Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quantifying sensitivity of local site response models to statistical variations in soil properties

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Acta Geotechnica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We perform a combined stochastic-deterministic analysis of local site response using two computer codes, an equivalent linear analysis program SHAKE and a fully nonlinear finite element code SPECTRA. Our goal is to compare the relative sensitivity of the two codes to statistical variations in soil properties. For the case studies, we re-analyze two ground motion records in Lotung, Taiwan, and one ground motion record in Gilroy, California, utilizing the recorded ground motions at the site deterministically as input into the two codes while treating the uncertain soil parameters as random variables. We then obtain empirical cumulative distribution functions of the Arias intensity and acceleration spectrum intensity, two measures of cumulative damage, to compare the relative sensitivity of the two codes to variations in model parameters. We show that the two codes exhibit comparable sensitivities to statistical parameter variations, indicating that even in the presence of fluctuations in the soil parameter values it is possible to pursue a fully nonlinear site response analysis with SPECTRA and benefit from its superior accuracy.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Anderson DG, Tang YK (1989) Summary of soil characterization program for the Lotung large-scale seismic experiment. In: Proceedings of the EPRI/NRC/TPC workshop on seismic soil-structure interaction analysis techniques using data from Lotung, Taiwan, EPRI NP-6154, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, vol 1, pp 4.1–4.20

  2. Andrade JE, Menun C, Borja RI (2003) Combined stochastic-deterministic analysis of local site response: a sensitivity study. In: Doolin D, Kammerer A, Nogami T, Seed RB, Towhata I (eds) Proceedings of the 11th international conference on soil dynamics and earthquake engineering, and 3rd international conference on earthquake and geotechnical engineering, vol 2, Stallion Press, pp 76–81

  3. Arias A (1970) A measure of earthquake intensity. In: Hansen RJ (ed) Seismic design for nuclear power plants. MIT, Cambridge, pp 438–483

    Google Scholar 

  4. Baturay MB, Stewart JP (2003) Uncertainty and bias in ground-motion estimates from ground response analyses. Bull Seism Soc Am 93(5):2025–2042

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bazzurro P, Cornell CA (2004a) Ground motion amplification in nonlinear soil sites with uncertain properties. Bull Seism Soc Am 94(6):2090–2109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bazzurro P, Cornell CA (2004b) Nonlinear soil site effects in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. Bull Seism Soc Am 94(6):2110–2123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Berger E, Fierz H, Kluge D (1989) Predictive response computations for vibration tests and earthquake of May 20, 1986 using an axisymmetric finite element formulation based on the complex response method and comparison with measurements—a Swiss contribution. In: Proceedings of the EPRI/NRC/TPC workshop on seismic soil-structure interaction analysis techniques using data from Lotung, Taiwan, EPRI NP-6154, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, vol 2, pp 15.1–15.47

  8. Borja RI, Amies AP (1994) Multiaxial cyclic plasticity model for clays. J Geotech Eng 120(6):1051–1070

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Borja RI, Chao HY, Montáns FJ, Lin CH (1999a) Nonlinear ground response at Lotung LSST site. J Geotech Eng 125(3):187–197

    Google Scholar 

  10. Borja RI, Chao HY, Montáns FJ, Lin CH (1999b) SSI effects on ground motion at Lotung LSST site. J Geotech Eng 125(9):760–770

    Google Scholar 

  11. Borja RI, Lin CH, Sama KS, Masada GM (2000) Modeling non-linear ground response of non-liquefiable soils. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 29(1):63–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Borja RI, Duvernay BG, Lin CH (2002) Ground response in Lotung: total stress analyses and parametric studies. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 128(1):54–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Borja RI, Andrade JE, Armstrong RJ (2004) Combined deterministic-stochastic analysis of local site response. In: Proceedings of the 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver BC, in CD-ROM

  14. Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Guidelines for determining design basis ground motions, vol 1: method and guidelines for estimating earthquake ground motion in North America. Techical report No TR-102293, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto

  15. Elgamal AW, Zeghal M, Tang HT, Stepp JC (1995) Lotung downhole array I: Evaluation of site dynamic properties. J Geotech Eng 121(4):350–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Faccioli E (1976) A stochastic approach to soil amplification. Bull Seism Soc Am 66(4):1277–1291

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hardin BO, Drnevich VP (1972) Shear modulus and damping in soils: design equations and curves. J Soil Mech Found Div Am Soc Civ Eng 98(7):667–692

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hashash YMA, Park D (2002) Viscous damping formulation and high frequency motion in non-linear site response analysis. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 22(7):611–624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hilber HM, Hughes TJR, Taylor RL (1977) Improved numerical dissipation for time-integration algorithms in structural dynamics. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 5(3):283–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hwang HHM, Huo JR (1994) Generation of hazard consistent ground motion. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 13(6):377–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Idriss IM, Seed HB (1968) Seismic response of horizontal soil layers. J Soil Mech Found Div Am Soc Civ Eng 94(4):1003–1031

    Google Scholar 

  22. Idriss IM, Sun JI (1992) User’s manual for SHAKE91. Center for Geotechnical Modeling, University of California, Davis

  23. Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  24. Lee MKW, Finn WDL (1991) 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, Vancouver

  25. Li XS, Wang ZL, Shen CK (1992) SUMDES: a nonlinear procedure for response analysis of horizontally-layered sites subjected to multi-directional earthquake loading. Department of Civil Engeering, University of California, Davis

  26. Li C, Borja RI, Regueiro RA (2004) Dynamics of porous media at finite strain. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 193(36–38):3837–3870

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  27. Pyke RM (1992) TESS: a computer program for nonlinear ground response analyses TAGA Engineering Systems and Software, Lafayette

  28. Roblee CJ, Silva WJ, Toro GR, Abrahamson N (1996) Variability in site-specific seismic ground-motion design predictions. In: Shackelford CD, Nelson PP, Roth MJS (eds) Uncertainty in the geologic environment: from theory to practice, ASCE Geotech Special Publication 58, vol 2, pp 1113–1133

  29. Schnabel PB, Lysmer J, Seed HB (1972) SHAKE—a computer program for earthquake response analyses of horizontally layered sites. Report No EERC 72–12, University of California, Berkeley

  30. Seed HB, Idriss IM (1970) Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analysis. EERC Report No 70–10, University of California, Berkeley

  31. Tang HT (1987) Large-scale soil-structure interaction. EPRI NP-5513-SR special report, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto

  32. Tsai C-CP (2000) Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis considering nonlinear site effect. Bull Seism Soc Am 90(1):66–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Von Thun JL, Rochim LH, Scott GA, Wilson JA (1988) Earthquake ground motions for design and analysis of dams. In: Earthquake engineering and soil dynamics II—recent advances in ground motion evaluation, geotechnical special publication 20, ASCE, New York, pp 463–481

  34. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work has been supported in part by National Science Foundation, Grant No. CMS-0201317–001. The authors are grateful to Prof. Charles Menun of Stanford University for his assistance with the structural reliability code CARDINAL; to Prof. C. Allin Cornell of Stanford University for providing manuscript copies of his papers; to anonymous reviewers for their constructive reviews; and to Dr. H.T. Tang and Electric Power Research Institute for making the digitized data for the Lotung site available. The first author acknowledges a Shah Family Research Assistantship through the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 94305-4020, USA

    José E. Andrade & Ronaldo I. Borja

Authors
  1. José E. Andrade
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ronaldo I. Borja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to José E. Andrade.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Andrade, J.E., Borja, R.I. Quantifying sensitivity of local site response models to statistical variations in soil properties. Acta Geotech. 1, 3–14 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-005-0002-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-005-0002-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation