1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Near Surface Geophysics
  4. Volume 21, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 21, Issue 3
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

Abstract

Seismic site response analyses are simulations in which the effects of geological conditions on seismic waves are examined. The uncertainties that make these analyses crucial are defined as the source of motion, the travel path of seismic waves, and geological conditions. In this study, a series of non‐linear seismic response analyses were performed using data from site investigation studies. The results of non‐linear analyses performed under earthquakes with different characteristics based on real soil data were investigated in terms of acceleration time histories and response spectra. The relationship between site response with the surface layer properties and input motion properties used in the simulations was examined in a parametrical manner. Based on the results obtained, Monte Carlo simulation, which is a stochastic data simulation method, was performed. Additionally, multiple regression and variance analysis (ANOVA) was performed on the dataset created by both site response analysis and stochastic simulations. The MLR model displayed highly accurate results with a coefficient of determination, 2 of 0.9763, and a standard error of 0.109. The efficiency level of the independent variables used as input parameters in the simulations on the dependent variable, AF was examined. It was revealed that the coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest (), earthquake motion (i.e., PGA of input motion) and surface layer thickness () from the soil properties had the highest effect on the amplification factor.

© 2023 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers. © 2023 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12255
2023-05-16
2024-04-25

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12255
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adalier, K. & Elgamal, A.W. (2002) Seismic response of adjacent dense and loose saturated sand columns. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 22(2), 115–27.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Adampira, M. & Derakhshandi, M. (2020) Influence of a layered liquefiable soil on seismic site response using physical modeling and numerical simulation. Engineering Geology, 266, 105462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2019.105462
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Adampira, M., Alielahi, H., Panji, M. & Koohsari, H. (2015) Comparison of equivalent linear and nonlinear methods in seismic analysis of liquefiable site response due to near‐fault incident waves: a case study. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 8, 3103–3118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517‐014‐1399‐6
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Afacan, K.B. & Güler, E. (2019) Effect of frequency content on the dynamic properties of the sand. Anadolu University Journal of Science and Technology A: Applied Sciences and Engineering, 20, 70–79. https://doi.org/10.18038/aubtda.459191
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Amir‐Faryar, B., Aggour, M.S. & McCuen, R.H. (2017) Universal model forms for predicting the shear modulus and material damping of soils. Geomechanics and Geoengineering, 12, 60–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/17486025.2016.1162332
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Anbazhagan, P., Aditya, P. & Rashmi, H.N. (2011) Amplification based on shear wave velocity for seismic zonation: comparison of empirical relations and site response results for shallow engineering bedrock sites. Geomechanics and Engineering, 3, 189–206. https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2011.3.3.189
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Anderson, J.G., Bodin, P., Brune, J.N., Prince, J., Singh, S.K., Quaas, R. & Onate, M. (1986) Strong ground motion from the Michoacan Mexico, earthquake. Science, 233, 1043–1049. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.233.4768.1043
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Andrade, J.E. & Borja, R.I. (2006) Capturing strain localization in dense sands with random density. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 67(11), 1531–1564. https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.1673
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Andreotti, G. & Calvi, G.M. (2021) Nonlinear soil effects on observed and simulated response spectra. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 50, 3831–3854. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3535
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Andrus, R.D., Stokoe, K.H., Chung, R.M. & Juang, C.H. (2003) Guidelines for evaluating liquefaction resistance using shear wave velocity measurement and simplified procedures. Gaithersburg MD: US Department of Commerce Materials and Construction Research Division.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Arslan, H. & Siyahi, B. (2006) A comparative study on linear and nonlinear site response analysis. Environmental Geology (New York, NY: 1993), 50, 1193–1200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254‐006‐0291‐4
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Arslan, H. & Siyahi, B. (2010) Effect of nonlinearity on site response and ground motion due to earthquake excitation. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 69, 287–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064‐009‐0254‐6
