Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study investigates the conditions for which one-dimensional (1-D) nonlinear (NL) site response analysis results are distinct from equivalent-linear (EL) results and provides guidance for predicting when differences are large enough to be of practical significance. Relative differences in spectral accelerations and Fourier amplitudes computed from NL and EL analyses are assessed for a range of site conditions and for suites of input motions appropriate for active crustal and stable continental regions. Among several considered parameters, EL/NL differences are most clearly dependent on shear strain index (I_γ), defined as the ratio of input motion peak velocity to time-averaged shear-wave velocity in the top 30 m of the soil profile. For small I_γ (generally under 0.03%), EL and NL results are practically identical, whereas at larger strains, differences can be significant for frequencies >0.3 Hz. Frequency-dependent I_γ values are recommended for conditions above which NL analyses are preferred to EL.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

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.

Baturay

M. B.

and Stewart

J. P.

2003. Uncertainty and bias in ground-motion estimates from ground response analyses. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 93, 2025–2042.

Boore

D. M.

and Atkinson

G. M.

2008. Ground-motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA at spectral periods between 0.01 s and 10.0 s, Earthquake Spectra 24, 99–138.

Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC), 2004. NEHRP Recommended Provisions and Commentary for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA 450), 2003 Edition, National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, D.C.

Darendeli

M. B.

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

Groholski

D. R.

Hashash

Y. M. A.

Kim

Musgrove

Harmon

and Stewart

J. P.

2016. Simplified model for small-strain nonlinearity and strength in 1-D seismic site response analysis, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE) GT.1943-5606.0001496.

Hashash

Y. M. A.

Kottke

A. R.

Stewart

J. P.

Campbell

K. W.

Kim

Moss

Nikolaou

Rathje

E. M.

and Silva

W. J.

2014. Reference rock site condition for central and Eastern North America, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 104, 684–701.

Hashash

Y. M. A.

and Moon

2011. Site Amplification Factors for Deep Deposits and Their Application in Seismic Hazard Analysis for Central U.S., U.S. Geological Survey, 91 pp.

10.

Hashash

Y. M. A.

Musgrove

M. I.

Harmon

J. A.

Groholski

D. R.

Phillips

C. A.

and Park

2015. DEEPSOIL 6.0, User Manual, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

11.

Idriss

I. M.

2011. Use of Vs30 to represent local site conditions, in 4th LASPEI/IAEE International Symposium Effects of Surface Geology on Strong Ground Motions, Santa Barbara, CA.

12.

Kaklamanos

Baise

L. G.

Thompson

E. M.

and Dorfmann

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

13.

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.

14.

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.

15.

Kim

Hashash

Y. M. A.

Kottke

A. R.

Assimaki

Rathje

E. M.

Campbell

K. W.

Silva

W. J.

and Stewart

J. P.

2013. A predictive model for the relative differences between nonlinear and equivalent-linear site repsonse analyses, in 22nd Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology (SMiRT22), 18–23 August 2013, San Francisco, CA.

16.

Kramer

S. L.

and Paulsen

S. B.

2004. Practical use of geotechnical site response models, in Proceedings of the International Workshop on Uncertainties in Nonlinear Soil Properties and their Impact on Modeling Dynamic Soil Response, University of California, Berkeley, 10 pp.

17.

Kwok

A. O. L.

Stewart

J. P.

Hashash

Y. M. A.

Matasovic

Pyke

Wang

and Yang

2007. Use of exact solutions of wave propagation problems to guide implementation of nonlinear seismic ground response analysis procedures, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 133, 1385–1398.

18.

Matasovic

1993. Seismic Response of Composite Horizontally-Layered Soil Deposits, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.

19.

Matasovic

2006. D-MOD_2 - A computer program for seismic response analysis of horizontally layered soil deposits, earthfill dams, and solid waste landfills, User's Manual. GeoMotions, LLC, Lacey, WA, 20 pp.

20.

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.

21.

Matasovic

and Vucetic

1993. Cyclic characterization of liquefiable sands, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 119, 1805–1822.

22.

Mazzoni

McKenna

Scott

M. H.

and Fenves

G. L.

2006. The Opensees Command Language Manual, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, 451 pp.

23.

McGuire

R. K.

Silva

W. J.

and Costantino

C. J.

2001. Technical Basis for Revision of Regulatory Guidance on Design Ground Motions: Hazard- and Risk-Consistent Ground Motion Spectra Guidelines, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington, D.C.

24.

Phillips

and Hashash

Y. M. A.

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

25.

Pyke

R. M.

2000. TESS: A Computer Program for Nonlinear Ground Response Analyses, TAGA Engineering Systems & Software. Lafayette, CA.

26.

Rathje

E. M.

Abrahamson

and Bray

1998. Simplified frequency content estimates of earthquake ground motions, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 124, 150–159.

27.

Rathje

E. M.

and Kottke

A. R.

2011. Relative differences between equivalent-linear and nonlinear site response methods, in 5th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Santiago, Chile, 12 pp.

28.

Romero

S. M.

and Rix

G. J.

2005. Ground Motion Amplification in the Upper Mississippi Embayment, National Science Foundation Mid America Center, Atlanta, GA, 461 pp.

29.

Seed

H. B.

and Idriss

I. M.

1969. Influence of soil conditions on ground motions during earthquakes, ASCE J Soil Mech Found Div 95.

30.

Silva

and Costantino

2002. Development of site-specific design ground motions in Western and Eastern North America, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 22, 755–764.

31.

Silva

W. J.

Darragh

Gregor

Martin

Abrahamson

and Kircher

2000. Reassessment of Site Coefficients and Near-Fault Factors for Building Code Provisions, U.S. Geological Survey, National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, 105 pp.

32.

Stewart

J. P.

Afshari

and Hashash

Y. M. A.

2014. Guidelines For Performing Hazard-Consistent One-Dimensional Ground Response Analysis for Ground Motion Prediction, PEER Report 2014/16, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, 120 pp.

33.

Stewart

J. P.

Kwok

A. O.-L.

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, 186 pp.

34.

Zalachoris

and Rathje

2015. Evaluation of one-dimensional site response techniques using borehole arrays, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 141, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001366, 04015053.

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.

0.00 MB

0.68 MB

1.49 MB

Relative Differences between Nonlinear and Equivalent-Linear 1-D Site Response Analyses

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material