This article presents recommendations for nonlinear site amplification models in Central and Eastern North America (CENA), which are developed from one-dimensional site response analyses results and accompanies linear site amplification model in a companion article. Two median nonlinear amplification models using identical functional forms are produced as a function of VS30 and peak ground acceleration for reference conditions (PGAr) of VS = 3000 m/s and VS30 = 760 m/s. An epistemic uncertainty model on median nonlinear amplification is proposed as a piecewise functional form to generate reasonable variations of nonlinear amplification across the period and VS30 ranges of interest. Limitations of the models are based on both the methodology of the model derivation and assumptions of nonlinear amplification model forms.
AbrahamsonNSilvaW (2008) Summary of the Abrahamson & Silva NGA ground-motion relations. Earthquake Spectra24(1): 67–97.
2.
AbrahamsonNASilvaWJKamaiR (2014) Summary of the ASK14 ground motion relation for active crustal regions. Earthquake Spectra30(3): 1025–1055.
3.
BaturayMBStewartJP (2003) Uncertainty and bias in ground-motion estimates from ground response analyses. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America93(5): 2025–2042.
4.
Building Seismic Safety Commission (BSSC) (2015) NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA P-1050-1). Washington, DC: BSSC, National Institute of Building Sciences.
5.
BooreDM (2005) SMSIM–Fortran programs for simulating ground motions from earthquakes: version 2.3–a revision of OFR 96-80-A, Tech. Rep., United States Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
6.
ChiouBSJYoungsRR (2008) NGA model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra. PEER report no. 2008/09200809. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
7.
ChiouBSJYoungsRR (2014) Update of the Chiou and Youngs NGA model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra. Earthquake Spectra30(3): 1117–1153.
8.
ChoiYStewartJP (2005) Nonlinear site amplification as function of 30 m shear wave velocity. Earthquake Spectra21(1): 1–30.
9.
DarendeliMB (2001) Development of a new family of normalized modulus reduction and material damping curves, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
10.
DarraghRBAbrahamsonNASilvaWJ, et al. (2015) Development of hard rock ground-motion models for Region 2 of Central and Eastern North America, in NGA-East: Median Ground-Motion Models for the Central and Eastern North America Region, PEER Rep. No. 2015/04, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA, pp. 51–69.
11.
FrankelADMuellerCSPerkinsD, et al. (1996) National Seismic Hazard Maps: Documentation June 1996. Menlo Park, CA: US Geological Survey, 69 pp.
GouletCAKishidaTAnchetaTD, et al. (2014) PEER NGA-East Database. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, p. 124.
14.
HarmonJHashashYMAStewartJP, et al. (2019a) Site amplification functions for Central and Eastern North America—Part I: Simulation dataset development. Earthquake Spectra35: 787–814.
15.
HarmonJHashashYMAStewartJP, et al. (2019b) Site amplification functions for Central and Eastern North America—Part II: Model development and evaluation. Earthquake Spectra35: 815–847.
16.
HashashYMAHarmonJAIlhanO, et al. (2017) Recommendations for ergodic nonlinear site amplification in Central and Eastern North America. PEER report 2017/05. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
17.
HashashYMAKottkeARStewartJP, et al. (2014) Reference rock site condition for Central and Eastern North America. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America104(2): 684–701.
18.
KamaiRAbrahamsonNASilvaWJ (2014) Nonlinear horizontal site amplification for constraining the NGA-West2 GMPEs. Earthquake Spectra30(3): 1223–1240.
19.
McGuireRKSilvaWJCostantinoCJ (2001) Technical basis for revision of regulatory guidance on design ground motions: Hazard- and Risk-consistent ground motion spectra guidelines (NUREG/CR-6728), United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Rockville, MD.
20.
ParkerGAStewartJPHashashYMA, et al. (2019). Empirical linear seismic site amplification in Central and Eastern North America. Earthquake Spectra35: 849–881.
21.
PetersenMDFrankelADHarmsenSC, et al. (2008) Documentation for the 2008 update of the United States National Seismic Hazard Maps. Open-file report 2008-1128. Menlo Park, CA: US Geological Survey.
PetersenMDMoschettiPPowersM, et al. (2015) The 2014 United States national seismic hazard model. Earthquake Spectra31: S1–S30.
24.
PetersenMDShumwayAMPowersPM, et al. (2020) 2018 update of the U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model: Overview of model, changes, and implications. Earthquake Spectra.
25.
SandikkayaMAAkkarSBardPY (2013) A nonlinear site-amplification model for the next pan-European ground-motion prediction equations. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America103(1): 19–32.
26.
SeyhanEStewartJP (2014) Semi-empirical nonlinear site amplification from NGA-West2 data and simulations. Earthquake Spectra30(3): 1241–1256.
27.
StewartJPDouglasJJavanbargM, et al. (2015) Selection of ground motion prediction equations for the global earthquake model. Earthquake Spectra31(1): 19–45.
28.
StewartJPParkerGAAtkinsonGM, et al. (2019) Ergodic site amplification model for Central and Eastern North America. Earthquake Spectra36(1): 42–68.
29.
WallingMSilvaWAbrahamsonN (2008) Nonlinear site amplification factors for constraining the NGA models. Earthquake Spectra24(1): 243–255.
