This study presents a comprehensive investigation of one-dimensional (1-D) site response analysis (SRA) to predict the dynamic response of soil deposits under earthquake loading utilizing the recordings at selected borehole arrays. Seven instrumented downhole arrays in California and Japan were studied using 41 recorded ground motions that cover a broad range of intensities. The arrays were initially assessed in terms of effectiveness of 1-D SRA using taxonomy screening. Furthermore, LS-DYNA, an advanced Finite Element (FE) program, was employed to develop the 1-D soil column models for the SRA of these arrays. The soil stress-strain behavior was characterized with three different models including one linear elastic and two nonlinear backbone curve formulations. All predictions were compared to the measured ground motions to quantify the model biases and uncertainties. Lastly, the practical limitations of 1-D SRA models considered herein are identified, and recommendations are provided to assess the usefulness of the predictions in engineering practice.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonJ. G., 2004.
Quantitative measure of the goodness-of-fit of synthetic seismograms,
in the13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering Conference Proceedings ,
Paper No. 243,
1–6 August 2004,
Vancouver, Canada.
2.
AfshariK., StewartJ. P., 2015.
Effectiveness of 1-D ground response analyses at predicting site response at California vertical array sites,
in theProceedings of SMIP 15 Seminar on Utilization of Strong-Motion Data ,
22 October 2015,
Davis, CA,
pp.
23–
40.
3.
BolisettiC., WhittakerA. S., MasonH. B., AlmuftiI., WillfordM., 2014.
Equivalent linear and nonlinear site response analysis for design and risk assessment of safety-related nuclear structures,
Nuclear Engineering and Design275, ,
107–
121.
4.
BorjaR. I., ChaoH. Y., MontánsF. J., LinC. H., 1999.
Nonlinear ground response at Lotung LSST site,
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering125, (
3),
187–
197.
5.
Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC), 2015.
NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures, Volume 1: Part 1 Provisions, Part 2 Commentary ,
FEMA P-1050-1,
Washington, D.C.,
555pp.
6.
California Engineering Strong Motion Database (CESMD), n.d. Retrieved from http://www.strongmotioncenter.org/ (last accessed 21 August 2017) .
7.
DarendeliM., 2001.
Development of a new family of normalized modulus reduction and material damping curves .
Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas, Austin, Department of Civil Engineering.
8.
ElgamalA. W., ZeghalM., TangH. T., SteppJ. C., 1995.
Lotung downhole array. I: evaluation of site dynamic properties,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering121, (
4),
350–
362.
9.
ElgamalA., LaiT., YangZ., HeL., 2001.
Dynamic soil properties, seismic downhole arrays and applications in practice,
in theProceedings, 4th International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics ,
Paper No. SOAP-6,
Univ. of Missouri-Rolla, ed.,
San Diego, CA.
10.
GroholskiD. R., HashashY. M., KimB., MusgroveM., HarmonJ., StewartJ. P., 2016.
Simplified model for small-strain nonlinearity and strength in 1-D seismic site response analysis,
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering142, (
9),
04016042.
11.
HashashY. M., GroholskiD. R., PhillipsC. A., ParkD., MusgroveM., 2016.
DEEPSOIL 6.1, User Manual and Tutorial.
Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign:
Champaign, Illinois.
12.
HayatiH., MossR. E., 2017.
Site response analysis considering strain compatible site period,
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering92, ,
551–
560.
13.
KaklamanosJ., BradleyB. A., ThompsonE. M., BaiseL. G., 2013.
Critical parameters affecting bias and variability in site-response analyses using KiK-net downhole array data,
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America103, (
3),
1733–
1749.
14.
KaklamanosJ., BaiseL. G., ThompsonE. M., DorfmannL., 2015.
Comparison of 1-D linear, equivalent-linear, and nonlinear site response models at six KiK-net validation sites,
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering69, ,
207–
219.
15.
KimB., HashashY. M., 2013.
Site response analysis using downhole array recordings during the March 2011 Tohoku-Oki earthquake and the effect of long-duration ground motions,
Earthquake spectra29, (
S1),
S37–
S54.
LeeC. P., TsaiY. B., WenK. L., 2006.
Analysis of nonlinear site response using the LSST downhole accelerometer array data,
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering26, (
5),
435–
460.
18.
LSTC, 2014.
LS DYNA Keyword User's Manual Volumes I & II - Release 971 R7.1.1.
Livermore Software Technology Corporation,
Livermore, California.
19.
MasingG., 1926.
Eigenspannungen und verfestigung beim messing,
inProceedings of the 2nd International Congress of Applied Mechanics (
Vol. 100,
pp .
332–
5).
sn .
20.
MatasovicN., HashashY., 2012.
Practices and Procedures for Site-Specific Evaluations of Earthquake Ground Motions(No. Project 20-05, Topic 42-03).
21.
MotamedR., StantonK., AlmuftiI., EllisonK., WillfordM., 2016.
Improved approach for modeling nonlinear site response of highly strained soils: case study of the service hall array in Japan,
Earthquake Spectra32, (
2),
1055–
1074.
22.
MotamedR., StantonK., AlmuftiI., EllisonK., WillfordM., 2015.
Effects of Multi-directional Shaking in Nonlinear Site Response Analysis: Case Study of 2007 Niigata-ken Chuetsu-oki Earthquake,
in the6th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering ,
Paper No. 56.
1–4 November 2015,
Christchurch, New Zealand.
23.
PhillipsC., HashashY. M., 2009.
Damping formulation for nonlinear 1-D site response analysis,
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering29, (
7),
1143–
1158.
24.
RodgersA. J., DregerD. S., PitarkaA., 2015.
Three-Dimensional Finite Difference Simulation of Ground Motions from the August 24, 2014 South Napa Earthquake .
LLNL-TR-673182.
25.
SeedH. B., IdrissI. M., 1971.
Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential,
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division97, (
9),
1249–
1273.
26.
ShakalA., HuangM., 2013.
Recent Developments and Status of the California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program,
inProceedings of SMIP 13 Seminar on Utilization of Strong-Motion Data ,
10 October 2013,
Los Angeles, CA,
pp.
101–
118.
27.
StewartJ. P., KwokA. O., HashashY. M. A., MatasovicN., PykeR., WangZ., YangZ., 2008.
Benchmarking of nonlinear seismic ground response analysis procedures.
Report. No. PEER-2008, 4 .
28.
StewartJ. P., YeeE., 2012.
Nonlinear Site Response and Seismic Compression at Vertical Array Strongly Shaken by 2007 Niigata-ken Chuetsu-oki Earthquake .
Reston, VA:
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, External Research Program.
29.
Tokyo Electric Power Company, Inc., TEPCO, 2007.
Acceleration-Time History Waveforms of Niigata-Chuetsu-Oki Earthquake Collected at Kashiwazaki Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant Station (Mainshock and 6 Aftershocks),
CD No. 1043, Work by Tokyo Electric Power Co., Inc., Distributed by: The Association for Earthquake Disaster Prevention.
30.
ThompsonE. M., BaiseL. G., KayenR. E., GuzinaB. B., 2009.
Impediments to predicting site response: seismic property estimation and modeling simplifications,
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America99, (
5),
2927–
2949.
31.
ThompsonE. M., BaiseL. G., TanakaY., KayenR. E., 2012.
A taxonomy of site response complexity,
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering41, ,
32–
43.
32.
TsaiC. C., HashashY. M. A., 2009.
Learning of dynamic soil behavior from downhole arrays,
Journal of Geoenvironmental Engineering135, (
6),
745–
757.
33.
WangN., ElgamalA., ShantzT., 2017.
Recorded seismic response of the Samoa Channel Bridge-foundation system and adjacent downhole array,
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering92, ,
358–
376.
34.
YeeE., StewartJ. P., TokimatsuK., 2013.
Elastic and large-strain nonlinear seismic site response analysis of vertical array recordings,
Journal of Geoetechnical and Geoenvironmen-tal Engineering139, ,
1789–
1801.
35.
ZalachorisG., 2014.
Evaluation of one-dimensional site response methodologies using borehole arrays .
Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Texas at Austin, TX, 315.
36.
ZalachorisG., RathjeE. M., 2015.
Evaluation of one-dimensional site response techniques using borehole arrays,
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering141, (
12),
04015053.
37.
ZeghalM., ElgamalA. W., TangH. T., SteppJ. C., 1995.
Lotung downhole array. II: Evaluation of soil nonlinear properties,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering121, (
4),
363–
378.
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.
