Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Influence of site conditions on seismic design parameters for foundations as determined via nonlinear site response analysis

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Site conditions, including geotechnical properties and the geological setting, influence the near-surface response of strata subjected to seismic excitation. The geotechnical parameters required for the design of foundations include mass density (ρ), damping ratio (βs), shear wave velocity (Vs), and soil shear modulus (Gs). The values of the last three parameters are sensitive to the level of nonlinear strain induced in the strata due to seismic ground motion. In this study, the effect of variations in soil properties, such as plasticity index (PI), effective stress (σ′), over consolidation ratio (OCR), impedance contrast ratio (ICR) between the bedrock and the overlying strata, and depth of soil strata over bedrock (H), on seismic design parameters (βs, Vs, and Gs) was investigated for National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) site classes C and D, through 1D nonlinear seismic site response analysis. The Morris one-at-a-time (OAT) sensitivity analysis indicated that βs, Vs, and Gs were significantly influenced by variations in PI, while ICR affected βs more than it affected Vs and Gs. However, the influence of H on these parameters was less significant. It was also found that variations in soil properties influenced seismic design parameters in soil type D more significantly than in soil type C. Predictive relationships for βs, Vs, and Gs were derived based on the 1D seismic site response analysis and sensitivity analysis results. The βs, Vs, and Gs values obtained from the analysis were compared with the corresponding values in NEHRP to determine the similarities and differences between the two sets of values. The need to incorporate PI and ICR in the metrics for determining βs, Vs, and Gs for the seismic design of foundations was highlighted.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Pender M J. Earthquake resistant design of foundations. Bulletin-New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, 1996, 29(3): 155–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Romo M P, Mendoza M J, Garcia S R. Geotechnical factors in seismic design of foundations- state-of-the-art report. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 2000, 33(3): 347–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Pitilakis K D, Raptakis D G, Makra K A. Site effects: Recent considerations and design provisions. In: Proceedings 2nd International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering. Lisbon: A. A. Balkema, 1999: 901–912

    Google Scholar 

  4. Trifunac M D. Site conditions and earthquake ground motion—A review. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2016, 90: 88–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. NEHRP. Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures, FEMA P-1050-1, Part 1 (Provisions) and Part 2 (Commentary). Washington, D.C.: Building Seismic Safety Council, 2015

    Google Scholar 

  6. CEN. European Committee for Standardization TC250/SC8/, Eurocode 8: Design Provisions for Earthquake Resistance of Structures, Part 1.1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings, PrEN1998-1. Brussels: CEN, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  7. JRA. Design Specifications for Highway Bridges, Part V: Seismic Design. Tokyo: Japan Road Association, 2012

    Google Scholar 

  8. AS/NZS. AS/NZS 1170.0: Structural Design Actions, Part 0: General Principles. Wellington: Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand, 2002

    Google Scholar 

  9. Mylonakis G, Nikolaou S, Gazetas G. Footings under seismic loading: Analysis and design issues with emphasis on bridge foundations. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2006, 26(9): 824–853

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hwang H H M, Lee C S. Parametric study of site response analysis. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 1991, 10(6): 282–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Makra K, Raptakis D, Chávez-García F J, Pitilakis K. Site effects and design provisions: the case of Euroseistest. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 2002, 158: 2349–2367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Pitilakis K. Site effects. In: Ansal A, ed. Recent Advances in Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering and Microzonation. Dordrecht: Springer, 2004

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gallipoli M R, Chiauzzi L, Stabile T A, Mucciarelli M, Masi A, Lizza C, Vignola L. The role of site effects in the comparison between code provisions and the near field strong motion of the Emilia 2012 earthquakes. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2014, 12(5): 2211–2230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Adhikary S, Singh Y, Paul D K. Effect of soil depth on inelastic seismic response of structures. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2014, 61–62: 13–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Tropeano G, Soccodato F M, Silvestri F. Re-evaluation of code-specified stratigraphic amplification factors based on Italian experimental records and numerical seismic response analyses. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2018, 110: 262–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Chaudhary M T A. A study on sensitivity of seismic site amplification factors to site conditions for bridges. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 2018, 51(4): 197–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Viti S, Tanganelli M, D’intinosante V, Baglione M. Effects of soil characterization on the seismic input. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2019, 23(3): 487–511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Boaga J, Renzi S, Deiana R, Cassiani G. Soil damping influence on seismic ground response: A parametric analysis for weak to moderate ground motion. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2015, 79: 71–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hamidpour S, Soltani M. Probabilistic assessment of ground motions intensity considering soil properties uncertainty. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2016, 90: 158–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Tsang H H, Chandler A M, Lam N T. Simple models for estimating period-shift and damping in soil. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2006, 35(15): 1925–1947

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Fatahi B, Tabatabaiefar S H R. Effects of soil plasticity on seismic performance of mid-rise building frames resting on soft soils. Advances in Structural Engineering, 2014, 17(10): 1387–1402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bieniawski Z T. Geomechanics classification of rock masses and its application in tunneling. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Congress on Rock Mechanics. Denver: ISRM, 1974, 2(2): 27–32

    Google Scholar 

  23. Carmichael R S. Practical Handbook of Physical Properties of Rocks and Minerals. Boca Raton, FL: CRC press, 1989

    Google Scholar 

  24. Jaeger J C, Cook N G, Zimmerman R. Fundamentals of Rock Mechanics. 4th ed. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2007

    Google Scholar 

  25. Touloukian Y S, Judd W R, Roy R F. Physical Properties of Rocks and Minerals. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1989

    Google Scholar 

  26. Serafim J L, Pereira J P. Considerations of the Geomechanics classification of Bieniawski. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium of Engineering Geology and Underground Construction. Lisbon: Portuguese Geotechnical Society, 1983, 1133–1144

    Google Scholar 

  27. Wald L A, Mori J. Evaluation of methods for estimating linear site-response amplifications in the Los Angeles region. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 2000, 90(6B): S32–S42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Boore D M. Can site response be predicted? Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2004, 8(sup001 SI1): 1–41

    Google Scholar 

  29. Santamarina J C, Klein K A, Fam M A. Soils and Waves. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 2001

    Google Scholar 

  30. Corigliano M, Lai C G, Rota M, Penna A. Automatic definition of hazard-compatible accelerograms at non-rocky sites. In: Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Lisbon: Portuguese Society for Earthquake Engineering, 2012

    Google Scholar 

  31. Gibson R E. Some results concerning displacements and stresses in a non-homogeneous elastic half-space. Geotechnique, 1967, 17(1): 58–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Awojobi A O. The settlement of a foundation of Gibson soil of the second kind. Geotechnique, 1975, 25(2): 221–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Douglas J, Gehl P, Bonilla L F, Scotti O, Régnier J, Duval A M, Bertrand E. Making the most of available site information for empirical ground-motion prediction. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 2009, 99(3): 1502–1520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Toro G R. Probabilistic Models of Site Velocity Profiles for Generic and Site-Specific Ground-Motion Amplification Studies. New York: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  35. Chaudhary M T A. Implication of Soil and Seismic Ground Motion Variability on Dynamic Pile Group Impedance for Bridges. Research Project Report # EV01/15. Kuwait University Research Sector, 2016

  36. Guerreiro P, Kontoe S, Taborda D. Comparative study of stiffness reduction and damping curves. In: The 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Lisbon: Portuguese Society for Earthquake Engineering, 2012

    Google Scholar 

  37. Vucetic M, Dobry R. Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1991, 117(1): 89–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Darendeli M B. Development of a new family of normalized modulus reduction and material damping curves. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Austin: University of Texas, Austin, 2001

    Google Scholar 

  39. Ishibashi I, Zhang X. Unified dynamic shear moduli and damping ratios of sand and clay. Soil and Foundation, 1993, 33(1): 182–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Seed H B, Idriss I M. Soil Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic Response Analyses. Technical Report EERRC-70-10. University of California, Berkeley, 1970

    Google Scholar 

  41. Bazzurro P, Cornell C A. Ground-motion amplification in nonlinear soil sites with uncertain properties. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 2004, 94(6): 2090–2109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Bahrampouri M, Rodriguez-Marek A, Bommer J J. Mapping the uncertainty in modulus reduction and damping curves onto the uncertainty of site amplification functions. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2019, 126: 105091

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). ATC-63: Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors, ATC-63 project report prepared by the Applied Technology Council for FEMA. Washington, D.C.: FEMA, 2008

    Google Scholar 

  44. Yenier E, Sandikkaya M A, Akkar S. Fundamental Features of the Extended Strong-Motion Databank prepared for the SHARE Project, Deliverable D4.1. Ankara: Middle East Technical University, 2010

    Google Scholar 

  45. Pitilakis K, Riga E, Anastasiadis A, Fotopoulou S, Karafagka S. Towards the revision of EC8: Proposal for an alternative site classification scheme and associated intensity dependent spectral amplification factors. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2019, 126: 105137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. PEER NGA-West2. PEER ground Motion Database. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, 2019

    Google Scholar 

  47. Hashash Y M A, Musgrove M I, Harmon J A, Groholski D R, Phillips C A, Park D. DEEPSOIL 6.1, User Manual. Urbana, IL: Board of Trustees of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2016

    Google Scholar 

  48. Newmark N M. A method of computation for structural dynamics. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, 1959, 85(3): 67–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Kondner R L, Zelasko J S A. A hyperbolic stress-strain formulation for sands. In: Proceedings of 2nd Pan-American conference on soil mechanics and foundations engineering. São Paulo: Brazilian Association of Soil Mechanics, 1963, 289–324

    Google Scholar 

  50. Matasović N, Vucetic M. Cyclic characterization of liquefiable sands. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1993, 119(11): 1805–1822

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Masing G. Eigenspannumyen und Verfeshungung beim Messing (Self-stretching and hardening for brass). In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Congress for Applied Mechanics. Zurich: O. Füssli, 1926, 332–335 (in German)

    Google Scholar 

  52. Pyke R M. Nonlinear soil models for irregular cyclic loadings. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1979, 105(GT6): 715–726

    Google Scholar 

  53. Wang Z L, Han Q Y, Zhou G S. Wave propagation method of site seismic response by visco-elastoplastic model. In: Proceedings of the Seventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Istanbul: Turkish National Committee on Earthquake Engineering, 1980, 379–386

    Google Scholar 

  54. Phillips C, Hashash Y M. Damping formulation for nonlinear 1D site response analyses. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2009, 29(7): 1143–1158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Ishihara K. Evaluation of soil properties for use in earthquake response analysis. In: Dungar R, Studer J A, eds, Geomechanical Modeling in Engineering Practice. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema, 1986, 241–275

    Google Scholar 

  56. Rayleigh J W S, Lindsay R B. The Theory of Sound. New York: Dover Publications, 1945

    Google Scholar 

  57. Kramer S L. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. 1st ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  58. Morris M D. Factorial sampling plans for preliminary computational experiments. Technometrics, 1991, 33(2): 161–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Saltelli A, Tarantola S, Campolongo F, Ratto M. Sensitivity Analysis in Practice: A Guide to Assessing Scientific Models. Chichester: Wiley, 2004

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  60. Hamdia K M, Ghasemi H, Zhuang X, Alajlan N, Rabczuk T. Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis for flexoelectric nanostructures. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2018, 337: 95–109

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  61. Mohanty S, Codell R. Sensitivity analysis methods for identifying influential parameters in a problem with a large number of random variables. WIT Transactions on Modelling and Simulation, 2002, 31: 363–374

    Google Scholar 

  62. Şafak E. Local site effects and dynamic soil behavior. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2001, 21(5): 453–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Kottegoda N T, Rosso R. Applied Statistics for Civil and Environmental Engineers. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2008

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Kuwait University, Research Grant No. EV01/15.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Civil Engineering Department, Kuwait University, Khalidya, 13060, Kuwait

    Muhammad Tariq A. Chaudhary

Authors
  1. Muhammad Tariq A. Chaudhary
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Muhammad Tariq A. Chaudhary.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chaudhary, M.T.A. Influence of site conditions on seismic design parameters for foundations as determined via nonlinear site response analysis. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 15, 275–303 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-021-0685-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-021-0685-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation