Natural Hazards

, Volume 88, Issue 3, pp 1741–1768 | Cite as

Selection of representative shear modulus reduction and damping curves for rock, gravel and sand sites from the KiK-Net downhole array

  • P. Anbazhagan
  • Athul Prabhakaran
  • H. Madhura
  • Sayed S. R. Moustafa
  • Nassir S. N. Al-Arifi
Original Paper


Representative computation of ground response parameters requires accurate information about nonlinear dynamic behavior of the soil column, commonly incorporated in site response analysis through shear modulus reduction and damping curves which are functions of the strain level. Most site response studies are carried out by considering a set of existing shear modulus and damping curves, without knowing its suitability for the in situ soil type. In this study, an attempt has been made to identify suitable shear modulus and damping curves for soil grouped into different classes viz. sand, gravel and rock. Soil profiles of sites having surface and bedrock motion recordings are selected from the KiK-Net downhole array database and equivalent linear and total stress nonlinear site response analysis has been carried out by varying the shear modulus and damping curves for different sites. Estimated surface response spectra for each set of shear modulus and damping curves are compared with the observed response spectra at each site, and a detailed analysis is made to find out which set of curves gives a best match with the recorded data. Based on this study, representative property curves for rock, gravel and sand are suggested, which could be used for further site response studies in the region. This study shows that only a set of shear modulus and damping curves ensure a compatible spectrum with the recorded data from the KiK-Net downhole array sites, among the many available shear modulus and damping curves in the literature.


Soil dynamics Shear modulus and damping curves Site response DEEPSOIL KiK-Net 



The authors wish to thank the Kyoshin Net Strong Motion Network of Japan for providing an excellent earthquake database and valuable feedback for conducting this research. The authors extend their sincere appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University for its funding for this Prolific Research Group (PRG-1436-06).

Supplementary material

11069_2017_2944_MOESM1_ESM.docx (47 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 47 kb)


  1. Anbazhagan P, Sitharam TG (2008) Seismic microzonation of Bangalore’. J Earth Syst Sci 117(S2):833–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anbazhagan P, Thingbaijam KKS, Nath SK, Narendara Kumar JN, Sitharam TG (2010) Multi-criteria seismic hazard evaluation for Bangalore city, India. J Asian Earth Sci 38:186–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anbazhagan P, Uday A, Moustafa SR, Al-Arifi SN (2016) Correlation of densities with shear wave velocities and SPT N values. J Geophys Eng 13:320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson DG, Richart FE Jr (1976) Effects of straining on shear modulus of clays’. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 102(9):975–987Google Scholar
  5. Andrus RD, Zhang J, Ellis BS, Juang CH (2003) Guide for estimating the dynamic properties of South Carolina soils for ground response analysis. Report No. FHWA-SC-03-07, South Carolina Department of Transportation, Columbia, S.CGoogle Scholar
  6. Assimaki D, Steidl J (2007) Inverse analysis of weak and strong motion borehole array data from the Mw7.0 Sanriku-Minami earthquake’. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 27:73–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Assimaki D, Steidl J, Liu PC (2006) Attenuation and velocity structure for site response analyses via downhole seismogram inversion. Pure appl Geophys 163:81–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Assimaki D, Li W, Steidl JH, Tsuda K (2008a) Site amplification and attenuation via downhole array seismogram inversion: a comparative study of the 2003 Miyagi-Oki aftershock sequence. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98:301–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Assimaki D, Li W, Schmedes J, Steidl J (2008b) Quantifying nonlinearity susceptibility via site-response modeling uncertainty at three sites in the Los Angeles Basin. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98:2364–2390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Assimaki D, Li W, Kalos A (2011) A wavelet-based seismogram inversion algorithm for the in situ characterization of nonlinear soil behavior. Pure appl Geophys 168(10):1669–1691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boominathan A, Dodagoudar GR, Suganthi A, Maheswari RU (2008) Seismic hazard assessment of Chennai city considering local site effects’. J Earth Syst Sci 117(S2):853–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Boore DM (2007) Some thoughts on relating density to velocity. 12 p. Accessed June 2016
  13. Boore DM, Atkinson GM (2008) Ground-motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA at spectral periods between 0.1 s and 10.0 s’. Earthq Spectra 24(1):99–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Boore DM, Bommer JJ (2005) Processing of strong-motion accelerograms: needs, options and consequences’. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 25:93–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Boore DM, Stewart JP, Seyhan E, Atkinson GM (2014) NGA-West2 equations for predicting response spectral accelerations for shallow crustal earthquakes’. Earthq Spectra 30:1057–1086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bradley BA (2011) A framework for validation of seismic response analyses using seismometer array recordings’. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 31:512–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) (2001) NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures, 2000 edition, part 1—provisions, part 2—commentary, Report Nos. FEMA-368 and FEMA-369, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  18. Comité Européen de Normalisation (CEN) (2004) Eurocode 8, design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 5: foundations, retaining structures and geotechnical aspects, EN 1998-5, Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  19. Chang CY, Mok CMW, Tang HT (1996) Inference of dynamic shear modulus from lotung downhole data. J Geotech Eng ASCE 122(8):657–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Choi WK (2008) Dynamic properties of ash-flow tuffs. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Texas, Austin, TexasGoogle Scholar
  21. Choi Y, Stewart JP (2005) Nonlinear site amplification as function of 30 m shear wave velocity. Earthq Spectra 21(1):1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Darendeli MB (2001) Development of a new family of normalized modulus reduction and material damping curves. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TexasGoogle Scholar
  23. Dawood HM, Rodriguez-Marek Adrian, Bayless J, Goulet C, Thompson E (2016) A flatfile for the KiK-net database processed using an automated protocol’. Earthq Spectra 32(2):1281–1302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dickenson SE (1994) Dynamic response of soft and deep cohesive soils during the loma prieta earthquake of October 17, 1989. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  25. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) (1993) Guidelines for Site specific ground motions, Palo Alto, California, November, TR-102293Google Scholar
  26. Elgamal AW, Zeghal M, Tang HT, Stepp JC (1995) Lotung downhole array I: evaluation of site dynamic properties’. J Geotech Eng 121(4):350–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Elgamal AW, Zeghal M, Parra E (1996) Liquefaction of reclaimed island in Kobe, Japan. J Geotech Eng ASCE 122(1):39–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Elgamal A, Lai T, Yang Z, He L (2001) Dynamic soil properties, seismic downhole arrays and applications in practice. In: International conferences on recent advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics, Paper No. 6Google Scholar
  29. Evans MD, Zhou S (1995) Liquefaction behavior ofsand-gravel composites. J Geotech Eng ASCE 121(3):287–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gardner GHF, Gardner LW, Gregory AR (1974) Formation velocity and density—the diagnostic basics for stratigraphic traps’. Geophysics 39:770–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Glaser S (1995) System identification and its application to estimating soil properties. J Geotech Eng 121(7):553–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Glaser SD (2006) Downhole seismic arrays and system identification of soil response. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference of earthquake engineering, Taipei, TaiwanGoogle Scholar
  33. Glaser SD, Baise LG (2000) System identification estimation of soil properties at the lotung site’. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 19:521–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Goto S, Suzuki Y, Nishio S, Ohoka H (1992) Mechanical properties of undisturbed Tone river gravel obtained by in situ freezing method. Soils Found Tokyo Jpn 32(3):15–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Goto S, Nisho S, Yoshimi Y (1994) Dynamic properties of gravels sampled by ground freezing. Ground failures under seismic conditions, ASCE GSP no. 44, pp 141–157Google Scholar
  36. Govindaraju L, Bhattacharya S (2008) Site response studies for seismic hazard analysis of Kolkata city. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference of international association for computer methods and advances in geomechanics (IACMAG), Oct 1–6, Goa, pp 2899–2907Google Scholar
  37. Govindaraju L, Bhattacharya S (2012) “Site-specific earthquake response study for hazard assessment in Kolkata city, India. Nat Hazards 61(3):943–965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Govindaraju L, Ramana GV, HanumanthaRao C, Sitharam TG (2004) Site-specific ground response analysis. Curr Sci 87(10):1354–1362Google Scholar
  39. Groholski DR, Hashash YMA, Musgrove M, Harmon J, Kim B (2015) Evaluation of 1-D non-linear site response analysis using a general quadratic/hyperbolic strength-controlled constitutive model. In: 6th international conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering 1–4 November 2015 Christchurch, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  40. Hanumantha Rao C, Ramana GV (2009) Site specific ground response analyses at Delhi, India. EJGE, 16 Accessed 26 Dec 2014
  41. Hanumantharao C, Ramana GV (2008) Dynamic soil properties for microzonation of Delhi, India. J Earth Syst Sci 117(S2):719–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hardin BO, Drnevich VP (1972) Shear modulus and damping in soils: design equations and curves. Soil Mech Found Div ASCE 98(7):667–692Google Scholar
  43. Hartzell S, Bonilla LF, Williams RA (2004) Prediction of nonlinear soil effects. Bull Seismol Soc Am 94(5):1609–1629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hashash YMA, Park D (2001) Non-linear one-dimensional seismic ground motion propagation in the Mississippi embayment. Eng Geol 62(1–3):185–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hashash YMA, Phillips C, Groholski DR (2010) Recent advances in non-linear site response analysis. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on recent advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics, San Diego, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  46. Hashash YMA, Musgrove MI, Harmon JA, Groholski DR, Phillips CA, Park D (2015) DEEPSOIL 6.1, user manual. Board of Trustees of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, UrbanaGoogle Scholar
  47. Hatanaka M, Uchida A (1995) Effects of test methods on the cyclic deformation characteristics of high quality undisturbed gravel samples. In: Static and dynamic properties of gravelly soils, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 56, ASCE, Reston, Va. pp 136–161Google Scholar
  48. Hatanaka M, Suzuki Y, Kawasaki T, Endo M (1988) Cyclic undrained shear properties of high quality undisturbed Tokyo gravel. Soils Found 28(4):57–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hynes ME (1988) Pore water pressure generation characteristics of gravels under undrained cyclic loadings, Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  50. IBC (2009) International building code, 5th edn. International Code Council: Inc, Falls ChurchGoogle Scholar
  51. Idriss IM (1990) Response of soft soil sites during earthquakes. In: Duncan JM (ed) Proceedings in H. Bolton seed memorial symposium, vol 2, pp 273–290Google Scholar
  52. Idriss IM, Seed HB (1970) Seismic response of soil deposits. J Soil Mech Found Div Proc ASCE 96:9–103Google Scholar
  53. Iida R, Matsumoto N, Yasuda N, Watanabe K, Sakaino N, Ohno K (1984) Large-scale tests for measuring dynamic shear moduli and damping ratios of rockfill materials, sixteenth joint meeting. Japan Panel on Wind and Seismic Effects, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  54. Inazaki T (2006) Relationship between S-wave velocities and geotechnical properties of alluvial sediments In: Proceedings of 19th annual symposium on application of geophysics to engineering and environmental problems (SAGEEP2006) pp 1296–303Google Scholar
  55. Ishibashi I, Zhang X (1993) Unified dynamic shear moduli and damping ratios of sand and clay. Soils Found 33(1):182–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Iwasaki T, Tatsuoka F, Takagi Y (1978) Shear moduli of sands under cyclic torsional shear loading. Soils Found 18(1):39–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Johnson LR, Silva W (1981) The effects of unconsolidated sediments upon the ground motion during local earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 71:127–142Google Scholar
  58. Kaklamanos J, Bradley BA, Thompson EM, Baise LG (2013) Critical parameters affecting bias and variability in site response analyses using KiK-net downhole array data. Bull Seismol Soc Am 103:1733–1749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Kaklamanos J, Baise LG, Thompson EM, Dorfmann L (2015) Comparison of 1D linear, equivalent-linear, and nonlinear site response models at six KiK-net validation sites. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 69:207–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Kamatchi P, Ramana GV, Nagpal AK, Lakshmanan N (2008) Site-specific analysis of delhi region for scenario earthquakes. In: Proceedings of the 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing, October pp 12–17Google Scholar
  61. Karastathis VK, Papadopoulos GA, Novikova T, Roumelioti Z, Karmis P, Tsombos P (2010) Prediction and evaluation of nonlinear site response with potentially liquefiable layers in the area of Nafplion (Peloponnesus, Greece) for a repeat of historical earthquakes. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 10(11):2281–2304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Kishida T, Boulanger R, Abrahamson N, Wehling T, Driller M (2009) Regression models for dynamic properties of highly organic soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 135(4):533–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Kokusho T (1980) Cyclic triaxial test of dynamic soil properties for wide strain range’. Soils Found 20:45–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Kokusho T, Tanaka Y (1994) Dynamic properties of gravel layers investigated by in situ freezing sampling. In: Ground failures under seismic conditions, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 44, ASCE, Reston, Va. pp 121–140Google Scholar
  65. Konder RL, Zelasko JS (1963) A hyperbolic stress-strain formulation for sands. In: Proceedings of 2nd Pan American conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, Brazil, pp 289–324Google Scholar
  66. Konno T, Hatanaka M, Ishihara K, Ibe Y, Iizuka S (1994) Gravelly soil properties evaluation by large scale in situ cyclic shear tests. In: Ground failures under seismic conditions, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 44, ASCE, Reston, Va. pp 177–200Google Scholar
  67. Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, p 653Google Scholar
  68. Kumar A, Anbazhagan P, Sitharam TG (2012) Site specific ground response study of deep Indo-Gangetic basin using representative regional ground motion. Geo-Congress, State of art and practise in Geotechnical Engineering, Oakland California, Paper No. 1065, pp 1888–1897Google Scholar
  69. Kwok AOL, Stewart JP, Hashash YMA (2008) Nonlinear ground-response analysis of Turkey flat shallow stiff-soil site to strong ground motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98(1):331–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Laird JP, Stokoe KH (1993) Dynamic properties of remolded and undisturbed soil samples tested at high confining pressures. Geotechnical Engineering Report GR93-6, Electrical Power Research InstituteGoogle Scholar
  71. Lee CJ, Sheu SF (2007) The stiffness degradation and damping ratio evolution of Taipei silty clay under cyclic straining’. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 27:730–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Mahajan AK, Sporry RJ, Champati Ray PK, Ranjan R, Slob S, Van WC (2007) Methodology for site-response studies using multi-channel analysis of surface wave technique in Dehradun city’. Curr Sci 92(7):945–955Google Scholar
  73. Matasovic N (1993) Seismic response of composite horizontally-layered soil deposits. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  74. Menq FY (2003) Dynamic properties of sandy and gravelly soils. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Texas, Austin, TXGoogle Scholar
  75. Milne J (1898) Seismology, 1st edn. Kegan Paul, Trench, Truber, LondonGoogle Scholar
  76. Mohanty WK, Walling MY, Nath SK, Pal I (2007) First order seismic microzonation of Delhi, India using geographic information system (GIS). Nat Hazards 40(2):245–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Moss RES, Thompson EM, Kieffer DS, Tiwari B, Hashash YMA, Acharya I, Adhikari B, Assimaki D, Clahan KB, Collins BD (2015) Geotechnical effects of the 2015 Mw 7.8 Gorkha, Nepal, earthquake and aftershocks. Seismol Res Lett 86(6):1514–1523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Mugnier JL, Huyghe P, Gajurel AP, Upreti BN, Jouanne F (2011) Seismites in the Kathmandu basin and seismic hazard in central Himalaya’. Tectonophysics 509:33–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Okur DV, Ansal A (2007) Stiffness degradation of natural fine grained soils during cyclic loading. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 27:843–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Park D, Hashash Y (2005) Evaluation of seismic site factors in the Mississippi embayment. II. Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis with nonlinear site effects. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 25:145–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Pecker A (1995) Validation of small strain properties from recorded weak seismic motions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 14(6):399–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Phanikanth VS, Deepankar Choudhury, Reddy GR (2011) Equivalent-linear seismic ground response analysis of some typical sites in Mumbai. Geotech Geol Eng Int J 29(6):1109–1126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Phillips C, Hashash YM (2009) Damping formulation for nonlinear 1D site response analyses. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29(7):1143–1158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Prakash S, Puri VK (1981) Dynamic properties of soils from in-situ tests. Geotech Eng Div ASCE 107(7):943–964Google Scholar
  85. Raghu Kanth STG, Dixit J, Dash SK (2009) Estimation of site amplification factors for Guwahati City. IGC, GunturGoogle Scholar
  86. Roblee C, Chiou B (2004) A proposed geoindex model for design selection of non-linear properties for site response analyses. In: International workshop on uncertainties in nonlinear soil properties and their impact on modeling dynamic soil response, PEER Headquarters, UC BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  87. Rollins K, Evans M, Diehl N, III W (1998) Shear modulus and damping relationships for gravels. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 124(5):396–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Schnabel PB (1973) Effects of local geology and distance from source on earthquake ground motions. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  89. Schnabel PB, Lysmer J, Seed HB (1972) SHAKE—a computer program for earthquake response analysis of horizontally layered soils. Report No. EERC-72/12, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  90. Seed HB, Idriss IM (1970) Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analyses. Technical Report EERRC-70-10, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  91. Seed HB, Idriss IM (1984) Ground motions and soil liquefaction during earthquake. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  92. Seed HB, Sun JH (1989) Implication of site effects in the Mexico City earthquake of September 19, 1985 for earthquake-resistance-design criteria in the San Francisco Bay Area of California. Report No. UCB/EERC-89/03, University of California, Berkeley, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  93. Seed HB, Wong RT, Idriss IM, Tokimatsu K (1984) Moduli and damping factors for dynamic analyses of cohesionless soils. Report No. EERC 84-14, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  94. Seed H, Wong R, Idriss I, Tokimatsu K (1986) Moduli and damping factors for dynamic analyses of cohesionless soils. J Geotech Eng 112(11):1016–1032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Seed HB, Romo MP, Sun JJ, Lysmer J (1987) Relationships between soil conditions and earthquake ground motions in Mexico City in the earthquake of september 19, 1985. Report No. UCB/EERC-87/15, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  96. Shamoto Y, Nishio S, Baba K (1986) Cyclic stress strain behaviour and liquefaction strength of diluvial gravels utilizing freezing sampling, symposium on deformation and strength characteristics and testing methods of coarse grained granular materials. JSSMFE, Tokyo, Japan, pp 89–94Google Scholar
  97. Shearer PM, Orcutt JA (1987) Surface and near-surface effects on seismic-waves—theory and borehole seismometer results’. Bull Seismol Soc Am 77:1168–1196Google Scholar
  98. Shibuya S, Kong XJ, Tatsuoka E (1990) Deformation characteristics of gravels subjected to monotonic and cyclic loadings. In: Proceedings of the 8th Japan earthquake engineering symposium, 1, pp 771–776Google Scholar
  99. Shukla J, Choudhury D (2012) Seismic hazard and site-specific ground motion for typical ports of Gujarat. Nat Hazards 60:541–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Souto A, Hartikainen J, Özudogru K (1994) Measurement of dynamic parameters of road pavement materials by the bender element and resonant column tests. Géotechnique 44(3):519–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Stewart J, Kwok A.(2009) Nonlinear seismic ground response analysis: protocols and verification against array data. PEER Annual Meet in San Francisco, Present 84Google Scholar
  102. Stewart J, Afshari K, Hashash YMA (2014) Guidelines for perfoming hazard consistent one dimensional ground response analysis for ground motion prediction. PEER ReportGoogle Scholar
  103. Sun JI, Golesorkhi R, Seed HB (1988) Dynamic moduli and damping ratios for cohesive soils. EERC Report No. UCB/EERC-88/15Google Scholar
  104. Thompson EM, Baise LG, Tanaka Y, Kayen RE (2012) A taxonomy of site response complexity. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 41:32–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Vucetic M, Dobry R (1991) Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response. J Geotech Eng 117(1):89–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Wang GX, Kuwano J (1999) Modeling of strain dependency of shear modulus and damping of clayey sand. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 18(6):463–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Yamada S, Hyodo M, Orense R, Dinesh SV, Hyodo T (2008a) Strain-dependent dynamic properties of remoulded sand-clay mixtures. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 134(7):972–981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Yamada S, Hyodo M, Orense R, Dinesh SV (2008b) Initial shear modulus of remolded sand-clay mixtures. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 134(7):960–971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Yasuda N, Matsumoto N (1993) Dynamic deformation characteristics of sand and rockfill materials. Can Geotech J 30:747–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Yasuda N, Matsumoto N (1994) Comparisons of deformation characteristics of rockfill materials using monotonic and cyclic loading laboratory tests and in situ tests. Can Geotech J 31(2):162–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Zeghal M, Elgamal AW (1994) Analysis of site liquefaction using earthquake records. J Geotech Eng ASCE 120(6):996–1017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Zeghal M, Elgamal AW, Tang HT, Stepp JC (1995) Lotung downhole array: evaluation of soil nonlinear properties. J Geotech Eng ASCE 121(4):363–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Zeghal M, Elgamal AW, Parra E (1996) Identification and modeling of earthquake ground response II: site liquefaction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 15(8):523–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Zhang J, Andrus R, Juang C (2005) Normalized shear modulus and material damping ratio relationships. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 131:453–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Zorapapel GT, Vucetic M (1994) The effect of pore-pressure on ground motion. Earthq Spectra 10(2):403–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of ScienceBangaloreIndia
  2. 2.Faculty of Science, Geology and Geophysics DepartmentKing Saud UniversityRiyadhSaudi Arabia
  3. 3.Seismology DepartmentNational Research Institute of Astronomy and Geophysics (NRIAG)CairoEgypt

Personalised recommendations