Peak ground acceleration (PGA), peak ground velocity (PGV), and spectral acceleration are among the most widely used metrics to represent seismic hazard characteristics in practice. Several simplified seismic design procedures to evaluate liquefaction triggering, slope stability, or structural response have also proposed other ground motion parameters (GMPs) to represent a ground motion’s intensity, duration, and frequency content. To account for soil effects, these parameters can be obtained from the results of one-dimensional (1D) ground response analyses. Few studies have systematically evaluated the prediction of these additional parameters from the results of ground response analyses. This study presents an exhaustive review of the accuracy and precision of the prediction of 19 common GMPs from the results of 1D ground response analyses using vertical seismic arrays and centrifuge tests. Total stress nonlinear analyses are conducted using the software DEEPSOIL along with equivalent-linear analysis. A reference dataset composed of 10 sites and 306 ground motion recordings representing varying conditions of seismic excitation is employed. The findings of this study showed that while the models produced a reasonable approximation of spectral accelerations, a general tendency toward the over-prediction of most parameters was revealed. The results identified that the mean period (Tm) yielded the lowest bias, and other parameters, such as the predominant spectral period (To), PGA, and PGV, also offered some improvements over the other parameters included in this study.
AfshariKStewartJP (2015) Effectiveness of 1D ground response analyses at predicting site response at California vertical array sites. UCLA. Available at: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4qd93847 (accessed 13 July 2020)
2.
AfshariKStewartJP (2019) Insights from California vertical arrays on the effectiveness of ground response analysis with alternative damping models. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America109: 1250–1264.
3.
ASCE (2016) Minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings and other structures. ASCE/SEI 7-16. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.
4.
AoiSKunugiTFujiwaraH (2004) Strong-motion seismograph network operated by NIED: K-NET and KiK-net. Journal of Japan Association for Earthquake Engineering4: 65–74.
5.
AriasA (1970) Measure of Earthquake Intensity. Santiago de Chile: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge University of Chile.
6.
BaiseLGGlaserSDDregerD (2003) Site response at Treasure and Yerba Buena Islands, California. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 129: 415–426.
7.
BaturayMBStewartJP (2003) Uncertainty and bias in ground-motion estimates from ground response analyses. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America93: 2025–2042.
8.
BessetteC (2020) Evaluation of existing constitutive models in nonlinear 1D effective stress ground response analysis. MS Thesis, Polytechnique Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.
9.
BessetteCYniestaS (2021) Investigation of the performance of simplified constitutive models in nonlinear 1D effective stress ground response analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America111: 1954–1973.
10.
BlakeTFHollingsworthRAStewartJPEarnestJGharibFHollingsworthRHorsmanLHsuDKupfermanSMasudaRPradelDRealCReederWSathialingamNSimantobEStewartJ (2002) Recommended procedures for implementation of DMG special publication 117 guidelines for analyzing and mitigating landslide hazards in California. Los Angeles Section Geotechnical Group, Document Published by the Southern California Earthquake Center, Los Angeles, CA.
11.
BoltB (1973) Duration of strong ground motions. In: Fifth world conference on earthquake engineering, Rome, Italy: California Institute of Technology, 25–29 June 1973, pp. 1304–1313
12.
BommerJJMagenesGHancockJPenazzoP (2004) The influence of strong-motion duration on the seismic response of masonry structures. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering2: 1–26.
13.
BookerJRRahmanMSSeedHB (1976) GADFLEA: A Computer Program for the Analysis of Pore Pressure Generation and Dissipation during Cyclic or Earthquake Loading. Berkeley, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Center, California University, Berkeley.
14.
BooreDM (2016) Determining generic velocity and density models for crustal amplification calculations, with an update of the generic site amplification for. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America106: 313–317.
15.
BorcherdtR (1994) Estimates of site-dependent response spectra for design (methodology and justification). Earthquake Spectra10: 617–653.
16.
BorjaRIDuvernayBGLinCH (2002) Ground response in Lotung: Total stress analyses and parametric studies. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering128: 54–63.
17.
BoulangerRWIdrissIM (2014) CPT and SPT based liquefaction triggering procedures. UCD/CGM-14/01. Davis, CA: Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering, University of California at Davis.
18.
BradleyBA (2011) A framework for validation of seismic response analyses using seismometer array recordings. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering31: 512–520.
19.
BrayJDMacedoJ (2017) 6th Ishihara lecture: Simplified procedure for estimating liquefaction-induced building settlement. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering102: 215–231.
20.
BullockZDashtiSLielABPorterKAKarimiZ (2019b) Assessment supporting the use of outcropping rock evolutionary intensity measures for prediction of liquefaction consequences. Earthquake Spectra35: 1899–1926.
21.
BullockZKarimiZDashtiSPorterKALielABFrankeKW (2019a) A physics-informed semi-empirical probabilistic model for the settlement of shallow-founded structures on liquefiable ground. Géotechnique69: 406–419.
22.
CabanasLBenitoBHerráizM (1997) An approach to the measurement of the potential structural damage of earthquake ground motions. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics26: 79–92.
23.
CabasARodriguez-MarekABonillaLF (2017) Estimation of site-specific Kappa (κ0)-consistent damping values at KiK-Net sites to assess the discrepancy between laboratory-based damping models and observed attenuation (of seismic waves) in the field. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America107: 2258–2271.
24.
CampbellKWBozorgniaY (2014) NGA-West2 ground motion model for the average horizontal components of PGA, PGV, and 5% damped linear acceleration response spectra. Earthquake Spectra30: 1087–1115.
25.
CarltonBTokimatsuK (2016) Comparison of equivalent linear and nonlinear site response analysis results and model to estimate maximum shear strain. Earthquake Spectra32: 1867–1887.
26.
ChandramohanRBakerJWDeierleinGG (2016) Quantifying the influence of ground motion duration on structural collapse capacity using spectrally equivalent records. Earthquake Spectra32: 927–950.
27.
ChoiWK (2008) Dynamic properties of ash-flow tuffs. PhD Thesis, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
28.
ChousianitisKDel GaudioVKalogerasIGanasA (2014) Predictive model of Arias intensity and Newmark displacement for regional scale evaluation of earthquake-induced landslide hazard in Greece. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering65: 11–29.
29.
DashtiSKarimiZ (2017) Ground motion intensity measures to evaluate I: The liquefaction hazard in the vicinity of shallow-founded structures. Earthquake Spectra33: 241–276.
30.
DashtiSBrayJDPestanaJMRiemerMWilsonD (2010) Centrifuge testing to evaluate and mitigate liquefaction-induced building settlement mechanisms. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering136: 918–929.
31.
Electrical Power Research Institute (1988) A criterion for determining exceedance of the operating basis earthquake. EPRI Report NP-5930. Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute.
32.
Electrical Power Research Institute (1991) Standardization of the cumulative absolute velocity. EPRI Report TR-100082-T2. Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute.
33.
FoschaarJCBakerJWDeierleinGG (2012) Preliminary assessment of ground motion duration effects on structural collapse. In: 15th world conference on earthquake engineering, Lisbon, 24–28 September.
34.
GroholskiDRHashashYMAKimBMusgroveMHarmonJStewartJP (2016) Simplified model for small-strain nonlinearity and strength in 1D seismic site response analysis. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering142: 04016042.
35.
HancockJBommerJJ (2007) Using spectral matched records to explore the influence of strong-motion duration on inelastic structural response. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering27: 291–299.
36.
HarpELWilsonRC (1995) Shaking intensity thresholds for rock falls and slides: Evidence from 1987 Whittier Narrows and Superstition Hills earthquake strong-motion records. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America85: 1739–1757.
37.
HashashYMAMusgroveMIHarmonJAIlhanOXingGNumanogluOGroholskiDRPhillipsCAParkDD (2020) Version 7.0, User Manual. Urbana, IL, Board of Trustees of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
38.
HashashYMADashtiSRomeroMIGhayoomiMMusgroveM (2015) Evaluation of 1-D seismic site response modeling of sand using centrifuge experiments. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering78: 19–31.
39.
HsiehSYLeeCT (2011) Empirical estimation of the Newmark displacement from the Arias intensity and critical acceleration. Engineering Geology122: 34–42.
40.
IdrissIM (2011) Use of VS30 to represent local site conditions. In: Proceedings of the 4th IASPEI/IAEE international symposium, effects of source geology on seismic motion, UC Santa Barbara, CA, 23-26 August 2011
41.
IdrissIMBoulangerRW (2008) Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes. Oakland, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
42.
JibsonRWHarpELMichaelJA (2000) A method for producing digital probabilistic seismic landslide hazard maps. Engineering Geology58: 271–289.
43.
KaklamanosJBradleyBA (2018) Challenges in predicting seismic site response with 1D analyses: Conclusions from 114 KiK-net vertical seismometer arrays. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America108: 2816–2838.
44.
KaklamanosJBaiseLGThompsonEMDorfmannL (2015) Comparison of 1D linear, equivalent-linear, and nonlinear site response models at six KiK-net validation sites. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering69: 207–219.
45.
KaklamanosJBradleyBAMoolacattuANPicardBM (2020) Physical hypotheses for adjusting coarse profiles and improving 1D site-response estimation assessed at 10 KiK-net sites. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America110: 1338–1358.
46.
KaklamanosJBradleyBAThompsonEMBaiseLG (2013) Critical parameters affecting bias and variability in site-response analyses using KiK-net downhole array data. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America103: 1733–1749.
47.
KarimiZDashtiS (2017) Ground motion intensity measures to evaluate II: The performance of shallow-founded structures on liquefiable ground. Earthquake Spectra33: 277–298.
48.
KayenRE (1997) Assessment of liquefaction potential during earthquakes by arias intensity. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering13: 1162–1174.
49.
