Comparison of Equivalent Linear and Nonlinear Site Response Analysis Results and Model to Estimate Maximum Shear Strain

Abstract

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 (I_a), significant duration (D_5–75), 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 (γ_max,ELA) greater than 0.04% to 1.0%. As γ_max,ELA increases, ELA in general predict smaller shear strain and D_5–75 values, and larger PGA, PGV, I_a, 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 γ_max,ELA before conducting a site response analysis.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abrahamson

N. A.

Silva

W. J.

and Kamai

2014. Summary of the ASK14 ground motion relation for active crustal regions, Earthquake Spectra 30, 1025–1055.

Alavi

A. H.

Gandomi

A. H.

Modaresnezhad

and Mousavi

2011. New ground-motion prediction equations using multi expression programing, Journal of Earthquake Engineering 15, 511–536.

Ancheta

T. D.

Darragh

R. B.

Stewart

J. P.

Seyhan

Silva

W. J.

Chiou

B. S. J.

Wooddell

K. E.

Graves

R. W.

Kottke

A. R.

Boore

D. M.

Kishida

and Donahue

J.L.

2014. NGA-West2 database, Earthquake Spectra 30, 989–1005.

Assimaki

and Li

2012. Site and ground motion dependent nonlinear effects in seismological model predictions, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 32, 143–151.

Campbell

K. W.

and Bozorgnia

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, 139–171.

Carlton

B. D.

and Abrahamson

N. A.

2014. Issues and approaches for implementing conditional mean spectra in practice, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 104, 503–512.

Carlton

B. D.

and Tokimatsu

2014. Statistical correlations for shear wave velocity of soils using limited site data, in Proceedings of the 14^th Japan Earthquake Engineering Symposium, 4–6 December 2014, Tokyo.

Carlton

B. 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.

Cleveland

W. S.

and Devlin

S. J.

1988. Locally-weighted regression: An approach to regression analysis by local fitting, Journal of the American Statistical Association 83, 596–610.

10.

Darendeli

M. B.

2001. Development of a New Family of Normalized Modulus Reduction and Material Damping Curves, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.

11.

Foulser-Piggott

and Stafford

P. J.

2012. A predictive model for Arias intensity at multiple sites and consideration of spatial correlations, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 41, 431–451.

12.

Ghanat

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.

Gregor

Abrahamson

N. A.

Atkinson

G. M.

Boore

D. M.

Bozorgnia

Campbell

K. W.

Chiou

B. S. J.

Idriss

I. M.

Kamai

Seyhan

Silva

Stewart

J. P.

and Youngs

2014. Comparison of NGA-West2 GMPEs, Earthquake Spectra 30, 1179–1197.

14.

Hashash

Y. M. A.

Groholski

D. R.

Phillips

C. A.

Park

and Musgrove

2012. DEEP-SOIL 5.1, User Manual and Tutorial, 107 pp.

15.

Kaklamanos

Baise

L. G.

Thompson

E. M.

and Dorfmann

2015. Comparison of 1D linear, equivalent-linear, and nonlinear site response models at six KiK-net validation sites, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 69, 207–219.

16.

Kaklamanos

Bradley

B. A.

Thompson

E. M.

and Baise

L. G.

2013. Critical parameters affecting bias and variability in site response analyses using KiK-net downhole array data, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 103, 1733–1749.

17.

Kempton

J. J.

and Stewart

J. P.

2006. Prediction equations for significant duration of earthquake ground motions considering site and near-source effects, Earthquake Spectra 22, 985–1013.

18.

Kim

and Hashash

Y. 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 Spectra 29, S37–S54.

19.

Kim

Hashash

Y. M. A.

Kottke

A. R.

Assimaki

Rathje

E. M.

Campbell

K. W.

Silva

W. J.

and Stewart

J. 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.

Konder

R. L.

and Zelasko

J. S.

1963. A hyperbolic stress-strain formulation of sands, Proc. of 2^nd Pan American Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Sao Paulo, Brazil, 289–324.

21.

Ladd

C. C.

and Foott

1974. New design procedure for stability of soft clays, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 100(7), 763–786.

22.

Matasovic

and Hashash

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.

Phillips

and Hashash

Y. M. A.

2009. Damping formulation for nonlinear 1D site response analyses, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29, 1143–1158.

24.

Pinheiro

J. C.

and Bates

D. M.

2000. Mixed Effects Models in S and S-PLUS, Springer-Verlag, New York.

25.

Rathje

E. M.

and Kottke

A. R.

2011. Relative differences between equivalent linear and nonlinear site response methods, in Proceedings of the 5^th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, 10–13 January 2011, Santiago, Chile.

26.

Rathje

E. M.

Faraj

Russell

and Bray

2004. Empirical relationships for frequency content parameters of earthquake ground motions, Earthquake Spectra 20, 119–144.

27.

Snow

R. 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.

Stewart

J. P.

Kwok

A. O.

Hashash

Y. M. A.

Matasovic

Pyke

Wang

and Yang

2008. Benchmarking of Nonlinear Geotechnical Ground Response Analysis Procedures, PEER Report 2008/04, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.

29.

Stewart

J. P.

Chiou

Bray

J. D.

Graves

R. W.

Somerville

P. G.

and Abrahamson

N. A.

2001. Ground Motion Evaluation Procedures for Performance-Based Design, PEER Report 2001/09, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.

30.

Tokimatsu

M. S.

and Yoshimi

1989. Dynamic soil properties obtained from strong motion records, Proc 12^th international conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering 3, 2015–2018.

31.

Travasarou

Bray

J. D.

and Abrahamson

N. A.

2003. Empirical attenuation relationship for Arias intensity, Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn 32, 1133–1155.

32.

Yee

Stewart

J. P.

and Tokimatsu

2013. Elastic and large-strain nonlinear seismic site response from analysis of vertical array recordings, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 139, 1789–1801.