One-Dimensional Site Response Analysis

What do we mean?
One-dimensional = Waves propagate in one direction only

One-Dimensional Site Response Analysis

What do we mean?
One-dimensional = waves propagate in one direction only
Motion is identical on planes perpendicular to that motion

to infinity

to infinity

One-Dimensional Site Response Analysis

What do we mean?
One-dimensional = waves propagate in one direction only
Motion is identical on planes perpendicular to that motion
Cant handle refraction so layer boundaries must be perpendicular to
direction of wave propagation
Usual assumption is vertically-propagating shear (SH) waves
Horizontal surface motion

Horizontal input motion

One-Dimensional Site Response Analysis

When are one-dimensional analyses appropriate?

Stiffer
with
depth

Focus

One-Dimensional Site Response Analysis

When are one-dimensional analyses appropriate?
Horizontal boundaries
waves tend to be refracted
toward vertical

Stiffer
with
depth

Focus

Decreasing stiffness
causes refraction of waves
to increasingly vertical
path

One-Dimensional Site Response Analysis

When are one-dimensional analyses appropriate?
Not
appropriate
here

Stiffer
with
depth

One-Dimensional Site Response Analysis

When are one-dimensional analyses appropriate?

Not here!

Retaining
Retainingstructures
structures

Dams
Damsand
and
embankments
embankments

Tunnels
Tunnels

Inclined
Inclinedground
groundsurface
surfaceand/or
and/ornonnonhorizontal
horizontalboundaries
boundariescan
canrequire
requireuse
use
ofoftwo-dimensional
two-dimensionalanalyses
analyses

One-Dimensional Site Response Analysis

When are one-dimensional analyses appropriate?

Not here!

Complex
Complexsoil
soil
conditions
conditions

Dams
Damsinin
narrow
narrow
canyons
canyons

Multiple
Multiple
structures
structures

Localized
Localizedstructures
structuresmay
mayrequire
require
use
useof
of3-D
3-Dresponse
responseanalyses
analyses

One-Dimensional Site Response Analysis

How should ground motions be applied?
Rock
outcropping
motion

Free surface
motion

us

2ui

Soil

Bedrock motion

ui + u r

Not the same!

Rock
Incoming motion

ui

One-Dimensional Site Response Analysis

How should ground motions be applied?
Free surface
motion

us
Input (object) motion
Object motion

If recorded at rock outcrop, apply as

outcrop motion (program will remove
free surface effect). Bedrock should
be modeled as an elastic half-space.
If recorded in boring, apply as withinprofile motion (recording does not
include free surface effect). Bedrock
should be modeled as rigid.

Methods of One-Dimensional Site Response Analysis

Complex Response Method
Approach used in computer programs like SHAKE
Transfer function is used with input motion to compute surface motion
(convolution)
For layered profiles, transfer function is built layer-by-layer to go from input
motion to surface motion
Single
elastic
layer

Amplification

De-amplification

Complex Response Method (Linear analysis)

Consider the soil deposit shown to the
right. Within a given layer, say Layer
j, the horizontal displacements will be
given by

*
eik j z j

*
eik j z j

Layer j

z1

h1

z2

h2

h j+ 1

j+ 1

j+ 1

N +1

z
z

eit

Layer j+1

Amplitudes of upward- and

downward-traveling waves in Layer j

N +1

u j z j ,t A j

Bj

j+ 1

N +1

j+ 1

N
N +1

At the boundary between layer j and layer j+1, compatibility of displacements

requires that
*

A j 1 B j 1 A j ei k j h j B j e i k j h j

No slip

Continuity of shear stresses requires that

A j 1 B j 1

G*j k *j
G*j 1 k *j 1

A ei k *s h j
ik *s h j
B
e
j
j

Equilibrium satisfied

Complex Response Method (Linear analysis)

Defining *j as the complex impedance ratio at the boundary between layers
j and j+1, the wave amplitudes for layer j+1 can be obtained from the
amplitudes of layer j by solving the previous two equations simultaneously

A j 1

1
1
*
*
A j 1 *j ei k j h j B j 1 *j e i k j h j
2
2

B j 1

1
1
*
*
A j 1 *j ei k j h j B j 1 *j e i k j h j
2
2

Propagation of wave
energy from one layer to
another is controlled by
(complex) impedance ratio

Wave amplitudes in Layer j

Wave amplitudes in Layer j+1
So, if we can go from Layer j to Layer j+1, we can go from j+1 to j+2, etc.
This means we can apply this relationship recursively and express the amplitudes in
any layer as functions of the amplitudes in any other layer. We can therefore build
a transfer function by repeated application of the above equations.

Complex Response Method (Linear analysis)

Single
Singlelayer
layeron
onrigid
rigidbase
base
HH==100
100ftft
VVs ==500
500ft/sec
ft/sec
s
==10%
10%

Complex Response Method (Linear analysis)

Single
Singlelayer
layeron
onrigid
rigidbase
base
HH==50
50ftft
VVs ==1,500
1,500ft/sec
ft/sec
s
==10%
10%

Complex Response Method (Linear analysis)

Single
Singlelayer
layeron
onrigid
rigidbase
base
HH==100
100ftft
VVs ==300
300ft/sec
ft/sec
s
==5%
5%

Complex Response Method (Linear analysis)

Complex Response Method (Linear analysis)

Complex Response Method (Linear analysis)

Different sequence of soil layers

Different transfer function
Different response

Complex Response Method (Linear analysis)

Another sequence of soil layers

Different transfer function
Different response

Complex Response Method (Linear analysis)

Complex response method operates in frequency domain
Input motion represented as sum of series of sine waves
Solution for each sine wave obtained
Solutions added together to get total response

Principle of
superposition

Linear
system

Can we capture important effects of nonlinearity with linear model?

Equivalent Linear Approach

Soils exhibit nonlinear, inelastic behavior under cyclic loading conditions
Stiffness decreases and damping increases as cyclic strain amplitude increases
The nonlinear, inelastic stress-strain behavior of cyclically loaded soils can be
approximated by equivalent linear properties.

G / Gmax

log( eff )

Equivalent
Equivalentshear
shearmodulus
modulus

log( eff )

Equivalent
Equivalentdamping
dampingratio
ratio

Equivalent Linear Approach

Soils exhibit nonlinear, inelastic behavior under cyclic loading conditions
Stiffness decreases and damping increases as cyclic strain amplitude increases
The nonlinear, inelastic stress-strain behavior of cyclically loaded soils can be
approximated by equivalent linear properties.

G / Gmax

(1)

log( eff )

(1)

log( eff )

Assume
Assumesome
someinitial
initialstrain
strainand
anduse
useto
toestimate
estimateGGand
and

Equivalent Linear Approach

Soils exhibit nonlinear, inelastic behavior under cyclic loading conditions
Stiffness decreases and damping increases as cyclic strain amplitude increases
The nonlinear, inelastic stress-strain behavior of cyclically loaded soils can be
approximated by equivalent linear properties.

G / Gmax

(t)

(1)

log( eff )

(1)

Use
Usethese
thesevalues
valuestotocompute
computeresponse
response

log( eff )

Equivalent Linear Approach

Soils exhibit nonlinear, inelastic behavior under cyclic loading conditions
Stiffness decreases and damping increases as cyclic strain amplitude increases
The nonlinear, inelastic stress-strain behavior of cyclically loaded soils can be
approximated by equivalent linear properties.

G / Gmax

max
eff

(t)

(1)

log( eff )

(1)

Determine
Determinepeak
peakstrain
strainand
andeffective
effectivestrain
strain
eff ==RR max
eff
max

log( eff )

Equivalent Linear Approach

Soils exhibit nonlinear, inelastic behavior under cyclic loading conditions
Stiffness decreases and damping increases as cyclic strain amplitude increases
The nonlinear, inelastic stress-strain behavior of cyclically loaded soils can be
approximated by equivalent linear properties.

G / Gmax

(1)

(2)

log( eff )

(1)

(2)

Select
Selectproperties
propertiesbased
basedon
onupdated
updatedstrain
strainlevel
level

log( eff )

Equivalent Linear Approach

Soils exhibit nonlinear, inelastic behavior under cyclic loading conditions
Stiffness decreases and damping increases as cyclic strain amplitude increases
The nonlinear, inelastic stress-strain behavior of cyclically loaded soils can be
approximated by equivalent linear properties.

G / Gmax

(1)

(3) (2)

log( eff )

(1)

(3) (2)

Compute
Computeresponse
responsewith
withnew
newproperties
propertiesand
anddetermine
determine
resulting
resultingeffective
effectiveshear
shearstrain
strain

log( eff )

Equivalent Linear Approach

Soils exhibit nonlinear, inelastic behavior under cyclic loading conditions
Stiffness decreases and damping increases as cyclic strain amplitude increases
The nonlinear, inelastic stress-strain behavior of cyclically loaded soils can be
approximated by equivalent linear properties.

G / Gmax

eff

log( eff )

eff

Repeat
Repeatuntil
untilcomputed
computedeffective
effectivestrains
strainsare
are
consistent
consistentwith
withassumed
assumedeffective
effectivestrains
strains

log( eff )

Equivalent Linear Approach

Advantages:
Can work in frequency domain
Compute transfer function at relatively small number of frequencies
(compared to doing calculations at all time steps)
Increased speed not that significant for 1-D analyses
Increased speed can be significant for 2-D, 3-D analyses
Equivalent linear properties readily available for many soils familiarity
breeds comfort/confidence
Can make first-order approximation to effects of nonlinearity and inelasticity
within framework of a linear model
The
Theequivalent
equivalentlinear
linearapproach
approachisisan
anapproximation.
approximation. Nonlinear
Nonlinearanalyses
analysesare
are
capable
capableofofrepresenting
representingthe
theactual
actualbehavior
behaviorofofsoils
soilsmuch
muchmore
moreaccurately.
accurately.
often, a very good one!

Nonlinear Analysis
Equation of motion must be integrated in time domain

2u
3u

2
z
t
z 2t

Wave equation for

visco-elastic medium

Divide time into series of time steps

Divide profile
into series of
layers

Nonlinear Analysis
Equation of motion must be integrated in time domain

2u
3u

2
z
t
z 2t

Wave equation for

visco-elastic medium

tj into series of time steps

Divide time

Divide profile
into series of
layers

zi
vij = v (z = zi, t = tj)

Nonlinear Analysis
Equation of motion must be integrated in time domain

2u
3u

2
z
t
z 2t

Wave equation for

visco-elastic medium

tj

More steps, but basic process

involves using wave zequation
to
i
predict conditions at time j+1 from
conditions at time j for all layers in
profile.

1
v%

ai, j t
i , j 1/ 2
i, j
2
1
ui, j 1 ui, j v%
i, j 1/ 2 t
2
1
vi , j 1 v%

ai, j 1t
i , j 1/ 2
2

Nonlinear Analysis
Equation of motion must be integrated in time domain

2u
3u

2
z
t
z 2t
tj

More steps, but basic process

involves using wave zequation
to
i
predict conditions at time j+1 from
conditions at time j for all layers in
profile.
Can change material properties
for use in next time step.
Changing stiffness based on
strain level, strain history, etc. can
allow prediction of nonlinear,
z
inelastic response.

Wave equation for

visco-elastic medium

Nonlinear Analysis
Equation of motion must be integrated in time domain

2u
3u

2
z
t
z 2t
tj

More steps, but basic process

involves using wave zequation
to
i
predict conditions at time j+1 from
conditions at time j for all layers in
profile.
Can change material properties
for use in next time step.
Changing stiffness based on
strain level, strain history, etc. can
allow prediction of nonlinear,
z
inelastic response.

Wave equation for

visco-elastic medium

Nonlinear Analysis
Equation of motion must be integrated in time domain

2u
3u

2
z
t
z 2t
tj

More steps, but basic process

involves using wave zequation
to
i
predict conditions at time j+1 from
conditions at time j for all layers in
profile.
Can change material properties
for use in next time step.
Changing stiffness based on
strain level, strain history, etc. can
allow prediction of nonlinear,
z
inelastic response.

Wave equation for

visco-elastic medium

Nonlinear Analysis
Equation of motion must be integrated in time domain

2u
3u

2
z
t
z 2t
tj

More steps, but basic process

involves using wave zequation
to
i
predict conditions at time j+1 from
conditions at time j for all layers in
profile.
Can change material properties
for use in next time step.
Changing stiffness based on
strain level, strain history, etc. can
allow prediction of nonlinear,
z
inelastic response.

Wave equation for

visco-elastic medium

Nonlinear Analysis
Equation of motion must be integrated in time domain

2u
3u

2
z
t
z 2t

Wave equation for

visco-elastic medium

tj

More steps, but basic process

involves using wave zequation
to
i
predict conditions at time j+1 from
conditions at time j for all layers in
profile.

Step through time

Can change material properties

for use in next time step.
Changing stiffness based on
strain level, strain history, etc. can
allow prediction of nonlinear,
z
inelastic response.

Procedure steps through time from

beginning of earthquake to end.

Nonlinear Behavior
Actual

Approximation

Continuous

Linear
segments

In
Inaanonlinear
nonlinearanalysis,
analysis,we
weapproximate
approximatethe
thecontinuous
continuousactual
actual
stress-strain
stress-strainbehavior
behaviorwith
withan
anincrementally-linear
incrementally-linearmodel.
model. The
The
finer
finerour
ourcomputational
computationalinterval,
interval,the
thebetter
betterthe
theapproximation.
approximation.

Nonlinear Approach
Advantages:
Work in time domain
Can change properties after each time step to model nonlinearity
Can formulate model in terms of effective stresses
Can compute pore pressure generation

Liquefaction

Can compute pore pressure redistribution, dissipation

Avoids spurious resonances (associated with linearity of EL approach)
Can compute permanent strain

permanent deformations

Nonlinear
Nonlinearanalyses
analysescan
canproduce
produceresults
resultsthat
thatare
areconsistent
consistentwith
withequivalent
equivalent
linear
linearanalyses
analyseswhen
whenstrains
strainsare
aresmall
smalltotomoderate,
moderate,and
andmore
moreaccurate
accurate
results
resultswhen
whenstrains
strainsare
arelarge.
large.
They
Theycan
canalso
alsodo
doimportant
importantthings
thingsthat
thatequivalent
equivalentlinear
linearanalyses
analysescant,
cant,such
such
as
ascompute
computepore
porepressures
pressuresand
andpermanent
permanentdeformations.
deformations.

Equivalent Linear vs. Nonlinear Approaches

What are people using in practice?
Equivalent linear analyses
One-dimensional SHAKE
QUAD4, FLUSH
2-D / 3-D
Nonlinear analyses
One-dimensional DESRA, DMOD
2-D / 3-D
TARA, FLAC, PLAXIS

Equivalent Linear vs. Nonlinear Approaches

What are people using in practice?
Equivalent linear analyses
One-dimensional SHAKE
QUAD4, FLUSH
2-D / 3-D
Nonlinear analyses
One-dimensional DESRA
2-D / 3-D
TARA

Available Codes
Since early 1970s, numerous computer programs developed for site
response analysis
Can be categorized according to computational procedure, number of
dimensions, and operating system

Dimensions
1-D

OS
DOS
Windows

2-D / 3-D

DOS
Windows

Equivalent Linear

Nonlinear

Dyneq, Shake91

AMPLE, DESRA, DMOD,

FLIP, SUMDES, TESS

ShakeEdit, ProShake,
Shake2000, EERA

CyberQuake, DeepSoil,
NERA, FLAC, DMOD2000

FLUSH,
QUAD4/QUAD4M,
TLUSH

DYNAFLOW, TARA-3, FLIP,

VERSAT, DYSAC2, LIQCA,
OpenSees

QUAKE/W, SASSI2000

FLAC, PLAXIS

Current Practice
Informal survey developed to obtain input on site response modeling
approaches actually used in practice
Emailed to 204 people
Attendees at ICSDEE/ICEGE Berkeley conference (non-academic)
Geotechnical EERI members 2003 Roster (non-academic)
55 responses
Western North America (WNA)

Private firms

Eastern North America (ENA)

Public agencies

Overseas
WNA

ENA

Overseas

Survey
Respondents

Private

Public

Private

Public

Private

Public

Number of responses

35

Current Practice
Method of Analysis
Of the total number of site response analyses you perform, indicate the
approximate percentages that fall within each of the following categories:
[ ] a. One-dimensional equivalent linear
[ ] b. One-dimensional nonlinear
[ ] c. Two- or three-dimensional equivalent linear
[ ] d. Two- or three-dimensional nonlinear

Method of
Analysis

WNA

ENA

Overseas

Private
(35)

Public
(3)

Private
(6)

Public
(1)

Private
(5)

Public
(5)

1-D Equivalent Linear

68

52

86

50

24

1-D Nonlinear

11

17

12

48

2-D/3-D Equiv. Linear

28

25

2-D/3-D Nonlinear

12

25

23

90

One-dimensional
One-dimensionalequivalent
equivalentlinear
linearanalyses
analysesdominate
dominateNorth
NorthAmerican
American
practice;
practice;nonlinear
nonlinearanalyses
analysesare
aremore
morefrequently
frequentlyperformed
performedoverseas
overseas

Nonlinear Behavior
Equivalent linear vs nonlinear analysis how much difference does it make?
u(0,t)
1m
30 m

15 m

Vs = 300 m/sec

Ts = 0.4 sec

29 m
u(H,t)

Vs = 762 m/sec
Topanga
record
(Northridge)

Topanga record
(Northridge)

Nonlinear Behavior
Equivalent linear vs nonlinear
analysis how much difference
does it make?
Topanga motion scaled to 0.05 g
Weak motion
+
stiff soil
Low strains

Low degree of nonlinearity

Similar response

Nonlinear Behavior
Equivalent linear vs nonlinear
analysis how much difference
does it make?
Topanga motion scaled to 0.05 g
Weak motion
+
stiff soil
Low strains

Low degree of nonlinearity

Similar response

Nonlinear Behavior
Equivalent linear vs nonlinear
analysis how much difference
does it make?
Topanga motion scaled to 0.05 g
Weak motion
+
stiff soil
Low strains

Low degree of nonlinearity

Similar response

Nonlinear Behavior
Equivalent linear vs nonlinear
analysis how much difference
does it make?
Topanga motion scaled to 0.05 g
Weak motion
+
stiff soil
Low strains

Low degree of nonlinearity

Similar response

Nonlinear Behavior
Equivalent linear vs nonlinear
analysis how much difference
does it make?
Topanga motion scaled to 0.20 g
Moderate motion
+
stiff soil
Relatively low strains

Relatively low degree of nonlinearity

Similar response

Nonlinear Behavior
Equivalent linear vs nonlinear
analysis how much difference
Acceleration
does it make?
Topanga motion scaled to 0.20 g
Moderate motion
+
stiff soil
Velocity
Relatively low strains

Relatively low degree of nonlinearity

Similar response

Nonlinear Behavior
Equivalent linear
Equivalent linear
vs nonlinear
overpredicts
nonlinear
at certain
analysis howresponse
much difference
does it make? frequencies spurious
resonances

Topanga motion scaled to 0.20 g

Moderate motion
+
stiff soil
Relatively low strains

Relatively low degree of nonlinearity

Similar response

Stress-strain response
becoming more complicated
more variable stiffness and less
elliptical shape

Nonlinear Behavior
Equivalent linear vs nonlinear
analysis how much difference
does it make?
Topanga motion scaled to 0.20 g
Moderate motion
+
stiff soil
Relatively low strains

Relatively low degree of nonlinearity

Similar response

Stiffness starting to vary

more significantly over
course of ground motion

Nonlinear Behavior
Equivalent linear vs nonlinear
analysis
how much difference
Acceleration
does it make?
Topanga motion scaled to 0.50 g
Strong motion
+
stiff soil
Moderate strains

Low moderate degree of nonlinearity

Noticeably different response

Nonlinear Behavior
Equivalent linear vs nonlinear
analysis how much difference
does it make?
Topanga motion scaled to 0.50 g
Strong motion
+
stiff soil
Moderate strains

Low moderate degree of nonlinearity

Noticeably different response

Nonlinear Behavior
Equivalent linear vs nonlinear
analysis how much difference
Acceleration
does it make?
Topanga motion scaled to 1.0 g
SubstantialVery
softening
strongby
motion
EL method causes
+
stiffinitial
soil
underprediction of
portion of record

Softening by EL method
causes underprediction

Linearity inherent in EL method

Moderate strains causes overprediction response in
strongest portion of record

Moderate degree of nonlinearity

Noticeably different response

Nonlinear Behavior
Equivalent linear vs nonlinear
analysis how much difference
does it make?
Topanga motion scaled to 0.50 g
Very strong motion
+
stiff soil
Moderate strains

Moderate degree of nonlinearity

Noticeably different response

Nonlinear Behavior
Equivalent linear vs nonlinear analysis how much difference does it make?
u(0,t)
1m
16 m

Vs = 100 m/sec
15 m
Vs = 300 m/sec

14 m

29 m
u(H,t)

Vs = 762 m/sec

Nonlinear Behavior
Equivalent linear vs nonlinear
analysis
how much difference
Acceleration
does it make?
Large strain levels (~6%) near
bottom of upper layer
EL model predicts very soft behavior at beginning of earthquake,
before any large strains have developed.
EL model converges to low G
and high

High-frequency components
cannot be transmitted through
over-softened EL model
NL model: Stiffness stays relatively high
except for a few large-amplitude cycles

Nonlinear Behavior
Equivalent linear vs nonlinear
analysis
how much difference
Acceleration
does it make?
Large strain levels (~6%) near
bottom of upper layer
More consistency, but NL model can transmit high-frequency
oscillations
superimposed
on low-frequency cycles too much?
EL model
converges
to low G
and high

High-frequency components
cannot be transmitted through
over-softened EL model
NL model: Stiffness stays relatively high
except for a few large-amplitude cycles

Nonlinear Behavior
Equivalent linear vs nonlinear
analysis
how much difference
Acceleration
does it make?
Large strain levels (~6%) near
bottom of upper layer
NL model exhibits stiff behavior following strongest part of record;
EL converges
maintains low
stiffness,
high damping behavior throughout.
EL model
to low
G
and high

High-frequency components
cannot be transmitted through
over-softened EL model
NL model: Stiffness stays relatively high
except for a few large-amplitude cycles

Nonlinear Behavior
Equivalent linear vs nonlinear
analysis how much difference
does it make?
Large strain levels (~6%) near
bottom of upper layer

EL model converges to low G

and high

High-frequency components
cannot be transmitted through
over-softened EL model
NL model: Stiffness stays relatively high
except for a few large-amplitude cycles

Small cycle
superimposed on large
cycle (after Assimaki and
Kausel, 2002)

Time

Nonlinear Soil Behavior

High stiffness

Equivalent linear model

maintains constant
stiffness and damping
higher stiffness
excursions associated
with higher frequency
oscillations arent seen.

Low stiffness

Small cycle
superimposed on large
cycle (after Assimaki and
Kausel, 2002)

Time

Nonlinear Soil Behavior

Low damping

Equivalent linear model

maintains constant
stiffness and damping
higher stiffness
excursions associated
with higher frequency
oscillations arent seen.

High damping

Modified Equivalent Linear Approach

High frequencies are associated with smaller strains
High stiffness and low damping are associated with smaller strains
Make stiffness and damping frequency-dependent

Normalized
Normalizedstrain
strainspectra
spectra
from
fromfive
fivemotions
motions

Normalized
Normalizedstrain
strain
spectrum
spectrumfrom
fromone
onemotion
motion

Three orders of
magnitude

Frequency (Hz)

Frequency (Hz)

Modified Equivalent Linear Approach

Assimaki and Kausel
Frequency-dependent
Frequency-dependentmodel
model

Conventional
Conventionalmodel
model

High frequencies
oversoftened and
overdamped

Excellent agreement
with nonlinear model

Benchmarking of Nonlinear Analyses

Stewart and Kwok
PEER study to determine proper manner in which to use nonlinear analyses

Worked with five existing

nonlinear codes; hired
developers to run their codes
and comment on results
Established advisory
committee to oversee
analyses and assist with
interpretation
Met regularly with advisory
committee and developers

Benchmarking of Nonlinear Analyses

Stewart and Kwok
Considered codes

Benchmarking of Nonlinear Analyses

Damping ratio

D-MOD_2 (Matasovic)
Enhanced version of D-MOD, which is enhanced version of DESRA
Lumped mass model
Rayleigh damping

Rayleigh
Stiffness-proportional

Mass-proportional

Frequency

Benchmarking of Nonlinear Analyses

D-MOD_2 (Matasovic)
Enhanced version of D-MOD, which is enhanced version of DESRA
Lumped mass model
Rayleigh damping
Newmark method for time integration
Variable slice width simulating response of dams, embankments on rock

Decreasing stiffness
due to geometry

Benchmarking of Nonlinear Analyses

D-MOD_2 (Matasovic)
Enhanced version of D-MOD, which is enhanced version of DESRA
Lumped mass model
Rayleigh damping
Newmark method for time integration
Variable slice width simulating response of dams, embankments on rock
Can simulate slip on weak interfaces
Uses MKZ soil model (modified hyperbola needs Gmax, max, and s)
Can soften backbone curve to model cyclic degradation

Benchmarking of Nonlinear Analyses

D-MOD_2 (Matasovic)
Enhanced version of D-MOD, which is enhanced version of DESRA
Lumped mass model
Rayleigh damping
Newmark method for time integration
Variable slice width simulating response of dams, embankments on rock
Can simulate slip on weak interfaces
Uses MKZ soil model (modified hyperbola needs Gmax, max, and s)
Can soften backbone curve to model cyclic degradation
Uses Masing rules for unloading-reloading behavior

Need
Need input
input parameters
parameters for:
for:
MKZ
MKZ backbone
backbone curve
curve (4)
(4)
Cyclic
Cyclic degradation
degradation (3
(3 for
for clay,
clay, 44 for
for sand)
sand)
Pore
Pore pressure
pressure generation
generation (4
(4 for
for clay,
clay, 44 for
for sand)
sand)
Pore
Pore pressure
pressure redistribution/dissipation
redistribution/dissipation (at
(at least
least 2)
2)
Rayleigh
Rayleigh damping
damping coefficients
coefficients (2)
(2)
Basic
Basic layer
layer properties
properties (density,
(density, shear
shear wave
wave velocity,
velocity, half-space
half-space properties)
properties)

Benchmarking of Nonlinear Analyses

DEEPSOIL (Hashash)
Similar to DMOD-2 (lumped mass, derives from DESRA-2)
More advanced Rayleigh damping scheme (lower frequency dependence)
TESS (Pyke)
Finite difference wave propagation analysis (not lumped mass)
Cundall-Pyke hypothesis for loading-unloading behavior
Similar backbone curve to DMOD-2 and DEEPSOIL
Inviscid (sort of) low-strain damping scheme
OpenSees (Yang, Elgamal)
Finite element model (1D, 2D, 3D capabilities)
Multi-surface plasticity model (von Mises yield surface, kinematic
hardening, non-associative flow rule)
Full Rayleigh damping
SUMDES
Finite element model
Bounding surface plasticity model (Lade-like yield surface, kinematic
hardening, non-associative flow rule)
Simplified Rayleigh damping

Benchmarking of Nonlinear Analyses

Recommendations
Specification of control motion
For outcropping motion, use recorded motion with elastic base
For motions recorded at depth, use recorded motion with rigid base
Specification of viscous damping
Use full or extended Rayleigh damping iterate on selection of control
frequencies to match equivalent linear response for low loading levels
(linear response domain). If not possible, use full Rayleigh damping with
targets at fo and 5fo.
Backbone curve parameters
Adjust, if possible, to produce correct shear strength at large strains
Bound nonlinear, inelastic behavior by running analyses with:
Backbone curve fit to match G/Gmax behavior
Backbone curve fit to minimize error in G/Gmax and damping curves

Benchmarking of Nonlinear Analyses

Performance
Based on validations against vertical array data

Models produce reasonable results

Some indication of overdamping at high frequencies, overamplification at
site frequency

Variability of predictions due to backbone curves and damping models

most pronounced at T<0.5 sec and is significant only for relatively thick
profiles. Model-to-model variability most pronounced at low periods.

Nonlinearity modeled well up to levels for which adequate data is

available (generally up to about 0.2g). Data for stronger shaking being

sought (centrifuge tests, recent Nigaata earthquake).

DMOD-2, DEEPSOIL, and OpenSees generally produced similar

amplification factors and spectral shapes; TESS produced different

response at high frequencies (different damping formulation), SUMDES
results were significantly different than all others for deep sites (probably
due to simplified Rayleigh damping).

Nonlinear Behavior Effective Stress Analyses

Wildlife Superstition Hills recordings

Nonlinear Behavior Effective Stress Analyses

Wildlife Superstition Hills recordings

Nonlinear Behavior Effective Stress Analyses

Wildlife Elmore Ranch recordings

Nonlinear Behavior Effective Stress Analyses

Wildlife Superstition Hills recordings
Ground surface record

High
frequency

???

Low
frequency

Site Effects
Elmore Ranch record no liquefaction

Frequency (Hz)

Ratio
Ratioofofwavelet
wavelet
amplitudes
amplitudesvariation
variation
with
withfrequency
frequencyand
andtime
time

Time (sec)

Site Effects
Elmore Ranch record no liquefaction

Frequency (Hz)

Ratio
Ratioofofwavelet
wavelet
amplitudes
amplitudesvariation
variation
with
withfrequency
frequencyand
andtime
time

Time (sec)

Nonlinear Behavior Effective Stress Analyses

Wildlife Superstition Hills recordings

Nonlinear Behavior Effective Stress Analyses

Wildlife Superstition Hills recordings

One-Dimensional Site Response Analysis

Summary
Must be aware of assumptions
Uni-directional wave propagation (normal to layer boundaries)
Uni-directional particle motion (no surface waves)
Particularly useful for profiles with high impedance contrasts
Equivalent linear approach works very well for most cases
Material properties readily available
Computations performed rapidly
Nonlinear analyses match equivalent linear when strains are small
Nonlinear analyses are preferred when strains are high soft soils and/or
strong shaking
Can account for shear strength of soil
Can handle pore pressure generation some well, some poorly
Can predict permanent deformations for common for 2-D analyses

Thank you