Nonlinear Site Response: Where We're At (A report from a SCEC/PEER seminar and workshop)

Although the fact that sediments can amplify earthquake ground motion was recognized at least 100 years ago (Milne, 1898), there has been a lingering uncertainty as to whether the degree of amplification varies with the level of input motion. This issue remains as one of the most important questions with respect to understanding and predicting earthquake ground motion. In accordance with the conservation of energy, seismicwave amplitudes generally increase in sediments due to lower densities and and/or lower seismic velocities. In addition, resonance effects can occur where abrupt impedance contrasts exist. If sediments were perfectly elastic, their response would be independent of incident-wave amplitudes. As with any real material, however, sediments begin to yield at some level of strain, and this violation of Hooke's law will give rise to a nonlinear response. The engineering community has long believed that sediment nonlinearity is significant. This perspective was based almost entirely on...

[1]  Paul A. Johnson,et al.  Resonance and elastic nonlinear phenomena in rock , 1996 .

[2]  J. Lysmer,et al.  Modification of seismograph records for effects of local soil conditions , 1972, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[3]  Harry Fielding Reid,et al.  The California Earthquake of April 18, 1906: Report of the State Earthquake Investigation Commission ... , 2010 .

[4]  T. Heaton Evidence for and implications of self-healing pulses of slip in earthquake rupture , 1990 .

[5]  Paul A. Johnson,et al.  Manifestation of nonlinear elasticity in rock: convincing evidence over large frequency and strain intervals from laboratory studies , 1996 .

[6]  Kuo-Liang Wen,et al.  Nonlinear Soil Response a Reality? , 2022 .

[7]  Gail M. Atkinson,et al.  Stochastic finite-fault modeling of ground motions from the 1994 Northridge, California, earthquake. II. Widespread Nonlinear response at soil sites , 1998, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[8]  Raj V. Siddharthan,et al.  On the characteristics of nonlinear soil response , 1993 .

[9]  H. Bolton Seed,et al.  Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes , 1982 .

[10]  P. Dimitriu Preliminary results of vibrator-aided experiments in non-linear seismology conducted at Uetze, F.R.G. , 1990 .

[11]  Keiiti Aki,et al.  Local Site Effects on Strong Ground Motion , 1988 .

[12]  E. Field,et al.  Nonlinear ground-motion amplification by sediments during the 1994 Northridge earthquake , 1997, Nature.

[13]  Chris H. Cramer,et al.  Weak-motion observations and modeling for the Turkey Flat, U.S., Site-Effects Test Area near Parkfield, California , 1995 .

[14]  Kuo-Liang Wen,et al.  Nonlinear soil amplification inferred from downhole strong seismic motion data , 1994 .

[15]  Keiiti Aki,et al.  Simultaneous study of the source, path, and site effects on strong ground motion during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake: A preliminary result on pervasive nonlinear site effects , 1991 .

[16]  Leif Wennerberg,et al.  Comment on “Simultaneous study of the source, path, and site effects on strong ground motion during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake: A preliminary result on pervasive nonlinear site effects” by Byau-Heng Chin and Keiiti Aki , 1996 .

[17]  Keiiti Aki,et al.  Local site effects on weak and strong ground motion , 1993 .

[18]  Mladen Vucetic,et al.  A direct simple shear device for measuring small-strain behavior , 1995 .