KimBHashashYMStewartJPRathjeEMHarmonJACampbellKWSilvaWJ (2016) Relative differences between nonlinear and equivalent-linear 1-D site response analyses. Earthquake Spectra32: 1845–1865.
LaddCCFoottR (1974) New design procedure for stability of soft clays. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering100: 763–786.
53.
LeeKLAlbaisaA (1974) Earthquake induced settlements in saturated sands. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering100: 387–406.
54.
LiuAHStewartJPAbrahamsonNAMoriwakiY (2001) Equivalent number of uniform stress cycles for soil liquefaction analysis. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering127: 1017–1026.
55.
LucoNCornellCA (2007) Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for near-source and ordinary earthquake ground motions. Earthquake Spectra23: 357–392.
56.
MoughtyJJCasasJR (2017) A state of the art review of modal-based damage detection in bridges: Development, challenges, and solutions. Applied Sciences7: 510.
57.
National Building Code of Canada (2015) National Building Code of Canada 2015. Ottawa, ON, Canada: National Research Council of Canada.
58.
OkadaYKasaharaKHoriSObaraKSekiguchiSFujiwaraHYamamotoA (2004) Recent progress of seismic observation networks in Japan—Hi-net, F-net, K-NET and KiK-net—. Earth, Planets and Space56: xv–xxviii.
59.
PapazoglouAJElnashaiAS (1996) Analytical and field evidence of the damaging effect of vertical earthquake ground motion. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics25: 1109–1137.
60.
PhillipsCHashashYMA (2009) Damping formulation for nonlinear 1D site response analyses. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering29: 1143–1158.
61.
RaghunandanMLielAB (2013) Effect of ground motion duration on earthquake-induced structural collapse. Structural Safety41: 119–133.
62.
RathjeEMAbrahamsonNABrayJD (1998) Simplified frequency content estimates of earthquake ground motions. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering124: 150–159.
63.
RathjeEMFarajFRussellSBrayJD (2004) Empirical relationships for frequency content parameters of earthquake ground motions. Earthquake Spectra20: 119–144.
64.
SchnabelPB (1972) SHAKE: A computer program for earthquake response analysis of horizontally layered sites. EERC Report 72-12. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley.
65.
SeedHB (1975) Representation of Irregular Stress Time Histories by Equivalent Uniform Stress Series in Liquefaction Analyses. Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service.
66.
SeedHB (1982) Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction during Earthquakes. Oakland, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
67.
SeedHBMartinPPLysmerJ (1975) The Generation and Dissipation of Pore Water Pressures during Soil Liquefaction. Berkeley, CA: College of Engineering, University of California.
68.
ShiJAsimakiD (2017) From stiffness to strength: Formulation and validation of a hybrid hyperbolic nonlinear soil model for site-response analyses. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America107: 1336–1355.
69.
ShiJAsimakiD (2018) On the applicability of shear strain index as a proxy for site response nonlinearity. In: Geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics V, Austin, TX, 7 June, pp. 550–558. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.
70.
StaffordPJRathjeEM (2015) Constraints on the scaling of the mean period of ground-motions using inverse random vibration theory. In: The 6th international conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering, Christchurch, New Zealand, 1–5 November.
71.
StewartJPAfshariKHashashYMA (2014) Guidelines for performing hazard-consistent one-dimensional ground response analysis for ground motion prediction. PEER Report No. 2014/16201416. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
72.
StewartJPBlakeTFHollingsworthRA (2003) A screen analysis procedure for seismic slope stability. Earthquake Spectra19: 697–712.
73.
TaoYRathje (2020) Taxonomy for evaluating site-specific applicability of one-dimensional ground response analysis. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering128: 105865.
74.
ThompsonEMBaiseLGTanakaYKayenRE (2012) A taxonomy of site response complexity. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering41: 32–43.
75.
TravasarouTBrayJD (2003) Optimal ground motion intensity measures for assessment of seismic slope displacements. In: 2003 pacific conference on earthquake engineering, Christchurch, New Zealand, 13–15 February.
76.
TrifunacMDBradyAG (1975) A study on the duration of strong earthquake ground motion. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America65: 581–626.
77.
WartmanJBrayJDSeedRB (2003) Inclined plane studies of the newmark sliding block procedure. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering129: 673–684.
78.
WilsonD (1998) Dynamic centrifuge tests of pile supported structures in liquefiable sand. PhD Thesis, University of California, Davis, CA.
79.
YangJSatoT (2000) Interpretation of seismic vertical amplification observed at an array site. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America90: 275–285.
80.
YegianMKMarcianoEAGhahramanVG (1991) Seismic risk analysis for earth dams. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering117: 18–34.
81.
YoudTLIdrissIM (2001) Liquefaction resistance of soils: Summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering127: 297–313.
82.
ZalachorisGRathjeEM (2015) Evaluation of one-dimensional site response techniques using borehole arrays. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering141: 04015053.
83.
ZhangJAndrusRDJuangCH (2005) Normalized shear modulus and material damping ratio relationships. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering131: 453–464.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