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Balakrishnan, A. & Kutter, B.L. (1999) Settlement, sliding, and liquefaction remediation of layered soil. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 125(11), 968–78.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Bazzurro, P. & Cornell, C.A. (2004) Ground‐motion amplification in nonlinear soil sites with uncertain properties. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 94(6), 2090–2109.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Benjumea, B., Gabàs, A., Macau, A., Bellmunt, F., Ledo, J., Ripoll, J. et al. (2023) Geomechanical parameters assessment and geological characterization using fuzzy C means clustering of electrical resistivity and seismic data. Near Surface Geophysics, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/nsg.12247
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Beyhan, G., Keskinsezer, A. & Öztürk, S. (2016) Soil properties and applications review with NERA (nonlinear earthquake site response analyses) in İstanbul‐MARMARAY project between Kazliçeşme to Sirkeci. Environmental Earth Sciences, 75, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665‐015‐4783‐y
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Bhutani, M. & Naval, S. (2020) Assessment of seismic site response and liquefaction potential for some sites using borelog data. International Journal of Civil Engineering, 6, 2103–2119. https://doi.org/10.28991/cej‐2020‐03091605
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Borcherdt, R.D. & Glassmoyer, G. (1992) On the characteristics of local geology and their influence on ground motions generated by the Loma Prieta earthquake in the San Francisco Bay region, California. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 82, 603–641.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Borden, R.H., Shao, L. & Gupta, A. (1996) Dynamic properties of piedmont residual soils. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering ASCE, 122(10), 813–821.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Bouckovalas, G.D., Tsiapas, Y.Z., Theocharis, A.I. & Chaloulos, Y.K. (2016) Ground response at liquefied sites: seismic isolation or amplification?Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 91, 329–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.09.028
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Boushehri, R., Motamed, R., Ellison, K. & Stanton, K. (2022) Estimating epistemic uncertainty in soil parameters for nonlinear site response analyses: introducing the Latin Hypercube Sampling technique. Earthquake Spectra, 38, 875529302211014. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930221101413
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Chandran, D. & Anbazhagan, P. (2020) 2D nonlinear site response analysis of typical stiff and soft soil sites at shallow bedrock region with low to medium seismicity. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 179, 104087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2020.104087
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Chen, S., Zhuang, H., Quan, D., Yuan, J., Zhao, K., & Ruan, B. (2019) Shaking table test on the seismic response of large‐scale subway station in a loess site: a case study. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 123, 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.04.023
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Darendeli, M.B. (2001) Development of a new family of normalized modulus reduction and material damping curves. The university of Texas at Austin.
  25. EPRI . (1993) Method and guidelines for estimating earthquake ground motion in eastern North America. Guidelines for Determining Design Basis Ground Motions, EPRI TR‐102293, (Vol 1), Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
  26. Fabozzi, S., Catalano, S., Falcone, G., Naso, G., Pagliaroli, E., Peronace, A. et al. (2021) Stochastic approach to study the site response in presence of shear wave velocity inversion: application to seismic microzonation studies in Italy. Engineering Geology, 280, 105914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2020.105914
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Farrugia, D., Galea, P., D'Amico, S. & Paolucci, E. (2017) Sensitivity of ground motion parameters to local shear‐wave velocity models: the case of buried low‐velocity layers. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 100, 196–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.05.033
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Field, E.H. & Jacob, K.H. (1993) Monte‐Carlo simulation of the theoretical site response variability at Turkey Flat, California, given the uncertainty in the geotechnically derived input parameters. Earthquake Spectra, 9, 669–701.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Foti, S., Comina, C., Boiero, D. & Socco, L.V. (2009) Non‐uniqueness in surface‐wave inversion and consequences on seismic site response analyses. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 29, 982–993. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2008.11.004
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Groholski, D.R., Hashash, Y.M.A., Musgrove, M., Harmon, J., & Kim, B. (2015) Evaluation of 1‐D non‐linear site response analysis using a general quadratic/hyperbolic strength‐controlled constitutive model. In: 6ICEGE: 6th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering.
  31. Hardin, B.O. & Drnevich, V.P. (1972) Shear modulus and damping in soils: measurement and parameter effects. ASC: Soil Mechanics Found Division, 98, 603–24.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Hartzell, S., Bonilla, L.F. & Williams, R.A. (2004) Prediction of nonlinear soil effects. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 94, 1609–1629. https://doi.org/10.1785/012003256
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Hashash, Y.M.A. & Groholski, D.R. (2010) Recent advances in non‐linear site response analysis. In: Fifth International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics and Symposium in Honor of Professor I.M. Idriss, vol. 29. pp. 1–22<./bib>
  34. Hashash, Y.M.A. & Park, D. (2001) Non‐linear one‐dimensional seismic ground motion propagation in the Mississippi embayment. Engineering Geology, 62, 185–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013‐7952(01)00061‐8
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Hashash, Y.M.A., Dashti, S., Romero, M.I., Ghayoomi, M. & Musgrove, M. (2015) Evaluation of 1‐D seismic site response modeling of sand using centrifuge experiments. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 78, 19–31.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Hashash, Y.M.A., Musgrove, M., Harmon, J., Ilhan, O., Xing, G., Numanoglu, O., Groholski, D.R., Phillips, C.A. & Park, D. (2020) DEEPSOIL 7.0, user manual, vol. 7. Urbana, IL, USA: Board of Trustees of University of Illinois at Urbana‐Champaign, pp. 1–170.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Hausler, E.A. (2002) Influence of ground improvement on settlement and liquefaction: a study based on field case history evidence and dynamic geotechnical centrifuge tests PhD dissertation. Berkeley, CA: University of California at Berkeley.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Horri, K., Mousavi, M., Motahari, M. & Farhadi, A. (2019) Modeling and studying the impact of soil plasticity on the site amplification factor in ground motion prediction equations. Journal of Seismology, 23, 1179–1200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950‐019‐09871‐w
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Huang, H.C., Shieh, C.S. & Chiu, H.C. (2001) Linear and nonlinear behaviors of soft soil layers using Lotung downhole array in Taiwan. Terrestrial, Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, 12, 503–524.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Idriss, I. (2004) Evolution of the state of the practice. International workshop on the uncertainties in nonlinear soil properties and their impact on modelling dynamic soil response. Richmond, CA, USA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Idriss, I.M. (1990) Response of soft soil sites during earthquakes. In: Duncan, J.M. (Ed.) HB seed memorial symposium. Vancouver: BiTech Publishers, pp. 273–289.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Idriss, I.M. & Seed, H.B. (1968) Seismic response of horizontal soil layers. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division ASCE, (94),4, 1003–1031.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Idriss, I.M. & Sun, J.I. (1992) User's manual for SHAKE91: a computer program for conducting equivalent linear seismic response analyses of horizontally layered soil deposits. California: Department of Civil and Environmental, Engineering University of California, Center for Geotechnical Modeling.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Ishibashi, I. & Zhang, X. (1993) Unified dynamic shear moduli and damping ratios of sand and clay. Soils Found, 33(1), 182–191.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Ishihara, K. (1996) Soil behaviour in earthquake geotechnics. Oxford: Oxford Engineering Science Series, Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Iwasaki, T., Tatsuoka, F. & Takagi, Y. (1978) Shear modulus of sands under torsional shear loading. Soils and Foundations, 18(1), 39–56.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. İyisan, R. & Haşal, M.E. (2011) Soil Amplification and Effect of Local Site Condition to Spectral Acceleration. pp. 47–56.
  48. Jaky, J. (1948) Pressure in silos. In: Proc 2nd International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Rotterdam Nederland, vol. 1. pp. 103–107.
  49. Jalil, A., Fathani, T.F., Satyarno, I. & Wilopo, W. (2021) Nonlinear site response analysis approach to investigate the effect of pore water pressure on liquefaction in Palu. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 871, 012053. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755‐1315/871/1/012053
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Jia, J. (2018) Soil Dynamics and Foundation Modeling. Offshore and Earthquake Engineering; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany. ISBN 9783319403571.
  51. Kokusho, T. (1980) Cyclic triaxial test of dynamic soil properties for wide strain range. Soils and Foundations, JSSMFE, 20(2), 45–60.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Kokusho, T. (2008) Site amplification for seismic zonation in urban areas based on vertical array records, key note lectures. In: Proceedings of International Conference Development of Urban Areas and Geotechnical Engineering June 16–19 Saint Petersburg, vol. 1. pp. 67–80.
  53. Kondner, R.L. & Zelasko, J.S. (1963) A hyperbolic stress–strain formulation for sands. In: Proc 2nd Pan‐American Conf Soil Mech Found Eng I. pp. 289–324.
  54. Kramer, S.L. (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. New Jersey, USA: Prentice‐Hall.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Krylov, A.A., Alekseev, D.A., Kovachev, S.A., Radiuk, E. A., & Novikov, M. A. (2021) Numerical modeling of nonlinear response of seafloor porous saturated soil deposits to SH‐wave propagation. Applied Sciences, 11(4), 1854. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11041854
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Lee, V.W. & Trifunac, M.D. (2010) Should average shear‐wave velocity in the top 30 m of soil be used to describe seismic amplification?Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 30, 1250–1258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.05.007
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Liu, L., Dobry, R. (1997) Seismic response of shallow foundation on liquefiable sand. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 123(6), 557–67.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Masing, G. (1926) Eigenspannungen und Verfestigung beim Messing. In: Proc 2nd Int Cong Applied Mechanics. pp. 332–335.
  59. Matasovic, N. (1993) Seismic response of composite horizontally‐layered soil deposits. PhD. Thesis. California: University of California.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Matasovic, N. & Vucetic, M. (1993) Cyclic characterization of liquefiable sands. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering ASCE, 119, 1805–1822.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Meite, R., Wotherspoon, L. & Green, R. (2022) Influence of extent of remedial ground densification on seismic site effects via 2‐D site response analyses. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 152, 107041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.107041
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Mekki, M., Zoutat, M., Elachachi, S.M. & Hemsas, M. (2022) Sensitivity analysis of uncertain material RC structure and soil parameters on seismic response of soil‐structure interaction systems. In: Period Polytech Civil Engineering, pp. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3311/ppci.20113
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Menq, F.Y., Stokoe, K.H. & Kavazanjian, E. (2003) Linear dynamic properties of sandy and gravelly soils from large‐scale resonant tests. In: International Symposium IS Lyon 03, Deformation Characteristics of Geomaterials Lyon France.
  64. Mirshekari, M. & Ghayoomi, M. (2015) Simplified Equivalent Linear and Nonlinear Site Response Analysis of Partially Saturated Soil Layers. pp. 2131–2140. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784479087.197
  65. Ochoa, R.R., Nadim, F. & Kaynia, A.M. (2012) Sensitivity analyses for submarine slopes under seismic loading. In: Proc Fiftheen World Conf Earthq Eng. pp. 11676–11685.
  66. Olarte, J., Dashti, S. & Liel, A.B. (2018) Can ground densification improve seismic performance of the soil‐foundation‐structure system on liquefiable soils?Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 47(5), 1193–211.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Ouzandja, T. & Hadid, M. (2018) Sensitivity analysis of geotechnical site conditions effect on the seismic response of a saturated inhomogeneous poroviscoelastic soil profile. World Journal of Engineering, 15, 661–677. https://doi.org/10.1108/WJE‐12‐2017‐0388
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Park, D. & Hashash, Y.M.A. (2008) Rate‐dependent soil behavior in seismic site response analysis. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 45, 454–469. https://doi.org/10.1139/T07‐090
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Pehlivan, M. (2013) Incorporating site response analysis and associated uncertainties into the seismic hazard assessment of nuclear facilities. Ph.D. dissertation. Austin, TX, USA.
  70. Ramberg, W. & Osgood, W.R. (1943) Description of stress‐strain curves by three parameters. In: Tech Note 902 National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics.
  71. Rathje, E.M. & Kottke, A.R. (2008) Procedures for Random Vibration Theory Based Seismic Site Response Analyses. Rockville MD Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
  72. Rathje, E.M., Kottke, A.R. & Trent, W.L. (2010) Influence of input motion and site property variabilities on seismic site response analysis. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 136, 607–619. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)gt.1943‐5606.0000255
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Roblee, C. & Chiou, B. (2004) A proposed Geoindex model for design selection of non‐linear properties for site response analysis. In: Int Work Uncertainties Nonlinear Soil Prop their Impact Model Dyn Soil Response. pp. 1–29.
  74. Rodríguez‐Marek, A., Bray, J.D. & Abrahamson, N.A. (2000) A geotechnical seismic site response evaluation procedure. In: Proc 12th World Conf Earthq Eng, vol. 1590. pp. 1–8.
  75. Safak, E. (2001) Local site effects and dynamic soil behavior. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 21, 453–8.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Schnabel, P.B., Lysmer, J. & Seed, H.B. (1972) SHAKE: A Computer Program for Earthquake Response Analysis of Horizontally Layered Sites Report No EERC72/12 Earthquake Engineering Research Center University of California Berkeley.
  77. Seed, H.B. & Idriss, I.M. (1969) The influence of soil conditions on ground motions during earthquakes. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division ASCE, 94, 93–137.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Seed, H.B. & Idriss, I.M. (1970) Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analyses Report No. EERC 70/10 Earthquake Engineering Research Center Berkeley Calif. https://ntrl.ntis.gov/NTRL/dashboard/searchResults/titleDetail/PB197869.Xhtml
  79. Seed, H.B., Wong, R.T., Idriss, I.M. & Tokimatsu, K. (1986) Moduli and damping factors for dynamic analyses of cohesionless soils. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 112(11), 1016–1032. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733‐9410(1986)112:11(1016)
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Somerville, P.G., Smith, N.F., Graves, R.W. & Abrahamson, N.A. (1997) Modification of empirical strong ground motion attenuation relations to include the amplitude and duration effects of rupture directivity. Seismological Research Letters, 68, 199–222, https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.68.1.199
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Stokoe, K.H., Hwang, S.K., Darendeli, M.B. & Lee, N.J. (1995) Correlation study of nonlinear dynamic soils properties. Aiken SC: Final Rep to Westinghouse Savannah River Company.
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Sun, J.I., Golesorkhi, R. & Seed, H.B. (1988) Dynamic Moduli and Damping Ratios for Cohesive Soils Report No. UCB/EERC‐88/15 Earthquake Engineering Research Center University of California Berkeley: 42.
  83. Tran, T.T., Salman, K., Han, S.R. & Kim, D. (2020) Probabilistic models for uncertainty quantification of soil properties on site response analysis. ASCE‐ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems Part A: Civil Engineering, 6(3), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1061/ajrua6.0001079
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Turner, M.M. & Ghayoomi, M. (2022) Site response analysis of induced seismic events in the CENA region. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 153, 107118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.107118
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Türköz, M. (2019) The effect of soil type and different in‐situ test results on soil amplification analysis. Dicle Üniversitesi Mühendislik Fakültesi Mühendislik Dergisi, 10, 1187–1196. https://doi.org/10.24012/dumf.589196
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Vagnon, F., Comina, C. & Arato, A.(2022) Evaluation of different methods for deriving geotechnical parameters from electric and seismic streamer data. Engineering Geology, 303, 106670.
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Vucetic, M. & Dobry, R. (1991) Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 117(1), 89–107.
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Xiaohui, W., Xiaojun, L., Aiwen, L., Qiumei, H. & Chunlin, H. (2020) Seismic analysis of soil‐structure system of nuclear power plant on non‐rock site via shaking table test. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 136, 106209, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106209
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Xu, R. & Fatahi, B. (2019) Assessment of soil plasticity effects on seismic response of mid‐rise buildings resting on end‐bearing pile foundations In Sustainable Design and Construction for Geomaterials and Geostructures: Proceedings of the 5th Geo China International Conference 2018. Civil Infrastructures Confronting Severe Weathers and Climate Changes: From Failure to Sustainability, held on July 23 to 25, 2018 in HangZhou, China, (pp. 146–159). https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐319‐95753‐1_12
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Yang, J. & Yan, X.R. (2009) Factors affecting site response to multi‐directional earthquake loading. Engineering Geology, 107, 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2009.04.002
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Yıldız, Ö. (2021) Nonlinear and equivalent linear site response analysis of Istanbul soils. NATURENGS, 2(1), 88–101. https://doi.org/10.46572/naturengs.895283
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Yıldız, Ö. (2022) Seismic site characterization of Battalgazi in Malatya, Turkey. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 15, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517‐022‐10170‐x
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Yoshida, N. (1994) Applicability of conventional computer code SHAKE to nonlinear problem. In: Proc Symposium on Amplification of Ground Shaking in Soft Ground. pp. 14–31.
  94. Yoshida, N. & Iai, S. (1998) Nonlinear site response analysis and its evaluation and prediction. In: 2nd international symposium on the effect of surface geology on seismic motion Yokosuka Japan. pp. 71–90.
  95. Zhan, W. & Chen, Q. (2022) Nonlinear site response at liquefiable sites: insights from downhole seismic observations. Engineering Geology, 301, 106610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2022.106610
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Zhang, J., Andrus, R.D. & Juang, C.H. (2005) Normalized shear modulus and material damping ratio relationships. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131, 453–464. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1090‐0241(2005)131:4(453)
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Zhao, K., Wang, Q., Zhuang, H., Li, Z., & Chen, G. (2022) A fully coupled flow deformation model for seismic site response analyses of liquefiable marine sediments. Ocean Engineering, 251, 111144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2022.111144
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Zhou, Y.G., Chen, J., Chen, Y.M., Kutter, B. L., Zheng, B. L., Wilson, D. W., & Clukey, E. C. (2017) Centrifuge modeling and numerical analysis on seismic site response of deep offshore clay deposits. Engineering Geology, 227, 54–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2017.01.008
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12255
Loading
Influence of input motion and surface layer properties on seismic site response: A stochastic simulation method–based MLR model
Near Surface Geophysics 21, 195 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1002/nsg.12255
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12255
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12255
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Monte Carlo; multilinear regression; seismic site response; soil property; uncertainty

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error