 90(4):1028–1040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bazzurro P, Cornell CA (2004a) Nonlinear soil-site effects in probabilistic seismic-hazard analysis. Bull Seism Soc Am 96(6):2110–2123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bazzurro P, Cornell CA (2004b) Ground-motion amplification in nonlinear soil sites with uncertain properties. Bull Seism Soc Am 94(6):2090–2109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Benetatos CA, Kiratzi AA (2004) Stochastic strong ground motion simulation of intermediate depth earthquakes: the cases of the 30 May 1990 Vrancea (Romania) and of the 22 January 2002 Karpathos island (Greece) earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 24:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boore DM, Atkinson GM (2008) Ground-motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5 %-damped PSA at spectral periods between 0.01 s and 10.0 s. Earthquake Spectra 24(1):99–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boore DM, Joyner WB, Fumal TE (1997) Equation for estimating horizontal response spectra and peak acceleration from western North American earthquake. Seismol Res Lett 68(1):128–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Borcherdt RD (1970) Effects of local geology on ground motion near San Francisco Bay. Bull Seism Soc Am 60:29–61Google Scholar
  13. Campbell KW, Bozorgnia Y (2003) Updated near-source ground-motion (attenuation) relations for the horizontal and vertical components of peak ground acceleration and acceleration response spectra. Bull Seism Soc Am 93(1):314–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Campbell KW, Bozorgnia Y (2008) NGA ground motion model for the geometric mean horizontal component of PGA, PGV, PGD and 5 % damped linear elastic response spectra for periods ranging from 0.01 to 10 s. Earthquake Spectra 24(1):139–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cultrera G, Boore DM, Joyner WB, Dietel CM (1999) Nonlinear soil response in the vicinity of the Van Normal complex following the 1994 Northridge, California, earthquake. Bull Seism Soc Am 89(5):1214–1231Google Scholar
  16. Gardner JK, Knopoff L (1974) Is the sequence of earthquake in southern california, with aftershocks removed, Poissonian? Bull Seism Soc Am 64(5):1363–1367Google Scholar
  17. Ghasemi H, Zare M, Fukushima Y, Koketsu K (2009) An empirical spectral ground motion model for Iran. J Seismol 13:499–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gholipour Y, Bozorgnia Y, Rahnam M, Berberian M (2011) Probabilistic hazard analysis, greater tehran regions, final report (phase I), President Deputy Strategic Planning and ControlGoogle Scholar
  19. Haghshenas E, Bard PY, Theodulidis N (2008) Empirical evaluation of microtremor H/V spectral ratio. Bull Earthquake Eng 6(1):75–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hryciw RD, Rollins KM, Homolka M, Shewbridge SE, McHood M. (1991) Soil amplification at Treasure Island during the Loma Prieta earthquake. Proceedings of 2nd international conference on recent advance in geotech. Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, St. Louis, Missouri 2:1679–1685Google Scholar
  21. Idriss IM (1990) Response of soft soil sites during earthquakes. Proceedings of the symposium to honor H.B. Seed, Berkeley, CA, pp 273–289Google Scholar
  22. International Institute of Engineering Earthquake and Seismology (IIEES) (2003) “Preliminary report on the Bam earthquake,”Google Scholar
  23. Jafari MK, Razmkhah A (2001) Complementary Seismic geotechnical microzonation of south of Tehran. IIEES report, International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Tehran, Iran (In Persian)Google Scholar
  24. Jafari MK, Shafiee A, Razmkhah A (2002) Dynamic properties of fine grained soil in south of Tehran. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 4(1):25–35Google Scholar
  25. Kalkan E, Gülkan P (2004) Empirical attenuation equations for vertical ground motion in Turkey. Earthquake Spectra 20(3):853–882Google Scholar
  26. Lermo J, Chavez-Garcia FJ (1994) Are microtremors useful in site response evaluation? Bull Seism Soc Am 84(5):1350–1364Google Scholar
  27. Mundepi AK, Galiana-Merino JJ, Lindholm C, Kamal C (2010) Soil characteristics and site effect assessment in the city of Delhi (India) using H/V and f–k methods. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 30(7):591–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Park D (2003) Estimation of non-linear seismic site effects for deep deposits of the Mississippi Embayment. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at UrbanaGoogle Scholar
  29. Park D, Hashash YMA (2005) Evaluation of seismic site factors in the Mississippi Embayment. II. Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis with nonlinear site effects. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 25(2):145–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pavlenko OV, Irikura K (2002) Nonlinearity in the response of soils in the 1995 Kobe earthquake in vertical components of records. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 22:967–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pavlenko OV, Wen KL (2008) Estimation of nonlinear soil behavior during the 1999 Chi–Chi, Taiwan, earthquake. Pure Appl Geophys 165:373–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rayhani MHT, El Naggar MH, Tabatabaei SH (2008) Nonlinear analysis of local site effects on seismic ground response in the Bam earthquake. Geotech Geol Eng 26:91–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Reiter L (1990) Earthquake hazard analysis: issues and insights. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Roumelioti Z, Beresnev IA (2003) Stochastic finite-fault modeling of ground motions from the 1999 Chi–Chi, Taiwan, earthquake: application to rock and soil sites with implications for nonlinear site response. Bull Seism Soc Am 93(4):1691–1702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sadigh K, Chang C.-Y, Egan JA, Makdisi F, Youngs RR (1997) Attenuation relationships for shallow crustal earthquakes based on California strong motion data. Seismol Res Lett 68(1):180–189Google Scholar
  36. Scherbaum F, Cotton F, Smit P (2004) On the use of response spectral-reference data for the selection and ranking of ground motion models for seismic-hazard analysis in regions of moderate seismicity: the case of rock motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 94:2164–2185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schnabel PB, Lysmer J, Seed HB (1972) SHAKE: a computer program for earthquake response analysis of horizontally layered sites. Report no. UCB/EERC-72/12, Earthquake Engineering Research center, University of California, Berkeley, December, P 102Google Scholar
  38. Seed HB, Idriss IM (1970) Soil module and damping factors for dynamic response analysis. College of Engineering University of California Berkeley, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  39. Seed HB, Murarka R, Lysmer J, Idriss IM (1976) Relationships between maximum acceleration, maximum velocity, distance from source and local site conditions for moderately strong earthquake. Bull Seism Soc Am 66(4):1323–1342Google Scholar
  40. Silva WJ, Lee R, McGuire RK, Cornell CA (2000) A comparison of methodologies to achieve a site-specific PSHA. Seism Res Lett 71:247 (abstract)Google Scholar
  41. Sokolov VY, Loh CH, Jean WY (2007) Application of horizontal-to-vertical (H/V) Fourier spectral ratio for analysis of site effect on rock (NEHRP-class B) sites in Taiwan. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 27(4):314–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Trifuance MD, Todorovska MI (1996) Nonlinear soil response-1994 Northridge, California, earthquake. Geotech Eng 122(9):725–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tsai CCP (2000) Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis considering nonlinear site effects. Bull Seism Soc Am 90:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yaghmaei-Sabegh S (2012) A new method for ranking and weighting of earthquake ground-motion prediction models. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 39:78–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yaghmaei-Sabegh S, Lam NTK (2010) Ground motion modelling in Tehran based on the stochastic method. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 30:525–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yaghmaei-Sabegh S, Tsang HH (2011) A new site classification approach based on artificial neural networks. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 31:974–981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yaghmaei-Sabegh S, Shoghian Z, Sheikh MN (2011) A new model for the prediction of earthquake ground motion duration in Iran. Nat Hazards. doi: 10.1007/s11069-011-9990-6 Google Scholar
  48. Yuxian H, Chen HY (1992) Probabilistic analysis of uncertainties in seismic hazard assessment. Struct Safety 11:245–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of TabrizTabrizIran

Personalised recommendations