We compared the results of equivalent linear (ELA) and nonlinear site response analyses (NLA) and found that the differences between the values of the peak ground acceleration (PGA), peak ground velocity (PGV), Arias intensity (Ia), significant duration (D5–75), and response spectrum for periods between 0.025 s and 2 s predicted by each method are non-negligible for maximum shear strain values predicted by ELA (γmax,ELA) greater than 0.04% to 1.0%. As γmax,ELA increases, ELA in general predict smaller shear strain and D5–75 values, and larger PGA, PGV, Ia, mean period, and response spectral values for periods less than 0.1 s and periods near the natural site period than NLA. To help researchers and practitioners decide when to use ELA and/or NLA, we developed a model to estimate γmax,ELA before conducting a site response analysis.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbrahamsonN. A.SilvaW. J. and KamaiR.2014. Summary of the ASK14 ground motion relation for active crustal regions, Earthquake Spectra30, 1025–1055.
2.
AlaviA. H.GandomiA. H.ModaresnezhadM. and MousaviM.2011. New ground-motion prediction equations using multi expression programing, Journal of Earthquake Engineering15, 511–536.
3.
AnchetaT. D.DarraghR. B.StewartJ. P.SeyhanE.SilvaW. J.ChiouB. S. J.WooddellK. E.GravesR. W.KottkeA. R.BooreD. M.KishidaT. and DonahueJ.L.2014. NGA-West2 database, Earthquake Spectra30, 989–1005.
4.
AssimakiD. and LiW.2012. Site and ground motion dependent nonlinear effects in seismological model predictions, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering32, 143–151.
5.
CampbellK. W. and BozorgniaY.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 Spectra24, 139–171.
6.
CarltonB. D. and AbrahamsonN. A.2014. Issues and approaches for implementing conditional mean spectra in practice, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America104, 503–512.
7.
CarltonB. D. and TokimatsuK.2014. Statistical correlations for shear wave velocity of soils using limited site data, in Proceedings of the 14th Japan Earthquake Engineering Symposium, 4–6 December 2014, Tokyo.
8.
CarltonB. D.2014. An Improved Description of the Seismic Response of Sites with High Plasticity Soils, Organic Clays, and Deep Soft Soil Deposits, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
9.
ClevelandW. S. and DevlinS. J.1988. Locally-weighted regression: An approach to regression analysis by local fitting, Journal of the American Statistical Association83, 596–610.
10.
DarendeliM. B.2001. Development of a New Family of Normalized Modulus Reduction and Material Damping Curves, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.
11.
Foulser-PiggottR. and StaffordP. J.2012. A predictive model for Arias intensity at multiple sites and consideration of spatial correlations, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics41, 431–451.
12.
GhanatS.2011. Duration Characteristics of the Mean Horizontal Component of Shallow Crustal Earthquake Records in Active Tectonic Regions, Ph.D. Dissertation, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ.
13.
GregorN.AbrahamsonN. A.AtkinsonG. M.BooreD. M.BozorgniaY.CampbellK. W.ChiouB. S. J.IdrissI. M.KamaiR.SeyhanE.SilvaW.StewartJ. P. and YoungsR.2014. Comparison of NGA-West2 GMPEs, Earthquake Spectra30, 1179–1197.
14.
HashashY. M. A.GroholskiD. R.PhillipsC. A.ParkD. and MusgroveM.2012. DEEP-SOIL 5.1, User Manual and Tutorial, 107 pp.
15.
KaklamanosJ.BaiseL. G.ThompsonE. M. and DorfmannL.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.
16.
KaklamanosJ.BradleyB. A.ThompsonE. M. and 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, 1733–1749.
17.
KemptonJ. J. and StewartJ. P.2006. Prediction equations for significant duration of earthquake ground motions considering site and near-source effects, Earthquake Spectra22, 985–1013.
18.
KimB. and HashashY. M. A.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, S37–S54.
19.
KimB.HashashY. M. A.KottkeA. R.AssimakiD.LiW.RathjeE. M.CampbellK. W.SilvaW. J. and StewartJ. P.2013. Predictive model for the relative differences between nonlinear and equivalent-linear site response analyses, Transactions from SMiRT-22, 18–23 August 2013, San Francisco, CA.
20.
KonderR. L. and ZelaskoJ. S.1963. A hyperbolic stress-strain formulation of sands, Proc. of 2nd Pan American Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Sao Paulo, Brazil, 289–324.
21.
LaddC. C. and FoottR.1974. New design procedure for stability of soft clays, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 100(7), 763–786.
22.
MatasovicN. and HashashY.2012. NCHRP428: Practices and Procedures for Site-Specific Evaluations of Earthquake Ground Motions (A Synthesis of Highway Practice), National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 78 pp.
23.
PhillipsC. and HashashY. M. A.2009. Damping formulation for nonlinear 1D site response analyses, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering29, 1143–1158.
24.
PinheiroJ. C. and BatesD. M.2000. Mixed Effects Models in S and S-PLUS, Springer-Verlag, New York.
25.
RathjeE. M. and KottkeA. R.2011. Relative differences between equivalent linear and nonlinear site response methods, in Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, 10–13 January 2011, Santiago, Chile.
26.
RathjeE. M.FarajR.RussellS. and BrayJ.2004. Empirical relationships for frequency content parameters of earthquake ground motions, Earthquake Spectra20, 119–144.
27.
SnowR. W.2008. Comparison of Nonlinear and Equivalent Linear Site Response Analysis for Soft-Soil Sites along the Wasatch Front and Site-Specific Response Prediction for the Legacy Parkway, M.S. Thesis, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
28.
StewartJ. P.KwokA. O.HashashY. M. A.MatasovicN.PykeR.WangZ. and YangZ.2008. Benchmarking of Nonlinear Geotechnical Ground Response Analysis Procedures, PEER Report 2008/04, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
29.
StewartJ. P.ChiouS.BrayJ. D.GravesR. W.SomervilleP. G. and AbrahamsonN. A.2001. Ground Motion Evaluation Procedures for Performance-Based Design, PEER Report 2001/09, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
30.
TokimatsuM. S. and YoshimiY.1989. Dynamic soil properties obtained from strong motion records, Proc 12th international conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering3, 2015–2018.
31.
TravasarouT.BrayJ. D. and AbrahamsonN. A.2003. Empirical attenuation relationship for Arias intensity, Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn32, 1133–1155.
32.
YeeE.StewartJ. P. and TokimatsuK.2013. Elastic and large-strain nonlinear seismic site response from analysis of vertical array recordings, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.139, 1789–1801.
