Relative Differences between Nonlinear and Equivalent-Linear 1-D Site Response Analyses

This study investigates the conditions for which one-dimensional (1-D) nonlinear (NL) site response analysis results are distinct from equivalent-linear (EL) results and provides guidance for predicting when differences are large enough to be of practical significance. Relative differences in spectral accelerations and Fourier amplitudes computed from NL and EL analyses are assessed for a range of site conditions and for suites of input motions appropriate for active crustal and stable continental regions. Among several considered parameters, EL/NL differences are most clearly dependent on shear strain index (I γ ), defined as the ratio of input motion peak velocity to time-averaged shear-wave velocity in the top 30 m of the soil profile. For small I γ (generally under 0.03%), EL and NL results are practically identical, whereas at larger strains, differences can be significant for frequencies >0.3 Hz. Frequency-dependent I γ values are recommended for conditions above which NL analyses are preferred to EL.

[1]  Jonathan P. Stewart,et al.  Simplified Model for Small-Strain Nonlinearity and Strength in 1D Seismic Site Response Analysis , 2016 .

[2]  Ellen M. Rathje,et al.  Evaluation of one-dimensional site response techniques using borehole arrays , 2015 .

[3]  James Kaklamanos,et al.  Comparison of 1D linear, equivalent-linear, and nonlinear site response models at six KiK-net validation sites , 2015 .

[4]  W. Silva,et al.  NGA-West2 Database , 2014 .

[5]  Jonathan P. Stewart,et al.  Reference Rock Site Condition for Central and Eastern North America , 2014 .

[6]  Brendon A. Bradley,et al.  Critical Parameters Affecting Bias and Variability in Site‐Response Analyses Using KiK‐net Downhole Array Data , 2013 .

[7]  Y. Hashash,et al.  Site Response Analysis Using Downhole Array Recordings during the March 2011 Tohoku-Oki Earthquake and the Effect of Long-Duration Ground Motions , 2013 .

[8]  Wei Li,et al.  Site- and ground motion-dependent nonlinear effects in seismological model predictions , 2012 .

[9]  Y. Hashash,et al.  Site amplification factors for deep deposits and their application in seismic hazard analysis for Central US , 2011 .

[10]  Youssef M A Hashash,et al.  Damping formulation for nonlinear 1D site response analyses , 2009 .

[11]  G. Atkinson,et al.  Ground-Motion Prediction Equations for the Average Horizontal Component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-Damped PSA at Spectral Periods between 0.01 s and 10.0 s , 2008 .

[12]  Jonathan P. Stewart,et al.  Use of Exact Solutions of Wave Propagation Problems to Guide Implementation of Nonlinear Seismic Ground Response Analysis Procedures , 2007 .

[13]  Jonathan P. Stewart,et al.  Uncertainty and Bias in Ground-Motion Estimates from Ground Response Analyses , 2003 .

[14]  W. Silva,et al.  Development of site-specific design ground motions in Western and Eastern North America , 2002 .

[15]  Mehmet Baris Darendeli,et al.  Development of a new family of normalized modulus reduction and material damping curves , 2001 .

[16]  T. Sueoka,et al.  CYCLIC CHARACTERIZATION OF LIQUEFIABLE SANDS , 2001 .

[17]  N. Abrahamson,et al.  Simplified Frequency Content Estimates of Earthquake Ground Motions , 1998 .

[18]  I. M. Idriss,et al.  Influence of Soil Conditions on Ground Motions During Earthquakes , 1969 .

[19]  Ellen M. RATHJE.  RELATIVE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EQUIVALENT LINEAR AND NONLINEAR SITE RESPONSE METHODS , .