Skip to main content

Soil amplification in low-to-moderate seismic regions

Abstract

The results of a study that investigates potential revisions of the spectral shape factors used in standards in regions of low-to-moderate seismicity are presented here. Using an equivalent linear analysis, the investigation particularly focuses on the effects of seismic intensity associated with rare and very rare intraplate earthquake events on site response. The Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center ground motion database (PEER) is used in selecting appropriate acceleration-time histories for the intraplate region. The results are normalised for comparison with the current spectral shape factors given in the Australian Standards for Earthquake Actions AS 1170.4:2007, with some differences being observed. The dependency of site amplification on seismic intensity was only observed for soil classes Ce, De and Ee. The rock site of class Be had considerably higher response in the short period range relative to class Ee. The records from the PEER ground motion database were also used for comparison with the results from this study, using a modified normalisation approach. The results from this study correlate well with the records from PEER.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

References

  1. Anbazhagan P, Sheikh M, Parihar A (2013) Influence of rock depth on seismic site classification for shallow bedrock regions. Nat Hazards Rev 14(2):108–121. doi:10.1061/(asce)nh.1527-6996.0000088

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Asten M, Lam N, Venkatesan S, Rutter HK, Wilson CJN (2005) The importance of shear wave velocity information of a soil site. Paper presented at the Australian Earthquake Engineering Society 2005 Conference, Albury, NSW

  3. Beresnev IA, Wen K-L (1996) Nonlinear soil response—a reality? Bull Seismol Soc Am 86(6):1964–1978

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bolisetti C, Whittaker AS, Mason HB, Almufti I, Willford M (2014) Equivalent linear and nonlinear site response analysis for design and risk assessment of safety-related nuclear structures. Nucl Eng Des 275:107–121. doi:10.1016/j.nucengdes.2014.04.033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Borcherdt RD (1994) Estimates of site-dependent response spectra for design (methodology and justification). Earthq Spectra 10(4):617–653

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bradley BA, Cubrinovski M (2011) Near-source strong ground motions observed in the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Seismol Res Lett 82(6):853–865

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Brown A, Gibson G (2004) A multi-tiered earthquake hazard model for Australia. Tectonophysics 390(1–4):25–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Building Seismic Safety Council (2009) National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) recommended seismic provisions for new buildings and other structures (FEMA P-750) 2009 edition. In N. I. o. B. S. Building Seismic Safety Council (Ed.). Washington D.C

  9. Chandler A, Pappin J, Coburn A (1991) Vulnerability and seismic risk assessment of buildings following the 1989 Newcastle, Australia earthquake. Bull N Z Natl Soc Earthq Eng 24(2):116–138

    Google Scholar 

  10. Chatterjee K, Choudhury D, Poulos HG (2015) Seismic analysis of laterally loaded pile under influence of vertical loading using finite element method. Comput Geotechn 67:172–186. doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2015.03.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Choudhury D and Savoikar P (2009) Equivalent-linear seismic analyses of MSW landfills using DEEPSOIL. Eng Geol 107(3–4):98–108. doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2009.05.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Crouse CB, McGuire JW (1996) Site response studies for purpose of revising NEHRP seismic provisions. Earthq Spectra 12(3):407–439. doi:10.1193/1.1585891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dhakal RP, Lin SL, Loye AK, Evans SJ (2013) Seismic design spectra for different soil classes. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 46(2):79–87

    Google Scholar 

  14. Eurocode 8 (2004) Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. In E. S. E. 1998-1:2004 (Ed.). Comiťe Européen de Normalisation, Brussels, Belgium

  15. Goldsworthy HM (2012) Lessons on building design from the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Aust J Struct Eng 13(2):159

    Google Scholar 

  16. Groholski DR, Hashash YMA, Kim B, Musgrove M, Harmon J, Stewart JP (2016) Simplified model for small-strain nonlinearity and strength in 1D seismic site response analysis. J Geotechn Geoenviron Eng 142(9):04016042. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hashash YMA, Dashti S, Romero MI, Ghayoomi M, Musgrove M (2015) Evaluation of 1-D seismic site response modeling of sand using centrifuge experiments. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 78:19–31. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2015.07.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hashash YMA, Musgrove MI, Harmon JA, Groholski DR, Phillips CA, Park D (2016) DEEPSOIL 6.1, user manual. University of Illinois, Urbana

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hoult RD, Lumantarna E, Goldsworthy HM (2013) Ground motion modelling and response spectra for Australian earthquakes. Paper presented at the Australian Earthquake Engineering Society 2013 Conference, Hobart, Tasmania

  20. Hoult RD, Amirsardari A, Sandiford D, Lumantarna E, Goldsworthy HM, Gibson G, Asten M (2014) The 2012 Moe earthquake and earthquake attenuation in south eastern Australia. Paper presented at the Australian Earthquake Engineering Society 2014 Conference, Lorne, Victoria

  21. ICBO (1994) International Council of Building Officials, Uniform Building Code 1994. Whittier

  22. ICBO (1997) International Council of Building Officials, Uniform Building Code 1997. Whittier, CA

  23. ICC (2000) Intenation Building Code (IBC). IBC, Birmingham, AL

    Google Scholar 

  24. ICC (2009) Intenation Building Code (IBC). IBC, Birmingham

    Google Scholar 

  25. Jakka RS, Roy N, Wason HR (2014) Implications of surface wave data measurement uncertainty on seismic ground response analysis. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 61–62:239–245. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.02.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Jones TD, Neville MJ, Scott G, Sinadinovski C (1996) Earthquake microzonation and the development of the australian earthquake loading standard. Paper presented at the Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 1996 Australian earthquake Engineering Society Conference, Adelaide

  27. Kamatchi P, Rajasankar J, Iyer NR, Lakshmanan N, Ramana GV, Nagpal AK (2010) Effect of depth of soil stratum on performance of buildings for site-specific earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30(8):647–661. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.02.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Lam N, Wilson J (1999) Estimation of the site natural period from a borehole record. Aust J Struct Eng 1(3):179–200

    Google Scholar 

  29. Lam NTK, Wilson JL (2008) The new response spectrum model for Australia. Special issue: earthquake engineering in the low and moderate seismic regions of Southeast Asia and Australia, pp 6–24

  30. Leonard M (2008) One hundred years of earthquake recording in Australia. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98(3):1458–1470. doi:10.1785/0120050193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lumantarna E, Wilson JL, Lam NTK (2012) Bi-linear displacement response spectrum model for engineering applications in low and moderate seismicity regions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 43:85–96. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2012.07.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Martin GR, Dobry R (1994) Earthquake site response and seismic code provisions. NCEER Bull 8(4):1–6

    Google Scholar 

  33. Matasovic N (1993) Seismic response of composite horizontally-layered soil deposits. University of California, Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  34. McPherson A, Hall L (2013) Site classification for earthquake hazard and risk assessment in Australia. Bull Seismol Soc Am 103(2A):1085–1102. doi:10.1785/0120120142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ordonez GA (2013) SHAKE2000 (Version 9.99.2–July 2013). Retrieved from http://www.geomotions.com

  36. Papaspiliou M, Kontoe S, Bommer JJ (2012) An exploration of incorporating site response into PSHA-part II: sensitivity of hazard estimates to site response approaches. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2012.05.001

    Google Scholar 

  37. PEER (2010) User manual for the PEER ground motion database web application (Version Beta Version–October 1, 2010)

  38. PEER (2013) Pacific earthquake engineering research (PEER) Center Ground Motion Database. http://peer.berkeley.edu/peer_ground_motion_database/

  39. Schnabel PB (1973) Effects of local geology and distance from source on earthquake ground motions. (Ph.D.), University of California, Berkeley, California

  40. Schnabel PB, Lysmer J, Seed HB (1972) SHAKE: A computer program for earthquake response analysis of horizontally layered sites, EERC 72-12. College of Eng. University of California Berkeley, California

    Google Scholar 

  41. Seed HB, Idriss IM (1970) Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analyses (Vol. Report No. EERC 70-10): University of California, Berkekley

  42. Seed HB, Idriss IM (1982) Ground motions and soil liquefaction during earthquakes, vol 5. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland

    Google Scholar 

  43. So M, Thompson T, Mote T (2015) Site-specific response analysis in Australia and comparison with AS1170. 4 and geoscience Australia 2012 seismic hazard maps. Paper presented at the 6th international conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering, Christchurch, New Zealand

  44. Standards Association NZ (2004) NZS 1170.5:2004. Structural design actions and commentary, Part 5, Earthquake Actions. Wellington, New Zealand

  45. Standards Australia (1993) AS 1170.4-1993: Minimum design loads on structure (known as the SAA Loading Code)-Earthquake loads

  46. Standards Australia (2007) AS 1170.4-2007: Structural design actions, Part 4: Earthquake actions in Australia

  47. Vucetic M, Dobry R (1991) Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response. J Geotechn Eng 117(1):89–107. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1991)117:1(89)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Walker G (2011) Comparison of the impacts of cyclone tracy and the newcastle earthquake on the australian building and insurance industries

  49. Walling M, Silva W, Abrahamson N (2008) Nonlinear site amplification factors for constraining the NGA models. Earthq Spectra 24(1):243–255. doi:10.1193/1.2934350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Wilson J, Lam N, Pham L (2008) Development of the new Australian earthquake loading standard: EJSE International Ltd 2008

Download references

Acknowledgements

The support of the Commonwealth of Australia through the Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre program is acknowledged.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ryan D. Hoult.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 4.

Table 4 Ground motions from PEER (2013) and scaling used for input

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hoult, R.D., Lumantarna, E. & Goldsworthy, H.M. Soil amplification in low-to-moderate seismic regions. Bull Earthquake Eng 15, 1945–1963 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-0067-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Low-to-moderate
  • Intraplate
  • Soil
  • Response
  • Amplification
  • Spectral
  • SHAKE2000
  • PEER
  • Australia
  • Seismic