Acta Geotechnica

, 2:183 | Cite as

Estimating inelastic sediment deformation from local site response simulations

  • Ronaldo I. BorjaEmail author
  • Wai Ching Sun
Research Paper


Significant insight into the dynamic local site response of a horizontally layered sediment deposit to seismic excitation can be gained from numerical simulations. In this paper we use a nonlinear local site response analysis code SPECTRA to estimate the coseismic sediment deformation at a seismically active site in Lotung, Taiwan. We address some basic issues relevant for interpreting the simulation results, including the impact of noise and baseline offsets present in the input ground motion. We also consider the sensitivity of the predicted deformation responses to statistical variations of sediment constitutive properties. Finally, we apply a suite of hypothetical strong ground motions to the base of the sediment deposit to better understand the pattern of inelastic deformation likely to result from strong seismic shaking.


Coseismic sediment deformation Local site response Plasticity Seismicity Strong ground motion 



We thank Dr. H.T. Tang and Electric Power Research Institute for providing the digitized ground motion data for the Lotung earthquakes. We also thank Dr. H. Haddadi for providing raw ground motion data for Gilroy 1, and Dr. C. Menun for allowing us to use the program CARDINAL. This research was funded by NSF Grant No. CMS-0201317.


  1. 1.
    Ambraseys NN, Menu JM (1998) Earthquake induced ground displacements. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 16:985–1006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson DG, Tang YK (1989) Summary of soil characterization program for the Lotung large-scale seismic experiment. In: Proceedings of EPRI/NRC/TPC workshop on seismic soil–structure interaction analysis techniques using data from Lotung, vol 1, Taiwan, EPRI NP-6154, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, pp 4.1–4.20Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andrade JE, Borja RI (2006) Quantifying sensitivity of local site response models to statistical variations in soil properties. Acta Geotech 1:3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Borja RI, Amies AP (1994) Multiaxial cyclic plasticity model for clays. J Geotech Eng 120:1051–1070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Borja RI, Chao HY, Montáns FJ, Lin CH (1999) Nonlinear ground response at Lotung LSST site. J Geotech Eng 125:187–197Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Borja RI, Chao HY, Montáns FJ, Lin CH (1999) SSI effects on ground motion at Lotung LSST site. J Geotech Eng 125:760–770Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Borja RI, Lin CH, Sama KM, Masada GM (2000) Modeling non-linear ground response of non-liquefiable soils. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 29:63–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Borja RI, Duvernay BG, Lin CH (2002) Ground response in Lotung: total stress analyses and parametric studies. J Geotechn Geoenviron Eng 128:54–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boore DM, Bommer JJ (2005) Processing of strong-motion accelerograms: needs, options and consequences. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 25:93–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boore DM, Stephens CD, Joyner WB (2002) Comments on baseline correction of digital strong-motion data: examples from the 1999 Hector Mine, California, earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 92:1543–1560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bradner H, Reichle M (1973) Some methods for determining acceleration and tilt by use of pendulums and accelerometers. Bull Seismol Soc Am 63:1–7Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Elgamal AW, Zeghal M, Tang HT, Stepp JC (1995) Lotung downhole array. I: Evaluation of site dynamic properties. J Geotech Eng 121:350–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Guidelines for determining design basis ground motions, vol 1. Method and guidelines for estimating earthquake ground motion in North America. Technical report no. TR-102293, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CAGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hardin BO, Drnevich VP (1972). Shear modulus and damping in soils: design equations and curves. J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE 98:667–692Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hashash YMA, Park D (2002) Viscous damping formulation and high frequency motion in non-linear site response analysis. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 22:611–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hilber HM, Hughes TJR, Taylor RL (1977) Improved numerical dissipation for time-integration algorithms in structural dynamics. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 5:283–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Idriss IM, Sun JI (1992) Users manual for SHAKE91. Center for Geotechnical Modeling, University of California, DavisGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice-Hall, NJGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lee MKW, Finn WDL (1991) DESRA-2C: dynamic effective stress response analysis of soil deposits with energy transmitting boundary including assessment of liquefaction potential. The University of British Columbia, Faculty of Applied Science, Vancouver, BCGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Li XS, Wang ZL, Shen CK (1992) SUMDES: a nonlinear procedure for response analysis of horizontally-layered sites subjected to multi-directional earthquake loading. Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, DavisGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Newmark N (1965) Effects of earthquakes on dams and embankments. Géotechnique 15:139–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pyke RM (1992) TESS: a computer program for nonlinear ground response analyses. TAGA Engineering Systems and Software, LafayetteGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rodriguez-Marek A, Bray JD (2006) Seismic site response for near-fault forward directivity ground motions. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 132:1611–1620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schnabel PB, Lysmer J, Seed HB (1972) SHAKE—a computer program for earthquake response analyses of horizontally layered sites. Report no. EERC 72-12, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shakal AF, Petersen PD (2001) Acceleration offsets in some FBA’s during earthquake shaking (abstract). Seism Res Lett 72:233Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tang HT (1987) Large-scale soil-structure interaction. EPRI NP-5513-SR Special Report, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CAGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Trifunac MD, Todorovska MI (2001) A note on the useable dynamic range of accelerographs recording translation. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 21:275–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zeghal M, Elgamal AW, Tang HT, Stepp JC (1995) Lotung downhole array. II: Evaluation of soil nonlinear properties. J Geotech Eng 121:363–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations