Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering

2015 Edition
| Editors: Michael Beer, Ioannis A. Kougioumtzoglou, Edoardo Patelli, Siu-Kui Au

Site Response for Seismic Hazard Assessment

  • Gaetano EliaEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35344-4_241


Lessons learned worldwide from historical (e.g., Niigata, Japan, and Alaska in 1964) and recent strong earthquakes (e.g., L’Aquila in 2009, Chile in 2010, Tohoku, Japan, and Christchurch in 2011, among others) have distinguished site amplification and soil liquefaction as two of the main causes of damage to man-made and natural structures during seismic events. As illustrated in Fig. 1, the ground shaking observed at surface during an earthquake depends on the seismic source characteristics and focal mechanism, the deep wave propagation from the fault to the bedrock, and the local soil conditions. The first two phenomena are commonly studied by seismologists, geologists, and geophysicists, while the third one falls in the geotechnical earthquake engineering field, being strongly related to the mechanical behavior of soils subjected to dynamic loading. The term “site effects” refers to the overall set of modifications of the bedrock motion, in terms of amplitude, frequency...
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Alyami M, Rouainia M, Wilkinson SM (2009) Numerical analysis of deformation behaviour of quay walls under earthquake loading. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29(3):525–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amorosi A, Boldini D, Elia G (2010) Parametric study on seismic ground response by finite element modelling. Comput Geotech 37(4):515–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arulanandan K, Scott RF (eds) (1993) Proceedings of VELACS symposium. A.A., Balkema, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  4. Ashford SA, Sitar N, Lysmer J, Deng N (1997) Topographic effects on the seismic response of steep slopes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 87(3):701–709Google Scholar
  5. Associazione Geotecnica Italiana (2005) Aspetti Geotecnici della Progettazione in Zona Sismica. Patron Editore, BolognaGoogle Scholar
  6. ASTM (2007) Standard test methods for modulus and damping of soils by resonant-column method. ASTM D4015-07. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  7. Aubry D, Modaressi A (1996) GEFDYN – Manuel Scientifique. Ecole Centrale Paris, Châtenay-MalabryGoogle Scholar
  8. Aydingun O, Adalier K (2003) Numerical analysis of seismically induced liquefaction in earth embankment foundations. Part I. Benchmark model. Can Geotech J 40(4):753–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bard PY (1994) Effects of surface geology on ground motion: recent results and remaining issues. In: Proceedings of the X European conference on earthquake engineering, vol 1, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  10. Bard PY, Bouchon M (1985) The two-dimensional resonance of sediment-filled valleys. Bull Seismol Soc Am 75(2):519–541Google Scholar
  11. Bardet JP, Tobita T (2001) NERA – a computer program for Nonlinear Earthquake site Response Analyses of layered soil deposits. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Southern California, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  12. Bardet JP, Ichii K, Lin CH (2000) EERA – a computer program for Equivalent-linear Earthquake site Response Analyses of layered soils deposits. University of Southern California, Department of Civil Engineering, Los Angeles. User manualGoogle Scholar
  13. Bazzurro P, Cornell CA (2004) Nonlinear soil-site effects in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 94:2110–2123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Biot MA (1941) General theory of three-dimensional consolidation. J Appl Phys 12:155–164zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bommer JJ, Acevedo AB (2004) The use of real earthquake accelerograms as input to dynamic analysis. J Earthq Eng 8(4):1–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Borja RI, Wu WH (1994) Vibration of foundations on incompressible soils with no elastic region. J Geotech Eng ASCE 120(9):1570–1592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Borja RI, Chao HY, Montáns FJ, Lin CH (1999) Nonlinear ground response at Lotung LSST site. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 125(3):187–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bouckovalas GD, Papadimitriou AG (2005) Numerical evaluation of slope topography effects on seismic ground motion. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 25:547–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Castro G, Christian JT (1976) Shear strength of soils and cyclic loading. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 102(GT9):887–894Google Scholar
  20. Cavallaro A, Lanzo G, Pagliaroli A, Maugeri M, Lo Presti DCF (2003) A comparative study on shear modulus and damping ratio of cohesive soil from laboratory tests. In: Di Benedetto H et al (eds) Deformation characteristics of geomaterials. Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse, pp 257–265Google Scholar
  21. Chan AHC (1995) User manual for DIANA-SWANDYNE II. School of Engineering, University of Birmingham, BirminghamGoogle Scholar
  22. Clayton CRI (2011) Stiffness at small strain: research and practice. Géotechnique 61(1):5–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dakoulas P, Gazetas G (2005) Seismic effective-stress analysis of caisson quay walls: application to Kobe. Soils Found 45(4):133–147Google Scholar
  24. Dewoolkar MM, Ko H-Y, Pak RYS (2001) Seismic behaviour of cantilever retaining walls with liquefiable backfills. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 127(5):424–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. EduPro Civil Systems Inc. (1998) ProShake – ground response analysis program. Redmond, Washington. User’s manualGoogle Scholar
  26. Elgamal A (1992) Three-dimensional seismic analysis of La Villita dam. J Geotech Eng ASCE 118(12):1932–1958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Elgamal A, Parra E, Yang Z, Adalier K (2002a) Numerical analysis of embankment foundation liquefaction countermeasures. J Earthq Eng 6(4):447–471Google Scholar
  28. Elgamal A, Yang Z, Parra E (2002b) Computational modelling of cyclic mobility and post-liquefaction site response. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 22:259–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Elgamal A, Yan L, Yang Z, Conte J (2008) Three-dimensional seismic response of humboldt bay bridge-foundation-ground system. J Struct Eng ASCE 134(7):1165–1176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Elia G, Rouainia M (2013) Seismic performance of earth embankment using simple and advanced numerical approaches. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 139(7):1115–1129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Elia G, Rouainia M (2014) Performance evaluation of a shallow foundation built on structured clays under seismic loading. Bull Earthq Eng 12(4):1537–1561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Elia G, Amorosi A, Chan AHC, Kavvadas M (2011) Fully coupled dynamic analysis of an earth dam. Géotechnique 61(7):549–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Field EH, Jacob KH (1993) The theoretical response of sedimentary layers to ambient seismic noise. Geophys Res Lett 20(24):2925–2928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Finn WDL, Yogendrakumar M, Yoshida N, Yoshida H (1986) TARA-3: a program for nonlinear static and dynamic effective stress analysis. Soil Dynamics Group, University of British Columbia, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  35. Frankel A, Stephenson W, Carver D, Odum J, Williams R, Rhea S (2011) Probabilistic seismic hazard maps for seattle: 3D sedimentary basin effects, nonlinear site response, and uncertainties from random velocity variation. In: Proceedings of the 4th IASPEI/IAEE international symposium: effects of surface geology on seismic motion, University of California, Santa BarbaraGoogle Scholar
  36. Geli L, Bard PY, Jullien B (1988) The effect of topography on earthquake ground motion: a review and new results. Bull Seismol Soc Am 78(1):42–63Google Scholar
  37. GeoMotions (2007) D-MOD2000 – a computer program package for seismic response analysis of horizontally layered soil deposits, earthfill dams, and solid waste landfills. GeoMotions LLC, Washington. User’s manualGoogle Scholar
  38. GeoSlope Int. Ltd. (2002) QUAKE/W for finite element dynamic earthquake analysis. User’s Guide, CalgaryGoogle Scholar
  39. Hall L, Bodare A (2000) Analyses of the cross-hole method for determining shear wave velocities and damping ratios. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 20:167–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hardin B, Drnevich VP (1972) Shear modulus and damping in soils: measurements and parameter effects. J Soil Mech Div ASCE 98:603–624Google Scholar
  41. Hashash YMA (2009) DEEPSOIL V 3.7, Tutorial and user manual. 2002–2009. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, UrbanaGoogle Scholar
  42. Hatzigeorgiou GD, Beskos DE (2010) Soil-structure interaction effects on seismic inelastic analysis of 3-D tunnels. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30:851–861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hudson M, Idriss IM, Beikae M (1994) QUAD4M: a computer program to evaluate the seismic response of soil structures using finite element procedures and incorporating a compliant base. Center for Geotechnical Modeling, University of California, DavisGoogle Scholar
  44. Idriss IM (1990) Influence of local site conditions on earthquake ground motions. In: Proceedings of IV U.S. national conference on earthquake engineering, vol 1, Palm SpringsGoogle Scholar
  45. Idriss IM, Sun JI (1992) SHAKE91: a computer program for conducting equivalent linear seismic response analyses of horizontally layered soils deposits. Center for Geotechnical Modeling, University of California, DavisGoogle Scholar
  46. Idriss IM, Lysmer J, Hwang R, Seed HB (1973) QUAD-4: a computer program for evaluating the seismic response of soil structures by variable damping finite element procedures. Report No EERC 73-16, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  47. Ishibashi I (1992) Discussion to “effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response”, by M. Vucetic and R. Dobry. J Geotech Eng ASCE 118(5):830–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Itasca Consulting Group Inc. (2002) FLAC – Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua. Minneapolis. User’s manualGoogle Scholar
  49. Kalkan E, Kunnath SK (2006) Effects of fling step and forward directivity on seismic response of buildings. Earthq Spectra 22(2):367–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. King JL, Tucker BE (1984) Observed variations of earthquake motion across a sediment-filled valley. Bull Seismol Soc Am 74(1):137–151Google Scholar
  51. Kontoe S, Zdravkovic L, Potts DM, Menkiti CO (2011) On the relative merits of simple and advanced constitutive models in dynamic analysis of tunnels. Géotechnique 61:815–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  53. Kramer SL, Stewart JP (2004) Geotechnical aspects of seismic hazards. In: Bozorgnia Y, Bertero VV (eds) Earthquake engineering – from engineering seismology to performance-based engineering. CRC Press LLC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  54. Kwok AOL, Stewart JP, Hashash YMA, Matasovic N, Pyke R, Wang Z, Yang Z (2007) Use of exact solutions of wave propagation problems to guide implementation of nonlinear seismic ground response analysis procedures. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 133(11):1385–1398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lanzo G, Silvestri F (1999) Risposta Sismica Locale (Teoria ed esperienze). Hevelius Edizioni srl, BeneventoGoogle Scholar
  56. Lanzo G, Silvestri F, Costanzo A, d’Onofrio A, Martelli L, Pagliaroli A, Sica S, Simonelli A (2011) Site response studies and seismic microzoning in the Middle Aterno valley (L’Aquila, Central Italy). Bull Earthq Eng 9(5):1417–1442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lee MKW, Finn WDL (1978) DESRA-2, dynamic effective stress response analysis of soil deposits with energy transmitting boundary including assessment of liquefaction potential, Soil mechanics series no 38. Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  58. 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 Engineering, University of California, DavisGoogle Scholar
  59. Liu H, Song E (2005) Seismic response of large underground structures in liquefiable soils subjected to horizontal and vertical earthquake excitations. Comput Geotech 32(4):223–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lo Presti DCF, Jamiolkowski M, Pallara O, Cavallaro A, Pedroni S (1997) Shear modulus and damping of soils. Géotechnique 47(3):603–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lo Presti DFC, Pallara O, Mensi E (2007) Characterization of soil deposits for seismic response analysis. In: Ling HI et al (eds) Soil stress–strain behavior: measurement, modeling and analysis. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 109–157Google Scholar
  62. Lysmer J, Kuhlemeyer RL (1969) Finite dynamic model for infinite media. J Eng Mech Div ASCE 95(EM4):859–877Google Scholar
  63. Lysmer J, Udaka T, Tsai C-F, Seed HB (1975) FLUSH: a computer program for approximate 3-D analysis of soil-structure interaction problems. Report EERC 75-30, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  64. Madabhushi SPG, Zeng X (2007) Simulating seismic response of cantilever retaining walls. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 133(5):539–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Masing G (1926) Eignespannungen und verfestigung beim messing. In: Second international congress on applied mechanics, Zurich, pp 332–335Google Scholar
  66. Matasovic N (1995) D-MOD_2 A computer program for seismic response analyses of horizontally layered soil deposits, earthfill dams and solid waste landfills. GeoSyntec Consultants, Huntington BeachGoogle Scholar
  67. McKenna F, Fenves GL (2001) The OpenSees command language manual, version 1.2. Pacific Earthquake Engineering. Research Center, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  68. Meng J, Rix GJ (2003) Reduction of equipment-generated damping in resonant column measurements. Géotechnique 53(5):503–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. NIST (2011) Selecting and scaling earthquake ground motions for performing response-history analyses. NIST GCR 11-917-15, National Institute of Standards and Technology, GaithersburgGoogle Scholar
  70. Ou JH (2009) Three-dimensional numerical modelling of interaction between soil and pore fluid. PhD thesis, School of Engineering, University of BirminghamGoogle Scholar
  71. Pagliaroli A, Lanzo G, D’Elia B (2011) Numerical evaluation of topographic effects at the Nicastro ridge in Southern Italy. J Earthq Eng 15(3):404–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Papaspiliou M, Kontoe S, Bommer JJ (2012) An exploration of incorporating site response into PSHA-part II: sensitivity of hazard estimates to site response approaches. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 42:316–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Phillips C, Hashash YMA (2009) Damping formulation for nonlinear 1D site response analyses. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29:1143–1158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Prevost JH (2002) DYNAFLOW – a nonlinear transient finite element analysis program. Version 2002. Release 01.A, Department of Civil Engineering & Operation Research, Princeton University, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  75. Pyke RM (1992) TESS: a computer program for nonlinear ground response analyses. TAGA Engineering Systems and Software, LafayetteGoogle Scholar
  76. Richart FE, Hall JR, Woods RD (1970) Vibrations of soils and foundations. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  77. Roesset JM (1977) Soil amplification of earthquakes. In: Desai CS, Christian JT (eds) Numerical methods in geotechnical engineering. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 639–682Google Scholar
  78. Sangrey DA, Henkel DJ, Esrig MI (1969) The effective stress response of a saturated clay soil to repeated loading. Can Geotech J 6(3):241–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Schnabel PB, Lysmer J, Seed HB (1972) SHAKE: a computer program for earthquake response analysis of horizontally layered sites. Report no EERC72-12, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  80. Seed HB, Idriss IM (1970) Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analyses. Report EERC 70-10, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  81. Seed HB, Ugas C, Lysmer J (1976) Site dependent spectra for earthquake resistant design. Bull Seismol Soc Am 66(1):221–243Google Scholar
  82. Seidalinov G, Taiebat M (2014) Bounding surface SANICLAY plasticity model for cyclic clay behavior. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 38(7):702–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Semblat JF, Pecker A (2009) Waves and vibrations in soils: earthquakes, traffic, shocks, construction works. IUSS Press, PaviaGoogle Scholar
  84. Semblat JF, Kham M, Parara E, Bard PY, Pitilakis K, Makra K, Raptakis D (2005) Seismic wave amplification: basin geometry vs soil layering. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 25:529–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. SESAME (2004) Guidelines for the implementation of the H/V spectral ratio technique on ambient vibrations measurements, processing and interpretation. SESAME European Research Project. WP12 – Deliverable D23.12Google Scholar
  86. Shahrour I, Khoshnoudian F, Sadek M, Mroueh H (2010) Elastoplastic analysis of the seismic response of tunnels in soft soils. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 25:478–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Sica S, Pagano L, Modaressi A (2008) Influence of past loading history on the seismic response of earth dams. Comput Geotech 35(1):61–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Stamos AA, Beskos DE (1995) Dynamic analysis of large 3-D underground structures by the BEM. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 24(6):917–934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Tsai C-CP (2000) Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis considering nonlinear site effect. Bull Seismol Soc Am 90:66–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Vinale F, Mancuso C, Silvestri F (1996) Dinamica dei terreni. Manuale di Ingegneria Civile Cremonese. Zanichelli/ESAC, RomaGoogle Scholar
  91. Vucetic M (1986) Pore pressure buildup and liquefaction at level sand sites during earthquakes. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, TroyGoogle Scholar
  92. Vucetic M, Dobry R (1991) Effects of the soil plasticity on cyclic response. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 117(1):89–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Woods RD (1994) Geophysical characterization of sites. Balkema, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  94. Woodward PK, Griffiths DV (1996) Influence of viscous damping in the dynamic analysis of an earth dam using simple constitutive models. Comput Geotech 19(3):245–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Zienkiewicz OC, Chan AHC, Pastor M, Schrefler BA, Shiomi T (1999) Computational geomechanics (with special reference to earthquake engineering). Wiley, ChichesterzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Civil Engineering and GeosciencesNewcastle UniversityNewcastle Upon TyneUK