Introduction of Seismic Ground Response Analysis

  • Nozomu Yoshida
Part of the Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering book series (GGEE, volume 36)


Computer programs for seismic response analysis have been developed mainly in the field of structural analysis. The analysis of ground might be possible by these computer programs. However, they are not used at present. Significant difference exists in the constitutive model or stress–strain relationships. As soil shows nonlinear behavior at very small strains, a simple model such as a bilinear model is not applicable to soil. We need a computer program that is designed for the seismic ground response analysis, especially to consider stress–strain relationships and to take soil particle–water mixture into account.


Strain Relationship Strain Model Excess Pore Water Pressure Hyperbolic Model Backbone Curve 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Assimakia D, Kauselb E (2002) An equivalent linear algorithm with frequency-and pressure-dependent moduli and damping for the seismic analysis of deep sites. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 22(9–12):959–965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Biot MA (1963) Theory of stability and consolidation of a porous media under initial stress. J Math Mech 12:521–541zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. Finn WDL, Byrne PL, Martin GR (1976) Seismic response and liquefaction of sands. J Geotech Eng Div 102(GT8):841–856Google Scholar
  4. Finn WDL, Yogendrakumar M, Yoshida N, Yoshida H (1984) TARA-3, a computer program to compute the response of 2-dimensional embankment and soil-structure interaction systems to seismic loading, soil dynamic group. University of British Columbia, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  5. Hardin BO, Drnevich VP (1972a) Shear modulus and damping in soils: measurement and parameter effects. Proc Am Soc Civ Eng 98(SM6):603–624Google Scholar
  6. Hardin BO, Drnevich VP (1972b) Shear modulus and damping in soils: design equations and curves. Proc Am Soc Civ Eng 98(SM7):667–692Google Scholar
  7. Ishihara K, Towhata I (1982) Dynamic response analysis of level ground based on the effective stress method. In: Pande GN, Zienkiewicz OC (eds) Soil mechanics – transient and cyclic loads. Wiley, New York, pp 133–172Google Scholar
  8. Ishihara K, Yoshida N, Tsujino S (1985) Modelling of stress-strain relations of soils in cyclic loading. In: Proc. 5th international conference for numerical method in geomechanics, Nagoya, vol 1, pp 373–380Google Scholar
  9. Kausel E, Assimaki D (2002) Seismic simulation of on elastic soils via frequency-dependent moduli and damping. J Eng Mech 128(1):34–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kutsuzawa S, Morita Y (1991) Design specification and soil constant, Tsuchi-to-Kiso. JGS 39(12):63–67Google Scholar
  11. Lee MKW, Finn WDL (1978) 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, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  12. Lysmer J, Udaka T, Tsai CF, Seed HB (1975) FLUSH a computer program for approximate 3-D analysis of soil-structure interaction problems, report no. EERC75-30. University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  13. Nakamura S. Yoshida N (2002) Proposal of nonlinear earthquake response analysis in frequency domain considering apparent frequency dependency of soil property. J Geotech Eng (Proc. JSCE, No. 722/III-61): 169–187 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  14. Satoh T, Horike M, Takeuchi Y, Uetake T, Suzuki H (1997) Nonlinear behavior of scoria soil sediments evaluated from borehole record in eastern Shizuoka prefecture Japan. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 26:781–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Schnabel PB, Lysmer J, Seed HB (1972) SHAKE a computer program for earthquake response analysis of horizontally layered sites, report no. EERC72-12. University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  16. Seed HB, Idriss IM (1970) Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analyses, report no. EERC70-10, Earthquake Engineering Research Center. University of California, Berkeley, 40pGoogle Scholar
  17. Streeter VL, Wylie EB, Richart FE (1974) Soil motion computation by characteristic method. J Geotech Eng Div AXE 100:247–263Google Scholar
  18. Sugito M, Goda H, Masuda T (1994) Frequency dependent equi-linearized technique for seismic response analysis of multi-layered ground. J Geotech Eng (Proc. of JSCE, No. 493/III-27) 49–58 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  19. Yoshida N (1993) STADAS, a computer program for static and dynamic analysis of ground and soil-structure interaction problems, report, soil dynamics group. The University of British Columbia, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  20. Yoshida N (1995) DYNES3D, A computer program for dynamic response analysis of level ground by effective stress-nonlinear method, Revised in 2009 (version 2.74), Tohoku Gakuin University;
  21. Yoshida N, Finn WDL (2000) Simulation of liquefaction beneath an impermeable surface layer. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 19(5):333–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Yoshida N, Towhata I (1991) YUSAYUSA-2 and SIMMDL-2, theory and practice, revised in 2003 (version 2.1), Tohoku Gakuin University and University of Tokyo;
  23. Yoshida N, Tsujino S, Ishihara K (1990) Stress-strain model for nonlinear analysis of horizontally layered deposit. In: Summaries of the technical papers of annual meeting of AIJ, Chugoku, Vol. B (Structure I), pp. 1639–1640 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  24. Yoshida N, Kobayashi S, Suetomi I, Miura K (2002) Equivalent linear method considering frequency dependent characteristics of stiffness and damping. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 22(3):205–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nozomu Yoshida
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environment EngineeringTohoku Gakuin UniversityMiyagiJapan

Personalised recommendations