Abstract
The choice of stiffness profile can be crucial in a site response analysis. This research aims to study site response predictions at the large-scale seismic test site in Lotung, Taiwan, employing three different approaches to choosing the stiffness profile in nonlinear and equivalent linear analyses. These approaches consider point average, layer average, and deposit average stiffness profiles. One strong and one weak earthquake event recorded at the site are simulated with these three stiffness profile approaches. Moreover, the stiffness profiles are tested under sets of seven modified real input motions (selected from the European Strong-Motion Database) at various seismic intensity levels. The results indicate that the different stiffness profiles have a minimal effect on the nonlinear site response predictions, in particular for input motions having a PGA greater than or equal to 0.05 g. The spectral acceleration values and PGA and shear strain profiles from nonlinear site response analyses change negligibly when using different approaches to derive the stiffness profile. In the equivalent linear site response analysis, the spectral acceleration predictions are strongly influenced by the stiffness profile approach, regardless of the PGA level of the input motions. The stiffness profile has a more significant role in equivalent linear site response analysis than in nonlinear site response analysis. Therefore, the point average stiffness profile should be used in equivalent linear site response analysis.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Akin MK, Kramer SL, Topal T (2016) Dynamic soil characterization and site response estimation for Erbaa, Tokat (Turkey). Nat Hazards 82(3):1833–1868
Amorosi A, Boldini D, di Lernia A (2016) Seismic ground response at Lotung: hysteretic elasto-plastic-based 3D analyses. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 85:44–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.03.001
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, pp 1–4
Andrade JE, Borja RI (2006) Quantifying sensitivity of local site response models to statistical variations in soil properties. Acta Geotech 1(1):3–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-005-0002-4
Assimaki D, Li W, Steidl J, Schmedes J (2008) Quantifying nonlinearity susceptibility via site-response modeling uncertainty at three sites in the Los Angeles basin. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98(5):2364–2390. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120080031
Behrou R, Haghpanah F, Foroughi H (2017) Seismic site effect analysis for the city of Tehran using equivalent linear ground response analysis. Int J Geotech Eng 14(1):16–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2017.1395998
BHRC (2014) Iranian code of practice for seismic resistant design of buildings, Standard No. 2800. 4th edition Building and Housing Research Center
Borja RI, Chao H-Y, Montáns FJ, Lin C-H (1999) SSI effects on ground motion at Lotung LSST site. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 125(9):760–770
CEN (2004) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance—part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings (EN 1998-1: 2004). European Committee for Normalization, Brussels
Chan AHC (1995) User manual for DIANA-SWANDYNE II. University of Birmingham, UK
Chandran D, Anbazhagan P (2020) 2D nonlinear site response analysis of typical stiff and soft soil sites at shallow bedrock region with low to medium seismicity. J Appl Geophys 179:104087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2020.104087
Darendeli MB, Stokoe KH (2001) Development of a new family of normalized modulus reduction and material damping curves. Geotechnical Eng Report GD01-1 University of Texas, Austin, Texas
Dikmen SU, Edincliler A, Pinar A (2015) Northern Aegean Earthquake (Mw = 6.9): observations at three seismic downhole arrays in Istanbul. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 77:321–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2015.06.008
Elia G (2015) Site response for seismic hazard assessment. Encycl Earthq Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35344-4_241
Elia G, Rouainia M, Karofyllakis D, Guzel Y (2017) Modelling the non-linear site response at the LSST down-hole accelerometer array in Lotung. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 102:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.08.007
EPRI (1993) Guidelines for determining design basis ground motions-volume 1: method and guidelines for estimating for estimating earthquake ground motion in Eastern North America. Rep. No. TR-102293. Electric Power Research Institute Palo Alto, California
Field EH, Jacob KH (1993) Monte-Carlo simulation of the theoretical site response variability at Turkey flat, California, given the uncertainty in the geotechnically derived input parameters. Earthq Spectra 9(4):669–701. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1585736
Ghorbani A, Eslami A, Ghasemi M (2019) Site response analysis of deep sedimentary deposits using electrical resistivity logging; case study: Guilan Province, Iran. Geotech Geol Eng 37(6):4995–5017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-019-00958-2
Glaser SD, Leeds AL (1996) Preliminary processing of the Lotung LSST data (no. PB-96-165972/XAB). Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO (United States). Div. of Engineering
Guzel Y, Elia G, Rouainia M (2017) The effect of input motion selection strategies on nonlinear ground response predictions. In: COMPDYN 2017–6th international thematic conference, National technical university of Athens, Rhodes Island (GR)
Guzel Y, Guzel F (2023) Investigation of local site effect considering the recordings of the 08.11. 2021 earthquake event in Konya, Turkey. Nat Hazards 116(1):619–636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-022-05691-3
Guzel Y, Rouainia M, Elia G (2020) Effect of soil variability on nonlinear site response predictions: application to the Lotung site. Comput Geotech 121:16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2020.103444
Hashash YMA, Musgrove MI, Harmon JA, Ilhan O, Xing G, Numanoglu O, Groholski DR, Phillips CA, Park D (2020) DEEPSOIL 7.0, User Manual. Urbana, IL, Board of Trustees of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Hashash YMA, Park D (2002) Viscous damping formulation and high frequency motion propagation in non-linear site response analysis. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 22(7):611–624. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0267-7261(02)00042-8
Iervolino I, Galasso C, Cosenza E (2010) REXEL: computer aided record selection for code-based seismic structural analysis. Bull Earthq Eng 8(2):339–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-009-9146-1
Kapogianni E et al (2021) Impact of local site conditions on the seismic response of the athenian Acropolis Hill. Geotech Geol Eng 39(3):1817–1830. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-020-01589-8
Kontoe S, Zdravkovic L, Potts DM, Salandy NE (2007) The use of absorbing boundaries in dynamic analyses of soil-structure interaction problems. In: 4th International conference in earthquake geotechnical engineering, Chechester
Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River
Kumar A, Suman H (2020) Design response spectra and site coefficients for various seismic site classes of Guwahati, India, based on extensive ground response analyses. Geotech Geol Eng 38(6):6255–6280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-020-01434-y
Kurtulus A (2011) Istanbul geotechnical downhole arrays. Bull Earthq Eng 9(5):1443–1461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-011-9268-0
Li W, Assimaki D (2010) Site- and motion-dependent parametric uncertainty of site-response analyses in earthquake simulations. Bull Seismol Soc Am 100(3):954–968. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120090030
Pawirodikromo W (2022) Ground motions, site amplification and building damage at Near source of the 2006 Yogyakarta, Indonesia Earthquake. Geotech Geol Eng 40(12):5781–5798. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-022-02249-9
Phanikanth VS, Choudhury D, Rami Reddy G (2011) Equivalent-linear seismic ground response analysis of some typical sites in Mumbai. Geotech Geol Eng 29(6):1109–1126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-011-9443-8
Rathje EM, Kottke AR, Trent WL (2010) Influence of input motion and site property variabilities on seismic site response analysis. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 136(4):607–619. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)gt.1943-5606.0000255
Rayhani MHT, El Naggar MH, Tabatabaei SH (2008) Nonlinear analysis of local site effects on seismic ground response in the Bam earthquake. Geotech Geol Eng 26(1):91–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-007-9149-0
Roesset JM (1977) Soil amplification of earthquakes. In: Desai Christianeditors (ed) Numerical methods in geotechnical engineering. McGraw-Hill, NewYork, pp 639–682
Rota M, Lai CG, Strobbia CL (2011) Stochastic 1D site response analysis at a site in central Italy. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 31(4):626–639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.11.009
Rouainia M, Muir Wood D (2000) A kinematic hardening constitutive model for natural clays with loss of structure. Géotechnique 50(2):153–164. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2000.50.2.153
Rouainia M, Muir Wood D (2001) Implicit numerical integration for a kinematic hardening soil plasticity model. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 25(13):1305–1325
Sharafi H, Raeisi N (2022) Numerical evaluation of local site effects on amplification of the 2017 Mw 7.3 Sarpol-e-Zahab, Iran, earthquake waves using Near and Far-Field Records. Geotech Geol Eng 40(6):3007–3037. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-022-02076-y
Somantri AK, Mase LZ, Susanto A, Gunadi R, Febriansya A (2023) Analysis of ground response of Bandung region subsoils due to predicted earthquake triggered by Lembang Fault, West Java Province, Indonesia. Geotech Geol Eng 41(2):1155–1181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-022-02328-x
Tang HT (1987) Large-scale soil-structure interaction. EPRI NP5513-SR Spec Rep, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California. https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.179
Tang HT, Tang YK, Stepp JC (1990) Lotung large-scale seismic experiment and soil-structure interaction method validation. Nucl Energy Des 123:197–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-5493(90)90260-5
Teague DP, Cox BR (2016) Site response implications associated with using non-unique vs profiles from surface wave inversion in comparison with other commonly used methods of accounting for vs uncertainty. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 91:87–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.07.028
Tonuk G, Ansal A, Kurtulus A, Cetiner B (2014) Site specific response analysis for performance based design earthquake characteristics. Bull Earthq Eng 12(3):1091–1105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9529-1
Toro GR (1995) Probabilistic models of site velocity profiles for generic and site-specific ground-motion amplification studies. Tech Rep 6(3):779574
Viggiani G, Atkinson JH (1995) Stiffness of fine-grained soil at very small strains. Geotechnique 45(2):249–265. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1995.45.2.249
Zalachoris G, Rathje EM (2015) Evaluation of one-dimensional site response techniques using borehole arrays. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 141(12):15. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)gt.1943-5606.0001366
Zeghal M, Elgamal AW, Tang HT, Stepp JC (1995) Lotung downhole array. II: evaluation of soil nonlinear properties. J Geotech Eng 121(4):363–378. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733
Zienkiewicz OC, Chan A, Pastor M, Schrefler B, Shiomi T (1999) Computational geomechanics. Wiley, Chichester
Funding
The author declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author has no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Guzel, Y. Site Response Analyses with Different Stiffness Profiles and Input Motion Variability. Geotech Geol Eng 42, 2075–2091 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-023-02662-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-023-02662-8