Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

New Frequency Domain Framework of Inverse Ground Response Analysis for the Determination of Dynamic Soil Properties of Multilayered System

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Indian Geotechnical Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Characteristics of seismic waves can be modified significantly due to local site effects (LSE). Numerically, LSE can be quantified by performing ground response analysis (GRA). This requires knowledge about dynamic soil properties of subsoil, which include shear modulus (G), damping ratio (β), modulus degradation curves (G/Gmax curves), and damping ratio curves (β curves). G/Gmax curves and β curves are combinedly called as dynamic soil properties curves (DSPCs). In order to perform site-specific GRA, DSPCs of subsoil should be known. Determination of site-specific DSPCs, however, requires rigorous laboratory-based experimentations which have several limitations such as equipment compliance and size effect. On the other hand, inverse ground response analysis (IGRA) methodology, that uses recorded acceleration time histories at ground surface and at downhole locations, for the determination of DSPCs has several advantages. However, the estimation of DSPCs for a multilayer soil system is not yet well addressed by existing IGRA methods, especially in the frequency domain. In the present study, a new frequency domain-based IGRA methodology is proposed to determine DSPCs for multiple soil layer system based on acceleration time histories at the ground surface and at different locations below the ground surface. The proposed methodology is then applied on earthquake (EQ) records obtained from a downhole array site in Lotung. Based on the back-computed G/Gmax values and β values at the Lotung site, average DSPCs are proposed for the top three soil layers. When the proposed average DSPCs are reused for GRA study at the Lotung site, it is observed that the proposed average DSPCs can represent soil response satisfactorily. The proposed IGRA methodology is then validated for a different site located in Delhi based on ground motions obtained from a GRA study. For the site in Delhi as well, it is observed that the proposed methodology yielded back-computed G/Gmax values and β values that are consistent with the DSPCs used for the GRA study.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Chandra J, Guéguen P, Steidl JH, Bonilla LF (2015) In situ assessment of the g–γ curve for characterizing the nonlinear response of soil: application to the garner valley downhole array and the wildlife liquefaction array. Bull Seismol Soc Am 105:993–1010. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120140209

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bonilla LF, Cotton F, Archuleta RJ (2003) Quelques renseignements sur les effets de site non-lin{é}aires en utilisant des donn{é}es de forage: la base de mouvements forts Kik-net au Japon. In: VIe Colloque National AFPS, Ecole Polytech., Palaiseau, France

  4. Bonilla LF, Archuleta RJ, Lavallée D (2005) Hysteretic and dilatant behavior of cohesionless soils and their effects on nonlinear site response: Field data observations and modeling. Bull Seismol Soc Am 95:2373–2395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Field EH, Johnson PA, Beresnev IA, Zeng Y (1997) Nonlinear ground-motion amplification by sediments during the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Nature 390:599–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Frankel AD, Carver DL, Williams RA (2002) Nonlinear and linear site response and basin effects in Seattle for the M 6.8 Nisqually, Washington, earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 92:2090–2109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Régnier J, Cadet H, Bonilla LF, Bertrand E (2013) Assessing nonlinear behavior of soils in seismic site response : statistical analysis on KiK-net strong-motion data. Bull Seismological Soc Am 103:1750–1770. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120120240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ren Y, Wen R, Yao X, Ji K (2017) Five parameters for the evaluation of the soil nonlinearity during the Ms8. 0 Wenchuan Earthquake using the HVSR method. Earth, Planets Sp 69:1–17

    Google Scholar 

  9. Tsuda K, Steidl J (2006) Nonlinear site response from the 2003 and 2005 Miyagi-Oki earthquakes. Earth, planets Sp 58:1593–1597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Wu C, Peng Z, Assimaki D (2009) Temporal changes in site response associated with the strong ground motion of the 2004 M w 6.6 Mid-Niigata earthquake sequences in Japan. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99:3487–3495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Archuleta RJ, Steidl JH, Bonilla LF (2000) Engineering insights from data recorded on vertical arrays. Proc 12th World Conf Earthq Eng 1–7

  12. Bonilla LF, Gueguen P, Lopez-Caballero F, Mercerat EDGC (2017) Prediction of non-linear site response using downhole array data and numerical modeling: the Belleplaine (Guadeloupe) case study. Phys Chem Earth 98:107–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Tang YK (1989) Proceedings: NSF/EPRI Workshop on dynamic soil properties and site characterization. Held in Palo Alto, California, p Volumes 1 and 2.

  14. Mondal JK, Kumar A (2021) A new frequency domain based inverse ground response analysis framework for the determination of dynamic soil properties. Int J Geomech 21:1–23. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001973

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mondal JK, Kumar A (2021) A systematic review on inverse gra methodologies developed for the determination of dynamic soil properties using downhole seismic array records. Indian Geotech J. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-021-00571-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Oskay C, Zeghal M (2011) A survey of geotechnical system identification techniques. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 31:568–582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.11.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chang CY, Mok CM, Power MS (1991) Analysis of ground response data at Lotung large-scale soil- structure interaction experiment site. Final report

  18. Chang CY, Mok CM, Memebers A, Tang HT (1996) Inference of dynamic shear modulus from Lotung downhole data. J Geotech Eng 122:657–665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ghayamghamian MR, Kawakami H (1996) On the characteristics of non-linear soil response and dynamic soil properties using vertical array data in Japan. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 25:857–870. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199608)25:8%3c857::AID-EQE592%3e3.0.CO;2-R

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kokusho T, Sato K, Matsumoto M (1996) Nonlinear dynamic soil properties back-calculated from strong seismic motions during Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake. In: Proc. 11WCEE. Acapulco, Mexico, p Paper no 2080

  21. Midorikawa S, Miura H (2008) Nonlinear behavior of soil response observed in strong-motion records from recent Japanese earthquakes. World Conf Earthq Eng 3:

  22. Tokimatsu K, Midorikawa S, Yoshimi Y (1989) Dynamic soil properties obtained from strong motion records. In: 12th International Conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering. pp 2015–2018

  23. Tokimatsu K, Sekiguchi T, Miura H, Midorikawa S (2006) Nonlinear dynamic properties of surface soils estimated from strong motion accelerograms at K-NET and JMA stations in Ojiya. J Struct Constr Engg AIJ 600:43–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Tokimatsu K, Midorikawa S (1981) Nonlinear Soil Properties Estimated from Strong Motion Accelerograms. In: Proceeding of 1st Int Conf on Recent Advances in Geotec Earthq Engg and Sol Dyn of 1st Int Conf on Recent Advances in Geotec Earthq Engg and Sol Dyn. pp 117–122

  25. Yang Z, Yuan J, Liu J, Han B (2017) Shear modulus degradation curves of gravelly and clayey soils based on KiK-Net in situ seismic observations. J Geotech Geoenvironmen Eng 143:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)gt.1943-5606.0001738

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Honjo Y, Iwamoto S, Sugimoto M et al (1998) Inverse analysis of dynamic soil properties based on seismometer array records using the Extended Bayesian method. Soil Sci Soc Am J 38:131–143

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kokusho T, Aoyagi T, Wakunami A (2005) In situ soil-specific nonlinear properties back-calculated from vertical array records during 1995 Kobe earthquake. J Geotech Geoenvironmen Eng 131:1509–1521. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:12(1509)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ghayamghamian MR, Kawakami H (2000) On site nonlinear hysteretic curves and dynamic soil properties. J Geotech Geoenvironmen Eng 2:543–555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ghayamghamian MR, Matosaka M (2001) Identification of dynamic soil properties using vertical array recordings. In: Proceedings of int. Conf. on Recent Advances in Geotech. Earthq. Eng. And Soil Dyn.

  30. Taboada-Urtuzuastegui V, Martinez H, Romo M, Ardila C (2000) Identification of Mexico city clay dynamic properties. Proc 12th World Conf Earthq Eng Auckland, New Zeal Paper No.:1–8

  31. Zeghal M, Tang HT, Stepp JC (1995) Soil Nonlinear Properties. J. Geotech Eng 121:363–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Koga Y, Matsuo O (1990) Shaking table test of embankments resting on liquefiable sandy ground. Soil Found Engg 30:162–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Eseller-Bayat EE (2019) Ada M (2019) A methodology for estimation of site-specific nonlinear dynamic soil behaviour using vertical downhole arrays. Eur J Environ Civ Eng 010(1080/19648189):1603122

    Google Scholar 

  34. Baise LG, Glaser SD, Sugano T (2001) Consistency of dynamic site response at Port Island. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 30:803–818. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Baise LG, Glaser SD (2000) Consistency of ground-motion estimates made using system identification. Bull Seismol Soc Am 90:993–1009. https://doi.org/10.1785/0119980169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Glaser SD, Leeds AL (1996) Estimation of system damping at the Lotung site by application of system identification. Rep no. NIST GCR 96–700, Colorado School of Mines

  37. Lin JS (1994) Extraction of dynamic soil properties using extended kalman filter. J Geotech Eng 120:2100–2117. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1994)120:12(2100)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Wen YK (1976) Method for random vibration of hysteretic system. J engg Mech Div 102:249–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Tsai CC, Hashash YMA (2009) Learning of dynamic soil behavior from downhole arrays. J Geotech Geoenvironmen Eng 135:745–757. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000050

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Tsai C, Hashash YMA (2007) An inverse analysis approach to extract dynamic nonlinear soil behavior from downhole array data. In: Proc of 4th Int Conf on Earthq and Geotech Engg

  41. Groholski DR, Hashash YMA, Matasovic N (2014) Learning of pore pressure response and dynamic soil behavior from downhole array measurements. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 61:40–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Mercado V, El-Sekelly W, Zeghal M, Abdoun T (2015) Identification of soil dynamic properties through an optimization analysis. Comput Geotech 65:175–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2014.11.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Kondner RL (1963) Hyperbolic stress-strain response: cohesive soils. J Soil Mech Found Div 89:115–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Ishihara K (1996) Soil behaviour in earthquake geotechnics

  45. Seed HB, Idriss IM, Tokimatsu K (1986) Moduli and damping factors for dynamic analyses of cohesionless soils. J Geotech Eng ASCE 112:1016–1032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Wang HY, Jiang WP, Wang SY, Miao Y (2019) In situ assessment of soil dynamic parameters for characterizing nonlinear seismic site response using KiK-net vertical array data. Bull Earthq Eng 17:2331–2360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-00539-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Hardin BO, Drnevich VP (1972) Shear modulus and damping in soils: Design equation and curves. J Soil Mech Found Eng Div 98:667–691

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Pyke R (1979) Nonlinear soil models for irregular cyclic loadings. Journ Geotech Engg Div ASCE 105:715–725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Ghayamghamian M (2001) Identification of Dynamic Soil Properties Using Vertical Array Recordings

  50. Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering

  51. Hadjian AH (2002) Fundamental period and mode shape of layered soil profiles. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 22:885–891. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0267-7261(02)00111-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Wen K-L (1994) Non-linear soil response in ground motions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 23:599–608. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290230603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Tang HT, Tang YK, Stepp JC et al (1989) A large-scale soil-structure interaction experiment: Design and construction. Nucl Eng Des 111:371–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-5493(89)90248-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Mar M, Shen CK, Wang Z, et al (1991) Pore pressure response during 1986 Lotung Earthquakes

  55. Tang HT, Tang YK, Stepp JC et al (1989) A large-scale soil-structure interaction experiment: design and construction. Nucl Eng Des. https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-5493(89)90248-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Anderson DG, Tang YK (1989) Summary of soil character- ization program for the Lotung large-scale seismic experiment. Vol. 2, Rep. No. NP-6I54, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, Calif

  57. Elgamal AW, Zeghal M, Tang HT, Stepp JC (1995) SITE DYNAMIC PROPERTIES I : EVALUATION OF. 121:350–362

  58. Yangisawa E, Kazama M (1996) Nonlinear dynamic behavior of the ground inferred from strong motion array records at Kobe Port Island during the 1995 Hygo-Ken Nanbu earthquake. In: Procee Earthq Engg 11th World Conf on Earthq Engg

  59. Kumar A, Mondal JK (2017) Newly developed MATLAB based code for equivalent linear site response analysis. Geotech Geol Eng 35:2303–2325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-017-0246-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Kumar A, Baro O, Harinarayan NH (2016) Obtaining the surface PGA from site response analyses based on globally recorded ground motions and matching with the codal values. Nat Hazards 81:543–572. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-2095-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Vucetic M, Dobry R (1991) Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response. J Geotech Eng 117:89–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Sun JI, Golesorkhi R, Seed HB (1988) Dynamic moduli and damping ratios for cohesive soils. Report no EERC 88–15

  63. Seed H, Idriss I (1970) Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analysis. University of California, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors are thankful to soilquake.net website, from where the Lotung downhole array data were downloaded. The dataset was originally provided by the US Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), under the direction of H. T. Tang and J. Carl Stepp.

Funding

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati, 781039, India

    Joy Kumar Mondal & Abhishek Kumar

Authors
  1. Joy Kumar Mondal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Abhishek Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abhishek Kumar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

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.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mondal, J.K., Kumar, A. New Frequency Domain Framework of Inverse Ground Response Analysis for the Determination of Dynamic Soil Properties of Multilayered System. Indian Geotech J 54, 547–576 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-023-00791-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-023-00791-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation