Vol. 18, No.

3 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION July, 2019

Earthq Eng & Eng Vib (2019) 18: 535-554 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-019-0520-y

Effect of site amplification on inelastic seismic response

Adhikary S1† and Singh Y2‡
1. Department of Civil Engineering, Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur-440010, Maharashtra, India

2. Department of Earthquake Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee-247667, Uttarakhand, India

Abstract: The available models for effective periods of site and structure are reviewed in context of frequency tuning in
the inelastic seismic response of soil-structure system. The effect of seismic intensity and ductility demand, on the effective
periods, is investigated, and inelastic site amplification is shown to be strongly correlated to the normalized effective period.
Two non-dimensional parameters, analogous to the conventional site amplification factors in codes, are defined to quantify
the inelastic site amplification. It is shown that the inelastic site amplification factor (i.e. ratio of constant ductility spectral
ordinates at soil site to those at rock outcrop) is able to represent the site effects more clearly, as compared to the inelastic
site amplification ratio (i.e. ratio of inelastic spectral ordinates at soil site to the corresponding elastic spectral ordinates at
rock outcrop). Further, the peak in the amplification factor corresponding to the effective site period diminishes rapidly with
increasing ductility demand.

Keywords: site amplification; normalized response spectra; effective period; inelastic seismic response; inelastic site
amplification factor

1 Introduction of structures. Miranda (1993, 2000) and Ruiz-Garcia

Two approaches have been commonly used, in
literature, to estimate inelastic response from the
elastic response spectrum. In the first approach,
inelastic displacement ratio, Cμ (defined as the ratio
of the peak displacement of an inelastic oscillator to
its corresponding linear response) is used to directly
multiply with the elastic displacement response to get the
inelastic displacement response (Veletsos and Newmark,
1960; Veletsos et al., 1965; Newmark, 1982; Miranda,
1993; FEMA 273, 1997; FEMA 356, 2000; FEMA 440,
2005). In the second approach, a substitute or equivalent
elastic system with appropriate period and damping is
used to estimate the inelastic response (Rosenblueth and
Herrera, 1964; Gulkan and Sozen, 1974; Iwan, 1980;
Kowalsky, 1994; ATC 40, 1996; Grant et al., 2005;
Priestley et al., 2007; Dwairi et al., 2007). Presently, the
effect of site amplification on total (inelastic) response
of structure is considered in the elastic response
spectrum itself, and hence is independent of the ductility
demand on the structure. Recently, some researchers
have explored the effect of soil on nonlinear response
Correspondence to: Adhikary S, Department of Civil
Engineering, Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology,
Nagpur-440010, Maharashtra, India
Tel: +91-9561458832
E-mail: shrabonyeq@gmail.com
†
Assistant Professor; ‡PhD
Received August 31, 2017; Accepted April 16, 2018
and Miranda (2004) evaluated site-dependent inelastic
seismic design spectra and the inelastic displacement
ratio (Cμ) and concluded that the shape of elastic and
inelastic spectra is quite different. They also pointed out
that the predominant period of ground motion has an
important role in inelastic seismic response of structures.
Zhai et al. (2007) studied the effect of soil condition on
inelastic displacement ratio spectra for near-fault type
ground motions and reported that local soil condition
have little influence on inelastic displacement ratio
spectra. Mollaioli and Bruno (2008) also studied the
influence of soil type on inelastic displacement ratio and
drift demand. They concluded that the inelastic response
is strongly affected by site conditions in addition to the
ductility ratio and the fundamental period of structure.
Athanassiadou et al. (2011) studied elastic and inelastic
spectra for earthquake records on different soil types in
Greece and noted that the effect of ground conditions
is less pronounced on both types of spectra if plotted
against normalized period. Assimaki et al. (2012)
studied the effect of soil nonlinearity on the inelastic
response of SDOF systems, using synthetic ground
motion simulations, in terms of variability of the inelastic
displacement ratio. Their results showed high bias and
scatter in the inelastic displacement ratio predicted by
using the empirical Next Generation Attenuation (NGA)
relationships and linear elastic site response models, for
periods close to the fundamental period of the site. The
study by Assimaki et al. (2012) also showed that, due
to soil nonlinearity, the amplitude and the frequency
536 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION
content of the ground motion are increasingly modified
for higher PGA.
Adhikary et al. (2014) showed that the effect of
soil amplification on inelastic response of structures is
not as pronounced as in the case of elastic response,
and the code provisions are not as non-conservative in
estimating inelastic response, as they appear to be in
case of elastic response. This finding was mainly due to
the fact that a dip in the Cμ is observed corresponding
to the predominant site period. This dip in Cμ has also
been observed by Miranda (1993) and Ruiz-Garcia and
Miranda (2004) for soft soil, and by Athanassiadou et
al. (2011) for all site classes. This dip coincides with
the peak in the amplification factor (F) as demonstrated
more clearly in Fig. 1. The figure has been drawn for the
KGWH02 site (Stewart et al., 2008) for two assumed
depths of bedrock, (a) for 9 m and in the second case
(b) for 29 m. Each figure contains 4 graphs as shown in
the legend. The amplification factor (F) and the inelastic
displacement ratio (Cμ) have been plotted for two levels
of seismic intensity, expressed as effective peak ground
acceleration at Rock Outcrop, EPGARO equal to 0.05 g
and 0.36 g. The engineering model for the KGWH02
site has been adopted from Stewart et al. (2008), and
equivalent linear analysis has been performed in
DEEPSOIL for the experimentally obtained material
curves, as referred to in Stewart et al. (2008). It can be
seen from the figure that the peak in F shifts to longer
periods with increase in depth of bedrock and intensity
of shaking. Interestingly, the dip in the Cμ also shifts to
the same period and always coincides with the peak in F.
The cause of this dip in the Cμ plot is that the peak in the
inelastic spectrum diminishes with increasing ductility
demand, and the shape of the inelastic spectrum is very
different from the corresponding elastic spectrum.
The effective stiffness, and hence the period of
vibration, of an inelastic structure varies in a range
between initial (elastic) and secant period, depending
on the instantaneous displacement. As a result, the effect
of frequency tuning between the ground motion and
the oscillator is less prominent in the case of inelastic
response, and the peak in the response spectrum
corresponding to the predominant ground motion period
Cμ
Cμ
Cμ
i
Fig. 1 Amplification factor (F) and inelastic displacement ratio (Cμ) plotted for the KGWH02 site, for two levels of seismic intensity
considered in the present study: (a) Bedrock considered at 9 m, (b) Bedrock considered at 29 m. The thin curves
correspond to EPGARO = 0.05 g, and the thick curves correspond to EPGARO = 0.36 g. The inelastic displacement ratio is
shown for μ = 4.
Vol. 18
gets flattened with increasing ductility demand. Since Cμ
is defined as the ratio of the peak displacement of an
inelastic oscillator to its corresponding linear response,
this flattening of peak in the inelastic response spectrum
is manifested as a dip in Cμ corresponding to the
predominant site period.
Adhikary et al. (2014) also concluded that there
is a need to develop site amplification models for the
inelastic response spectrum, as all the available models
have been derived for elastic response. Conventionally,
the fundamental period corresponding to initial (elastic)
stiffness is considered as the characteristic period, in the
case of site as well as structure, which is applicable only
under low amplitude motions.
This study attempts to identify effective periods
of site and structure under strong earthquake motions,
and their influence on inelastic response in context of
performance-based seismic design (PBSD).
In the ensuing, some of the major studies concerning
frequency tuning between site and structure and its
influence on structural response have been summarized.
The effect of nonlinearity on characteristic periods of
site and structure is also discussed. The phenomenon
of frequency tuning between the soil and structure is
illustrated using a numerical study, and the effect of
seismic intensity and ductility demand on effective
periods of soil and structure, respectively, are
investigated. Subsequently, the combined effect of
soil and structure nonlinearity on response of SDOF
oscillators is presented by comparing the numerically
obtained inelastic spectral amplification factors with
those obtained using the conventional approach.
2 Site-structure frequency tuning and
normalized response spectra
Among the various parameters known to affect
the site amplification, the site period, in addition to
the average shear wave velocity and the amplitude of
ground motion, has been identified as the most crucial
parameter, by many researchers. Seed et al. (1976)
demonstrated the importance of site-dependent response
spectrum for earthquake resistant design and noted
Cμ
Cμ
Cμ
i
No. 3 Adhikary S et al.: Effect of site amplification on inelastic seismic response
the occurrence of a pronounced peak in the response
spectrum near the fundamental period of site. They also
noted that the spectral amplification factors of individual
sites may be significantly greater than the mean value for
a considered suite of sites. Trifunac and Brady (1976)
have also noted the frequency-dependence of response
spectra due to local site effects. Seed et al. (1985) and
Dickenson (1994) carried out extensive studies with
strong ground motion records from the 1985 Mexico
City earthquake and the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake
and showed that there can be significant amplification
near the site period, and that structures having period
in this range are more susceptible to damage. Stewart
et al. (2008) noticed a local “bump” in the response
spectrum near the elastic site period. A large subset of
KiK-net data has been considered by Cadet et al. (2012)
to develop empirical correlations between amplification
factors and simple site parameters, such as VSZ (with Z
equal to 5, 10, 20 and 30 m) and the fundamental site
frequency f0. Observations similar to those of Stewart
et al. (2008) were also made by Cadet et al. (2012)
regarding the site amplification prediction equation
(SAPE), which represent a “bell-shaped amplification
curve with a peak at the fundamental site frequency”.
They also observed that “thicker and/or softer sites could
include larger contributions from higher resonance
modes.” In the present study, the numerical results have
been compared with the empirical results with the help
of the site amplification prediction equations.
It has been observed by Miranda and Bertero (1991)
that the shape of elastic and inelastic spectra varies
significantly with the change in predominant period of
the ground motion. Miranda (1993) computed constant
ductility inelastic response spectra, also known as
strength demand spectra, for earthquakes recorded on
rock, alluvium and soft soil sites. In the case of soft soils,
the inelastic response spectra were plotted as a function
of normalized period T/Tg, where Tg is the “predominant
period” of ground motion, defined as the period where
5% damped velocity response spectrum attains its
maximum. The study concluded that both the strength
and deformation demand of structures on soft soils is
strongly dependent on the proximity of the period of the
structure to the predominant period of the site.
In the case of elastic spectra, Xu and Xie (2004)
introduced the concept of a bi-normalized spectrum
(BNS), which is a plot of Sa /A with T/Tg; where Sa is
the pseudo spectral acceleration, A is the peak ground
acceleration, and Tg is the “spectral predominant period”
(actually denoted as Tp by Xu and Xie) of ground
motion as defined by Miranda (1993). It has also been
termed as “effective ground period” by Mylonakis and
Gazetas (2000) and Gazetas (2006). Xu and Xie plotted
BNS for 206 strong-motion records of the 1999 Chi-
Chi earthquake and concluded that the BNS is unique
and is least affected by the soil category, nature of
seismic excitation, and method of wave propagation
analysis. Mylonakis and Gazetas (2000) and Gazetas
537
(2006) showed that normalizing the structural period
by a dominant period of motion before statistically
processing the recorded spectral response values
produces “completely different shape and size of spectral
ordinates”. When plotted against the normalized period,
T/Tg, the average spectrum exhibits a “characteristic
peak at values of T/Tg not far from 1”.
Ziotopoulou and Gazetas (2009, 2010) carried out an
extensive analytical study (considering a total of 1009
cases) for ASCE 7-10 (2010) site class ‘D’ with three
shear wave velocities (VS,30 = 180 m/sec, 260 m/sec, 360
m/sec), different shear wave velocity distributions, two
impedance contrast (bedrock to soil) ratios, two depths
of bedrock, and different PGA values; they established
that the bi-normalized spectrum is practically unique,
as observed by Xu and Xie (2004). They demonstrated
that BNS is a more rational form of design spectrum
as compared to the “spurious flat spectrum” in design
codes, and that it has a peak value of Sa /A close to 3.75
(rather than 2.5) in a narrow range of normalized period.
Gazetas (2012) reported that the conventional design
spectrum may be unconservative, especially when
structures have period near the predominant period of
ground motion, and it may lead to erroneous and unsafe
results in the case of soil-structure interaction. Pavel
et al. (2013, 2014) have also emphasized adopting bi-
normalized response spectrum accompanied by “site-
dependent control period and/or mean period values”
in design codes. However, all these researchers have
highlighted the difficulty in estimating the predominant
ground motion period for a given site and seismic event,
doubted the reliability of the “expected relevant periods”
both for soils and for buildings, and identified this as the
main obstacle in adopting BNS in design, at present.
3 Effective period of a soil site
Conventionally, the fundamental period of a soil
deposit (T0) (i.e. the period corresponding to the
fundamental mode of vibration of the soil deposit) is
used as the characteristic site period to relate with the
dynamic response of sites. It depends on the thickness,
density and shear wave velocity of the soil deposit. This
site period provides a useful indication of the period of
vibration at which the most significant amplification can
be expected as a result of frequency tuning between the
site and the structure. Kramer (1996) stated that for a
uniform, damped soil deposit on rigid rock, the greatest
amplification factor occurs approximately at the lowest
natural frequency or the characteristic site period, given
as
2 4H
T0   (1)
0 Vs
In the case of a layered soil deposit, Vs can be
calculated using the weighted average of shear wave
velocities of the individual layers. If Hi is the uniform
538 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION
thickness of the ith layer, and its average shear wave
velocity is Vsi, then the equivalent shear wave velocity
of the deposit consisting of ‘n’ layers is calculated based
on the travel time as
H n
H propagation is considered as the ‘effective’ period of
= i (2)
Vs i 1 Vsi
Substituting the value of H/Vs in the previous
equation, the fundamental natural period of the deposit
can be computed as the summation of the natural periods
of each of the layers in the deposit, as reported by
Vijayendra et al. (2010):
n
Hi n
T0 = 4 =  Ti (3)
i 1 Vsi i 1
Several closed form solutions as well as approximate
methods (Dobry et al., 1976) for estimating fundamental
site period, have been developed over the years. The
two commonly used methods are the Rayleigh solution
(Clough and Penzien, 1975) and Madera’s procedure,
also known as the two-layer solution (Dobry et al.,
1976).
The fundamental site period may also be estimated
empirically by using the horizontal-to-vertical noise
ratio from ambient vibrations (Nakamura, 1989) or
through the ratio of horizontal-to-vertical components
of the earthquake recordings (Lermo and Chávez-
García, 1993; Zhao et al., 2006). Cadet et al. (2012)
have defined the ‘fundamental resonance frequency’
of a site as the frequency corresponding to the first
(i.e. lowest frequency) peak of the surface to borehole
(S/B) spectral ratio, where a peak is defined as a
“specific local maximum with amplitude larger than 2
in a statistical sense”. Régnier et al. (2013) have used
a slightly different definition of characteristic frequency
of a site. They defined the ‘predominant frequency’ of a
site as the frequency for which the site-response curve
(borehole Fourier spectral ratio) has its maximum value
(not necessarily the peak corresponding to the lowest
frequency). They illustrated that the presence of a major
impedance contrast in the strata near the surface can
trigger soil nonlinearity even at low PGA, signifying the
importance of predominant period of the site. Gofrani et
al. (2013) have shown that the fundamental frequencies
of sites as obtained from empirical surface to borehole
cross-spectral ratios, have a very strong correlation with
the theoretically predicted fundamental frequencies by
using 1-D wave propagation analysis, as observed by
other researchers (Cadet et al., 2012; Steidl et al., 1996).
Recently, Chenari and Taleshani (2016) evaluated the site
response of heterogeneous natural deposits for harmonic
excitation and concluded that considering only the top
30 m of soil for analysis and neglecting the impedance
contrast of shear wave propagation velocity profile will
lead to underestimation of the resonance amplitude and
Vol. 18
overestimation of the resonance frequency.
In the present study, the period corresponding to the
peak site amplification (i.e. ratio of spectral response
at site to that at rock outcrop) obtained using nonlinear
(equivalent linear in the present study) 1-D wave
the site (Ts,eff), as it takes into account the effects of soil
nonlinearity as well as the possibility of a higher mode
dominating the site response.
4 Effective period of an inelastic structure
Structures exhibit inelastic behavior under strong
ground shaking; and the effective stiffness and hence
the effective period of vibration changes with inelastic
displacement. In the case of nonlinear time history
analysis, the change in stiffness (and hence in the effective
period of vibration) is inherently considered. However,
definition of the effective period of vibration is a crucial
issue in estimating seismic response of structures using
response spectra. It is customary to use either the initial
(elastic) period of vibration, Ti or the secant period
corresponding to the peak displacement Tsec as the
reference period. Accordingly, two sets of approaches
have evolved for estimating inelastic response of
structures. In the first approach, commonly known as
displacement modification method (DMM) (Veletsos
and Newmark, 1960; Veletsos et al., 1965; Newmark,
1982; Miranda, 1993; FEMA 273, 1997; FEMA 356,
2000; FEMA 440, 2005) an inelastic displacement ratio,
Cμ is used to multiply with the elastic response, to get
the inelastic response. The inelastic displacement ratio is
obtained from a ‘Constant Ductility’ inelastic (or yield)
spectrum (Veletsos and Newmark, 1960), in which the
initial (elastic) period is used as the reference period for
all ductility levels. In the second approach, known as
Equivalent Linearization (EL) Approach (Rosenblueth
and Herrera, 1964; Gulkan and Sozen, 1974; Iwan,
1980; Kowalsky, 1994; ATC 40, 1996; Grant et al., 2005;
Priestley et al., 2007, Dwairi et al., 2007) an equivalent
linear system with appropriate period and damping is
used to obtain the response of the inelastic system. The
secant period corresponding to peak displacement is
commonly used as the reference period, in this approach.
Rosenblueth and Herrera (1964) have provided the
following expression for estimating the secant period
corresponding to ductility demand, μ:

Tsec  Ti (4)
1    
where, α is post yield stiffness ratio.
Sullivan et al. (2004) and Miranda and Ruiz-Garcia
(2002) have compared the two approaches and concluded
that either of the two approaches can be used to estimate
No. 3 Adhikary S et al.: Effect of site amplification on inelastic seismic response
the inelastic response with sufficient accuracy for the
PBD. As both approaches utilize empirically obtained
calibration factors, any period (even other than Ti and
Tsec) can be used as reference period for estimating
response with reasonable accuracy. However, in the
present study, the effective period of structure is required
for the purpose of identifying the period at which tuning
with the soil vibrations occurs and it is perceived that
neither Ti nor Tsec can serve this purpose and the actual
effective period is somewhere in between the two values.
Eser and Aydemir (2011) investigated the inelastic
displacement ratios and ductility demands for SDOF
systems with elastoplastic behavior considering soil
structure interaction. They modeled the soil structure
systems with effective period, effective damping and
effective ductility values different from fixed-base case.
For inelastic time history analyses, Newmark method
for step-by-step time integration was adapted in an in-
house computer program, and they proposed a new
equation for determining inelastic displacement ratio of
interacting system as a function of structural period of
interacting system, strength reduction factor, and period
lengthening ratio.
Some efforts have been made in the past to identify
an optimal effective period of equivalent linear SDOF
system to minimize the error in the empirical procedures
for estimating inelastic response. Based on extensive
time-history analyses of a number of SDOF hysteretic
systems in the mid-period range of 0.4-4.0 sec, subjected
to twelve earthquake time histories, Iwan (1980)
proposed the following empirical formula for estimating
the optimal effective period of equivalent linear system:
Teff =[1  0.121(   1)0.939 ] Ti
In a similar study, Kwan and Billington (2003)
proposed a more refined relationship for effective
(equivalent) period, considering six different hysteresis
models, period range of 0.1 to 1.5 sec, and four ductility
ratios in the range of 2 to 8.
Teff  [0.8 C1 ]Ti
where, the coefficient C1 varies between 0.43 to 0.55 for
different hysteresis types and equals to 0.5 for elasto-
plastic, moderately degrading, and slightly degrading
hysteretic systems.
Miranda and Ruiz-Garcia (2002) compared the error
Table 1 Values of empirical coefficients used in Eqs. 5-7 for estimating optimal equivalent
linear period of vibration of inelastic systems (FEMA 440, 2005)
Hysteresis type
G H
Bilinear 0.11
Stiffness degrading 0.18
539
in inelastic response estimated by different equivalent
linearization and displacement modification methods
and observed that the Iwan (1980) method resulted in
smaller errors, as compared to the other considered
methods, which were based on secant period. However,
Iwan’s method also underestimated displacement in
short period range. A rigorous statistical analysis was
performed under the FEMA 440 (2005) project, for
minimization of error in the estimated inelastic response,
and improved optimal equivalent linear periods (Eqs.
7-9) have been estimated for different hysteretic models
and post-yield stiffness ratios, α.
Teff = [G (   1) 2  H (   1)3  1]Ti , for μ < 4 (7)
Teff = [ I  J (   1)  1]Ti , for 4.0 ≤ μ ≤ 6.5 (8)
  (   1)  
Teff =  K   1  1 Ti , for μ > 6.5 (9)
  1  L(   2)  
where G, H, I, J, K, and L are empirical coefficients,
given in Table 1.
It is to be noted that the original references differ
slightly in definition, notation, and nomenclature of
these periods, but used these for the same purpose,
i.e. characterization of the equivalent linear elastic
SDOF system, to result in optimal estimate of the peak
displacement of a nonlinear structure. In the present
study, these have been collectively referred to as
“effective period” and their suitability for representing
the frequency tuning between the nonlinear soil and
(5)
structure has been examined.
5 Numerical study
5.1 Methodology
In the present study, the combined effect of soil
(6) and structural nonlinearity on the total (inelastic)
response of SDOF systems has been studied. Four
well defined geotechnical array sites, viz. KGWH02,
KiK-net, Japan (Stewart et al., 2008), La Cienega,
Los Angeles (Stewart et al., 2008), Lotung, Chinese
Taiwan (Stewart et al., 2008), and Treasure Island near
San Francisco bay area (Lopez, 2002), for which soil
Coefficient
I J K L
-0.018 0.09 0.14 0.77 0.05
-0.037 0.15 0.16 0.92 0.05
540 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol. 18

layer properties are available from literature, have
been considered. All the sites belong to ASCE 7-10
site class ‘D’ (VS,30 ranging from 181.5-260.8 m/sec)
and represent a practical range of impedance contrast
( i 1VS, i 1 / iVS, i , where ρi and VS,i are density and shear
wave velocity, respectively of the ith layer) between
different layers. As shown in Table 2, a number of
strata have been generated from these sites by assuming
bedrock at four different depths to study the effect of soil
depth. The actual depths of the soil profiles at KGWH02,
La Cienega, Lotung and Treasure Island are 200 m,
251.5 m, 47 m, and 122 m, respectively. The other soil
profiles have been generated by varying the depth of the
bedrock while retaining the thickness and shear wave
velocity of individual layers, and stratification from
the actual sites. Several studies have been conducted
by researchers to determine the effect of deep soil on
seismic response (Jakka et al., 2015); however, this
study aims to investigate the response of deep layered
soils as encountered in real site condition as compared
to uniform soil deposit.
The shear wave velocity models for KGWH02, La
Cienega, and Lotung sites are adopted from Stewart et
al. (2008), while for the Treasure Island site, the shear
wave velocity model is adopted from Lopez (2002).
The shear wave velocity at the reference rock outcrop
site has been considered as 760 m/sec, consistent with
the lower limit for ASCE 7-10 site class ‘B’. For higher
shear wave velocities at reference rock outcrop, the
estimated amplification factors are expected to increase
marginally. For the KGWH02 site, 15 material curves
representing different soil material properties along the
depth, obtained from the models by Darendeli (2001)
(as referred to in Stewart et al., 2008) have been used.
The effect of varying confining pressure on modulus
reduction behavior of low- (PI=0) and high-plasticity
(PI=10) soil has also been considered. For the La Cienega
site, 13 material curves have been used for different
depths and soil type as suggested by Stewart et al. (2008)
based on laboratory testing of the site material. For the
Lotung site, three material curves for different depths as
provided by Stewart et al. (2008), based on the work of
Zeghal et al. (1995), have been used. The material curves
vary with depth to account for the influence of effective
state of stress on the shape of the modulus reduction
and damping curves. As reported by Lopez (2002), only
partial information on the properties and condition of the
soil at Treasure Island are available in the literature. The
soil profile and shear wave velocity profile have been
selected based on the works of De Alba et al. (1994) and
Gibbs et al. (1992), respectively. However, the response
spectra at the surface of the Treasure Island are available
for Loma Prieta Earthquake (1989), which was used to
validate the ground response model assuming different
dynamic properties of the soil profile. A trial and error
sensitivity analysis procedure has been used, which
produces the closest surface response spectra when
compared to the instrumental observation.
The response of all the sixteen strata (four sites with
four assumed bedrock depths) has been obtained from
equivalent linear 1-D wave propagation analysis using
the software “DEEPSOIL” (Hashash et al. 2011). The
equivalent linear capability of the software is based
on the pioneering work of Idriss and Seed (1968), and

Table 2 Comparisons of fundamental and effective site periods of different soil profiles considered for the numerical study

Bedrock Effective Site Period (Ts,eff) at

Site Depth Considered Fundamental Site Period (T0) EPGARO =
(m) 0.05 g 0.36 g
KGWH02 9 0.22 0.28 0.57
(Stewart et al., 2008) 29 0.51 0.55 0.92
56 0.84 0.87 1.21
200 0.69 0.89 1.21
La Cienega 9.9 0.2 0.2 0.27
(Stewart et al., 2008) 29.4 0.42 0.4 0.57
60.7 0.68 0.63 0.79
251.5 1.90 0.63 0.79
LOTUNG 9 0.26 0.28 0.55
(Stewart et al., 2008) 29.4 0.62 0.66 1.01
59.6 1.05 1.11 1.65
200 3.23 4.25 5.99
Treasure Island 11 (first stiff layer removed) 0.28 0.34 0.66
(Lopez, 2002) 28 0.61 0.69 1.21
88 1.34 1.45 1.65
200 2.44 2.56 3.92
No. 3 Adhikary S et al.: Effect of site amplification on inelastic seismic response 541

Seed and Idriss (1970) as employed in the widely used
program SHAKE (Schnabel et al., 1972) and its more
current version SHAKE91 (Idriss and Sun, 1992).
Similar programs such as EERA (Bardet et al., 2000),
NERA (Bardet and Tobita, 2001) and DTASSA (Sahin,
2015 a, b) can also be used for one-dimensional ground
response analysis. In the study, only vertical incoherency
is studied and spatial incoherency is ignored. Recently,
Tavakoli et al. (2016) carried out the seismic
microzonation study of Babol, Iran and demonstrated a
good agreement between the proposed ranges of natural
periods and alluvial amplification ratios obtained from
the 1-D analysis using DEEPSOIL and the experimental
microtremor studies.
To estimate the ground response on chosen sites,
seven rock outcrop motions, made compatible with
ASCE 7-10 spectrum for site class ‘B’, have been
considered. According to ASCE 7-10, site class B is
defined as reference “Rock” site with shear wave velocity
in the range of (760-1500 m/s), and for this site class, the
coefficients Fa and Fv equal to 1 are recommended. In the
present study, the shear wave velocity at the reference
rock outcrop site has been considered as 760 m/s
consistent with the lower limit for ASCE site class B. The
lower limit has been chosen because most of the ground
motions on rock outcrop, used in the present study,
were recorded on sites with shear wave velocity close
to this value. To illustrate the effect of soil nonlinearity,
two values of target effective peak ground acceleration
(EPGARO), 0.05 g and 0.36 g, with corresponding long
period corner periods of 4 sec and 6 sec, respectively,
were chosen. (Actually, ASCE 7-10, does not provide
response spectra in terms of EPGARO, but in terms of
spectral ordinates at short period, Ss and at 1 sec period,
S1. In the present study, Ss have been considered as 2.5
times EPGARO, and S1 equal to EPGARO, for the purpose
of generating the target response spectrum on rock
outcrop). Although spectrum compatible motions are
unrealistic and have frequency distortions, these have
certain useful features such as distinct corner period and
smooth spectral shape, which help in identifying some
important characteristics of site amplification which may
not be clearly identifiable in recorded time histories due
to large variability in spectral shape and corner period.
Ergun and Ates (2014) demonstrated that the record-to-
record variability of structural response caused by scaled
synthetic earthquake records is less than that caused
by real earthquake records in the seismic analysis of a
six storied building. Recently, Gkatzogias and Kappos
(2015) have used a set of spectrum compatible motions
for nonlinear dynamic analysis of concrete bridges.
To minimize the distortion, the seven ground
motions were chosen from the PEER database (2011) to
best match with the targeted spectra and modified using
wavelet-based spectral matching procedure (Mukherjee
and Gupta, 2002; Hancock et al., 2008) to fine tune with
the ASCE 7-10 site class B spectra. Table 3 presents the
details of the original ground motions used for spectrum
compatibilization. Adhikary et al. (2014) have shown
that although the response spectra for the two types of
ground motions (recorded and spectrum compatible)
are significantly different, there is a good match in the
corresponding amplification factors.
The ground motions obtained for the sixteen strata
(four depth and for the four sites, viz., KGWH02, La
Cienega, Lotung and Treasure Island), have been used
to obtain constant ductility spectra, using the software
“BISPEC” (Hachem, 2004). Seven spectrum compatible

Table 3 Earthquake ground motions made compatible with the ASCE 7-10 site class ‘B’ spectrum
NGA Event Station Date Ms VS,30 (m/sec) Comp.
For EPGARO = 0.05 g
788 Loma Prieta Piedmont Jr high (CDMG station 58338) 10/18/89 6.93 895.4 045
315
797 Loma Prieta Rincon hill, 000 (CDMG station 58151) 10/18/89 6.93 873.1 000
090
804 Loma Prieta So. San Francisco, Seirra pt. 10/18/89 6.93 1020.6 115
(CDMG station 58539) 205
946 Northridge Antelope buttes, (CDMG station 24310) 1/17/94 6.69 821.7 000
For EPGARO = 0.36 g
284 Irpinia, Italy Auletta 11/23/80 6.9 1000 000
270
285 Irpinia, Italy Bagnoli Irpino 11/23/80 6.9 1000 000
270
797 Loma Prieta Rincon hill, 000 (CDMG station 58151) 10/18/89 6.93 873.1 000
090
1021 Northridge Lake Hughes #4 - Camp Mendenhall 1/17/94 6.69 821.7 000
542 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION
rock outcrop motions corresponding to each EPGARO
(0.05 g and 0.36 g), two hysteresis models (the bilinear
and the stiffness degrading modified Clough models),
for four different ductility levels (μ = 2, 4, 6, and 8) with
5% material damping and post-yield stiffness ratio α =
0.05, have been used. The total damping for an inelastic
system consists of material and hysteretic damping.
Identical material (or viscous) damping equal to 5%
has been considered for all the systems, whereas the
hysteretic damping is inherently taken into consideration
through the nonlinear time history analysis by using the
bilinear and the stiffness-degrading modified Clough
hysteresis models. In the bilinear model, the stiffness and
yield strength remain constant under the cyclic loading
and do not show any degradation or deterioration. The
elasto-plastic model is a special case of Bilinear model
in which the post-yield stiffness ratio α is considered
as zero. In the stiffness-degrading modified Clough
model, stiffness degradation is an important parameter,
which represents the behaviour of reinforced concrete
structures. The reduction in unloading stiffness Kr with
displacement is in the form of the expression:

D  of the displacement ductility ratio, μ, and site class. For
Kr  Ky  m 
D
 y  m/sec (firm sites), the values of coefficients C1 and C2
where β is the unloading stiffness degradation parameter,
Ky is the initial elastic stiffness, and Dm is the previous
maximum displacement. In total, 224 cases of ground
response analysis and 1904 cases of structural response
(constant ductility spectra) analysis have been performed.
5.2 Non-dimensional parameters
Two non-dimensional parameters have been
defined in the present study to quantify the inelastic
site amplification effects. The first parameter, termed as
inelastic site amplification factor, Fμ, is defined as the
ratio of the inelastic spectral displacement at site to the
inelastic spectral displacement at rock outcrop, for a
given initial (elastic) period, Ti.
Sdsite (Ti ,  )
F = (10)
Sdro (Ti ,  )
This parameter is analogous to the site amplification
factors used in codes, with a difference that it is defined
for inelastic response (for given ductility demand,
μ), whereas the amplification factors in codes are for
elastic response. The second parameter, inelastic site
amplification ratio, Aμ , is defined as the ratio of the
inelastic spectral displacement at site to the elastic
spectral displacement at rock outcrop, for a given initial
(elastic) period, Ti.
Sdsite (Ti ,  ) (11)
A = ro
Sd (Ti ,  = 1)
Vol. 18
This parameter can be used to obtain the inelastic
response of the structure with a given ductility demand,
directly from the elastic design spectrum. It can be seen
that the inelastic site amplification ratio, Aμ, represents
the combined effect of the conventional elastic site
amplification factors F (= Fμ , for μ = 1) and inelastic
displacement ratio, Cμ.
A = F C (12)
where Cμ is defined (Miranda, 2000; Ruiz-Garcia and
Miranda, 2004) as the ratio of the inelastic spectral
displacement to the elastic spectral displacement, for a
given initial period, Ti. It is conventionally used to obtain
the inelastic response of the structure from the elastic
design response spectrum of the codes. The Miranda
(2000) model for Cμ is given as
  1    C1 Ti   C2  
1
C = 1    1 e  (13)
   
where the coefficients C1 and C2 are defined as functions
sites with average shear wave velocity higher than 180
provided by Miranda (2000) are 12 and 0.8, respectively.
For soft soil sites, as referred to in Ruiz-Garcia and
Miranda (2004), the inelastic displacement ratio Cμ is a
function of ductility level μ, the normalized period (T/Tg),
and the various constants such as θ1, θ2, θ3, which depend
on the hysteretic behaviour of the system and the ground
motion ensembles considered in their study.
5.3 Results and discussion
Table 4 presents a comparison of the values of
effective periods estimated using the four models
described earlier. In the case of the FEMA 440 model, the
effective periods have been estimated for two hysteresis
types – Bilinear (BL), and Stiffness Degrading (SD) –
with a constant post-yield stiffness ratio, α = 0.05. It can
be observed from the table that the secant period (obtained
from Rosenblueth and Herrera model) is much longer
as compared to the effective periods obtained from the
other three models, which result in closer estimates for
low ductility demand (μ = 2, 4), but for larger values of
ductility demand, the Iwan (1980) model results in much
lower values. The FEMA 440 and Kwan and Billington
(2003) models result in close estimates for all the
values of ductility demand. Further, the effective period
depends significantly on the hysteresis type considered
in the analysis, and this may be one of the reasons for the
differences observed in different models. As the FEMA
440 model is based on a rigorous statistical analysis and
considers different values of α and different hysteresis
types, the same has been considered in the present study
for further investigation.
No. 3 Adhikary S et al.: Effect of site amplification on inelastic seismic response
Table 4 Comparison of effective periods estimated by different models
Models Considered μ=2
BL SD
FEMA 440 (α = 0.05) 1.09 1.14
Iwan (1980) 1.12
Kwan and Billington (2003) 1.13
Rosenblueth and Herrera (1964) 1.38
(Secant period)
Note: BL - Bilinear hysteresis, SD - Stiffness degrading hysteresis
Table 2 shows a comparison of effective period of
the site (Ts,eff) with the fundamental site period, T0 as
calculated from Eq. 1, for the sites of varying depth and
subjected to motions with varying EPGARO. For low
amplitude motions (EPGARO = 0.05 g), Ts,eff is usually
close to the fundamental site period, except in some cases,
where participation of higher modes in site response
is higher or comparable with that of the fundamental
mode. This happens in the case of soil strata having
sharp impedance contrast at an intermediate or shallow
level. For example, in the case of the La Cienega site,
there is a sharp impedance contrast at a depth of 60.7 m.
As a result of this impedance contrast, the second mode
of vibration in the case of 251.5 m deep strata, which has
the same period as the first mode of vibration in the case
of the 60.7 m deep strata, dominates the site response.
For stronger motions (EPGARO= 0.36 g), Ts,eff elongates
away from T0, illustrating the effect of soil nonlinearity
on the effective site period.
Figures 2-5 show the mean inelastic (arithmetic
mean for the seven spectrum compatible time histories)
site amplification factor Fμ for the sixteen strata, as
functions of the initial period (Ti) and also as a function
of normalised effective period (Teff/Ts,eff), for the two
levels of EPGARO (=0.05 g and 0.36 g). As mentioned
before, the Fμ plot has been developed for different
ductility levels (μ =1, 2, 4, 6, and 8) for both bilinear
and stiffness degrading hysteresis types, however, only
the results for the stiffness degrading hysteresis type are
presented here for brevity. Results for bilinear hysteresis
type are similar and available in Adhikary (2014). The
inelastic site amplification factor plots show distinct
peaks close to the effective site period, which elongates
with increasing depth of bedrock and EPGARO. However,
with increase in the ductility demand, the peak in the
Fμ plot diminishes and shifts towards the left (shorter
period). Due to frequency tuning between the site and
the structure (represented by equivalent single degree
of freedom oscillator in response spectrum), the peak
amplification occurs when the effective period of site,
Ts,eff, coincides with effective period of the structure
Teff. As the ductility demand on the structure increases,
the Teff corresponding to a given Ti elongates, and as a
result, the peak in Fμ vs. Ti plot shifts towards the left.
543
Teff/Ti
μ=4 μ=6 μ=8
BL SD BL SD BL SD
1.51 1.63 1.79 1.95 2.07 2.21
1.34 1.54 1.75
1.60 1.95 2.26
1.86 2.19 2.43
It is interesting to observe that when plotted against
normalised effective period, the peaks in all the plots of
Fμ converge to Teff/Ts,eff close to unity. This demonstrates
that the FEMA 440 relationships are reasonably accurate
to estimate the effective period of inelastic structures, and
the site amplification effects in inelastic response have
good correlation with the normalized effective period
(Teff/Ts,eff), which can serve as a basis for development
of future site amplification models. Here, amplification
ratios for La Cienega site with 251.5 m strata and for
Lotung site with 200 m deep strata, need some closer
examination. These deep strata have sharp impedance
contrasts at intermediate levels (at 60.7 m and 29.4 m,
respectively). As a result, contribution of higher modes
is quite significant in these cases and the peak in the Fμ
curve is not visible as prominently as in other cases. (In
the case of the La Cienega site, the peaks corresponding
to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th modes are even higher than that
corresponding to the fundamental mode).
It is observed from Figures 2-5 that the effect of
ductility demand on site amplification is more significant
for Teff/Ts,eff close to unity, whereas, the effect of ductility
is much smaller for Teff/Ts,eff >1.5. Another interesting
observation is that plots of Fμ vs. Teff/Ts,eff for different
ductility demands intersect at Teff/Ts,eff close to 0.7 and 1.5,
in almost all the cases, indicating a reversal in the trend
of variation with ductility demand, in different period
ranges. In the range 0.7< Teff/Ts,eff <1.5, Fμ decreases with
increased ductility demand, whereas outside this range,
Fμ increases with ductility demand.
Table 5 presents the peak inelastic site amplification
factor (Fμmax) and corresponding period (Tpeak) for all the
strata described in Table 2. It can be observed from the
Table that the peak inelastic site amplification factor
reduces with increase in ductility demand for all the
strata and both the values of EPGARO. Similarly, the
peak inelastic site amplification factor also reduces
with increased EPGARO for all the strata and ductility
demands. As expected, the period corresponding to
peak inelastic site amplification factor increases with
depth, except in the case of the last two strata of the
La Cienega site. The periods corresponding to the peak
amplification for these two strata match for μ = 1 but
differ for higher ductility demands. As higher modes
544 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol. 18

Table 5 Peak mean inelastic site amplification factor, Fμ and corresponding period, Tpeak, for different sites
considered in the present study

Site H (m) EPGARO (g) μ=1 μ =2 μ=4 μ=6 μ=8

Tpeak Fμmax Tpeak Fμmax Tpeak Fμmax Tpeak Fμmax Tpeak Fμmax
KGWH02 9 0.05 0.28 4.42 0.24 3.21 0.19 2.88 0.15 2.63 0.14 2.53
0.36 0.57 2.86 0.53 2.47 0.47 1.95 0.3 1.83 0.35 1.8
29 0.05 0.55 5.13 0.49 3.92 0.33 3.08 0.25 2.96 0.22 2.89
0.36 0.92 3.38 0.74 3.01 0.51 2.65 0.44 2.47 0.41 2.4
56 0.05 0.87 4.56 0.74 3.83 0.55 3.39 0.44 3.08 0.37 2.97
0.36 1.21 3.92 1.23 3.36 0.9 2.79 0.79 2.7 0.56 2.65
200 0.05 0.89 4.67 0.74 3.98 0.55 3.58 0.48 3.29 0.36 3.17
0.36 1.33 4.01 1.22 3.63 0.9 2.94 0.71 2.85 0.62 2.76
La Cienega 9.9 0.05 0.2 3.01 0.17 2.49 0.15 2.23 0.05 2.16 0.05 2.16
0.36 0.27 2.68 0.24 2.21 0.18 2.02 0.15 1.94 0.13 1.91
29.4 0.05 0.4 2.68 0.32 2.31 0.19 2.09 0.15 2.05 0.2 2.01
0.36 0.57 2.55 0.52 2.43 0.47 1.9 0.37 1.83 0.34 1.83
60.7 0.05 0.63 2.31 0.53 2.2 0.19 2 0.18 1.93 0.1 1.89
0.36 0.79 2.28 0.71 2.19 0.47 2 0.39 1.87 0.34 1.86
251.5 0.05 0.63 1.97 0.56 1.86 0.22 1.8 0.2 1.8 0.19 1.76
0.36 0.79 1.87 0.67 1.76 0.5 1.67 0.67 1.72 0.54 1.73
Lotung 9 0.05 0.28 2.82 0.25 2.43 0.19 2.21 0.15 2.02 0.14 1.95
0.36 0.55 2.27 0.52 2.01 0.34 1.73 0.27 1.67 0.34 1.65
29.4 0.05 0.66 2.78 0.55 2.58 0.47 2.1 0.39 2.02 0.35 1.99
0.36 0.66 2.78 0.55 2.58 0.47 2.1 0.39 2.02 0.35 1.99
59.6 0.05 1.11 2.36 1.09 2.33 1.07 2.14 0.92 2 0.85 1.95
0.36 1.65 2.13 1.66 2.04 1.38 1.94 1.38 1.81 1.26 1.78
200 0.05 4.25 2.17 4.63 1.99 3.91 2.06 3.67 2 3.35 2.1
0.36 5.99 2 5.57 2.02 4.53 1.81 4.83 1.76 4.25 1.78
Treasure Island 11 0.05 0.34 3.6 0.29 3.09 0.19 2.86 0.18 2.73 0.15 2.62
0.36 0.66 2.65 0.53 2.42 0.47 2.05 0.43 1.95 0.35 1.93
28 0.05 0.69 3.7 0.56 3.31 0.48 2.77 0.41 2.65 0.31 2.6
0.36 1.21 2.76 1.22 2.57 0.91 2.03 0.79 2.03 0.56 1.99
88 0.05 1.45 3.38 1.1 3.3 1.08 2.81 0.73 2.72 0.64 2.66
0.36 1.65 2.91 1.63 2.58 1.39 2.48 1.33 2.33 1.26 2.24
200 0.05 2.56 2.6 2.08 2.6 1.52 2.37 1.24 2.44 0.97 2.43
0.36 3.92 2.1 3.19 1.79 2.76 1.84 2.35 1.8 2.09 1.75

contribute significantly in the case of the 251.5 m deep
strata, several peaks of more or less the same amplitude
are observed in this case, and the curve is rather flat for
higher ductility demands. In such a case, identifying the
period corresponding to Fμmax becomes difficult and is
not very reliable.
As discussed earlier, conventionally, the effect of site
amplification is considered through multiplication factors
applied on the elastic response spectrum. Adequacy of
the site amplification model (site coefficients Fa and Fv)
of ASCE 7-10, and SAPE, for estimation of inelastic
response has been examined by studying the inelastic
site amplification ratio Aμ, obtained as a product of
(elastic) site amplification factor, F, and inelastic
displacement ratio, Cμ, and compared with the results of
the numerical study. For estimating Aμ using SAPE, and
ASCE 7-10, the Miranda (2000) model for Cμ has been
considered. Adhikary et al. (2014) observed that SAPEf
0
results in amplification factors closer to those obtained
numerically, as compared to SAPEVs,30,f for the selected
0
No. 3 Adhikary S et al.: Effect of site amplification on inelastic seismic response 545

Ti (sec) Teff/ Ts,eff Ti (sec) Teff/ Ts,eff

Ti (sec) Teff/ Ts,eff Ti (sec) Teff/ Ts,eff

Ti (sec) Teff/ Ts,eff Ti (sec) Teff/ Ts,eff

Ti (sec) Teff/ Ts,eff Ti (sec) Teff/ Ts,eff

Fig. 2 Mean inelastic site amplification factor, Fμ plotted against initial period, Ti and normalised effective period, Teff/Ts,eff for
KGWH02 site. The first two columns correspond to the EPGARO equal 0.05 g and the last two for 0.36 g. The four
rows correspond to the four depths of strata, i.e. 9 m, 29 m, 56 m, and 200 m, respectively

Ti (sec) Teff/ Ts,eff Ti (sec) Teff/ Ts,eff

Ti (sec) Teff/ Ts,eff Ti (sec) Teff/ Ts,eff

Ti (sec) Teff/ Ts,eff Ti (sec) Teff/ Ts,eff

Ti (sec) Teff/ Ts,eff Ti (sec) Teff/ Ts,eff

Fig. 3 Mean inelastic site amplification factor, Fμ plotted against initial period, Ti and normalised effective period, Teff/Ts,eff for
La Cienega site. The first two columns correspond to the EPGARO equal 0.05 g and the last two for 0.36 g. The four
rows correspond to the four depths of strata, i.e. 9.9 m, 29.4 m, 60.7 m, and 251.5 m, respectively
546 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol. 18

Ti (sec) Teff/ Ts,eff Ti (sec) Teff/ Ts,eff

Ti (sec) Teff/ Ts,eff Ti (sec) Teff/ Ts,eff

Ti (sec) Teff/ Ts,eff Ti (sec) Teff/ Ts,eff

Ti (sec) Teff/ Ts,eff Ti (sec) Teff/ Ts,eff

Fig. 4 Mean inelastic site amplification factor, Fμ plotted against initial period, Ti and normalised effective period, Teff/Ts,eff for
Lotung site. The first two columns correspond to the EPGARO equal 0.05 g and the last two for 0.36 g. The four
rows correspond to the four depths of strata, i.e. 9 m, 29.4 m, 59.6 m and 200 m, respectively

Ti (sec) Teff/ Ts,eff Ti (sec) Teff/ Ts,eff

Ti (sec) Teff/ Ts,eff Ti (sec) Teff/ Ts,eff

Ti (sec) Teff/ Ts,eff Ti (sec) Teff/ Ts,eff

Ti (sec) Teff/ Ts,eff Ti (sec) Teff/ Ts,eff

Fig. 5 Mean inelastic site amplification factor, Fμ plotted against initial period, Ti and normalised effective period, Teff/Ts,eff for
Treasure Island site. The first two columns correspond to the EPGARO equal 0.05 g and the last two for 0.36 g. The four
rows correspond to the four depths of strata, i.e. 11 m, 28 m, 88 m, and 200 m, respectively
No. 3 Adhikary S et al.: Effect of site amplification on inelastic seismic response 547

sites, and therefore, only SAPEf has been considered for
0
the present comparison.
Figures 6-9 compare the amplification ratio Aμ,
obtained from ASCE 7-10 and SAPE models, with those
obtained numerically, for all the considered strata and two
values of EPGARO (=0.05 g and 0.36 g). The numerical
results shown in the figure have been obtained using
stiffness-degrading modified Clough hysteresis model.

Ti (sec) Ti (sec)

Ti (sec) Ti (sec)

Ti (sec) Ti (sec)

Ti (sec) Ti (sec)

Fig. 6 Mean inelastic site amplification ratios for the KGWH02 site, obtained numerically, using the ASCE 7-10 amplification
factors, and from SAPE for varying ductility and EPGARO equal 0.05 g (left bin) and 0.36 g (right bin). The four rows
correspond to the four depths of strata, i.e. 9 m, 29 m, 56 m and 200 m, respectively
548 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol. 18

Ti (sec) Ti (sec)

Ti (sec) Ti (sec)

Ti (sec) Ti (sec)

Ti (sec) Ti (sec)

Fig. 7 Mean inelastic site amplification ratios for the La Cienega site, obtained numerically, using the ASCE 7-10 amplification
factors, and from SAPE for varying ductility and EPGARO equal 0.05 g (left bin) and 0.36 g (right bin). The four rows
correspond to the four depths of strata, i.e. 9.9 m, 29.4 m, 60.7 m, and 251.5 m, respectively

It can be observed from the figure that there is a sharp increasing ductility demand. As a result, the numerically
peak in the elastic amplification ratio, corresponding to obtained amplification ratios for μ = 1 are significantly
the effective site period, which diminishes rapidly with higher than the site coefficients specified in ASCE 7-10
No. 3 Adhikary S et al.: Effect of site amplification on inelastic seismic response 549

Ti (sec) Ti (sec)

Ti (sec) Ti (sec)

Ti (sec) Ti (sec)

Ti (sec) Ti (sec)

Fig. 8 Mean inelastic site amplification ratios for the Lotung site, obtained numerically, using the ASCE 7-10 amplification factors,
and from SAPE for varying ductility and EPGARO equal 0.05 g (left bin) and 0.36 g (right bin). The four rows
correspond to the four depths of strata, i.e. 9 m, 29.4 m, 59.6 m and 200 m, respectively

in the vicinity of effective site period, but the difference numerical results follow a pattern similar to the SAPE
diminishes rapidly with increasing ductility demand. For model, but for other sites and higher EPGARO (=0.36 g)
the KGWH02 site subjected to EPGARO = 0.05 g, the the difference increases significantly. One of the reasons
550 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol. 18

Ti (sec) Ti (sec)

Ti (sec) Ti (sec)

Ti (sec) Ti (sec)

Ti (sec) Ti (sec)

Fig. 9 Mean inelastic site amplification ratios for the Treasure Island site, obtained numerically, using the ASCE 7-10 amplification
factors, and from SAPE for varying ductility and EPGARO equal 0.05 g (left bin) and 0.36 g (right bin). The four
rows correspond to the four depths of strata, i.e. 11 m, 28 m, 88 m, and 200 m, respectively

for this difference may be due to the ground motion (only 3% of data with PGA beyond 0.1 g)”. Whereas, the
database in the SAPE model (as indicated by Cadet et larger difference for other sites indicates high variability
al. 2012 b) being “dominated by moderate motion data of the site amplification effects with the local site (soil
No. 3 Adhikary S et al.: Effect of site amplification on inelastic seismic response
strata) characteristics.
Further, due to high values of Cμ in the short period
range (Figure 1), Aμ is overshadowed by the inelastic
effects in the structure, and the effect of frequency
tuning between the site and structure is not visible as
prominently as in the case of Fμ. In the short period
range, the value of Aμ increases rapidly with decreasing
periods, and it is difficult to clearly identify a peak
corresponding to effective site period.
6 Conclusions
The effect of site amplification on inelastic seismic
response of structures has been examined using a
numerical study. A suite of spectrum-compatible ground
motions was used to obtain response of 16 soil strata at
four well defined sites. The main focus of the study was
the phenomenon of frequency tuning between the soil
and the structure. For this purpose, different definitions of
characteristic periods of site and structure were examined
with due consideration to their nonlinear behavior. It is
widely recognized in the literature that nonlinearity has
significant effect in both soil as well as structure, and
the effective periods of both elongate with the intensity
of shaking. Further, a higher mode may dominate the
response of a site having sharp impedance contrast at
an intermediate level. Accordingly, the effective period
of a soil site has been chosen as the one corresponding
to the peak site to rock-outcrop spectral ratio, as it
takes into account the effects of soil nonlinearity as
well as the possibility of a higher mode dominating the
site response. In the case of structure (inelastic SDOF
oscillator) the effective period proposed in FEMA 440
has been used. Although, it was originally conceived
with a slightly different purpose (for minimization of
error in equivalent linearization method of estimating
inelastic response), the present study shows that it
serves well as the characteristic period to represent the
frequency tuning between site and structure. For low
amplitude motions (EPGARO=0.05 g), the effective site
period Ts,eff is quite close to the fundamental period,
T0, approximated as four times the average shear wave
travel time from bedrock ground surface, whereas for
stronger motions (EPGARO= 0.36 g), Ts,eff is much longer
than T0, illustrating the effect of soil nonlinearity on the
effective site period.
To study the site amplification effects, two non-
dimensional parameters, Fμ and Aμ have been defined.
The effect of frequency tuning between the site and
structure is visible in both the parameters, which
show a peak corresponding to the normalised effective
period, Teff/Ts,eff. However, Fμ is able to represent the
site amplification effects in inelastic structural response
more clearly than Aμ, which is overshadowed by the large
effects of structure inelasticity in the short period range.
Due to frequency tuning between the site and the
structure, in the vicinity of effective site period, the
elastic amplification ratios obtained in the present study
551
are significantly higher than those obtained using ASCE
7-10 site coefficients. However, the difference reduces
rapidly with increasing ductility demand. An elastic
oscillator having period close to the effective period of
a site is in a ‘quasi-resonance’ condition with the site,
resulting in a sharp peak in the elastic response spectrum
corresponding to the effective site period.
On the other hand, period of an inelastic oscillator
varies in a range between the initial and secant periods,
“depressing” (in words of Gazetas, 2012) the resonance.
This variance is manifested in terms of a gradual
flattening of peak in the inelastic response spectra with
increasing ductility, and a corresponding dip in the
inelastic displacement ratio.
The results of the present study for the KGWH02 site
subjected to low seismic intensity (EPGARO= 0.05 g) are close
to those of the SAPE model and follow a similar trend,
whereas the difference increases for the other sites and
higher values of EPGARO. To draw definitive conclusions
about the adequacy of current code provisions about site
amplification, the present study needs to be supported
by more results, including empirical studies. The study,
however, clearly demonstrates the role of frequency
tuning and ductility demand in the site amplification
effects in inelastic structural response.
References
Adhikary S (2014), “Effect of Soil Conditions on the
Seismic Response of Structures,” Ph.D. Dissertation,
Department of Earthquake Engineering, Indian Institutre
of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, India.
Adhikary S, Singh Y and Paul DK (2014), “Effect of Soil
Depth on Inelastic Seismic Response of Structures”, Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 61: 13–28.
ASCE 7-10, (2010), Minimum Design Loads for
Buildings and other Structures, American Society of
Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
Assimaki D, Li W and Fragiadakis M (2012), “Site
Effects in Structural Response Predictions of Inelastic
SDOF Oscillators,” Earthquake Spectra, 28(3): 859–
883.
ATC 40 (1996), Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of
Concrete Buildings, Applied Technology Council,
Redwood city, California, USA.
Athanassiadou C J, Karakostas CZ, Margaris BN
and Kappos AJ (2011), “Displacement Spectra and
Displacement Modification Factors, Based on Records
from Greece,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, 31(12): 1640–1653.
Bardet JP and 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 Angeles, CA, USA.
Bardet JP, Ichii K and Lin CH (2000), “EERA: A
552 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION
Computer Program for Equivalent-Linear Earthquake
Site Response Analyses of Layered Soil Deposits,”
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Southern
California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Cadet H, Bard PY and Rodriguez-Marek A (2012a),
“Site Effect Assessment Using KiK-Net Data: Part 1.
A Simple Correction Procedure for Surface/Downhole
Spectral Ratios”, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering,
10(2): 421–448.
Cadet H, Bard PY, Duval AM and Bertrand E (2012b),
“Site Effect Assessment Using KiK-Net Data: Part 2-Site
Amplification Prediction Equation Based on f0 and Vsz,”
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 10(2): 451–489.
Chenari RJ and Bostani Taleshani SA (2016), “Site
Response of Heterogeneous Natural Deposits to
Harmonic Excitation Applied to more than 100 Case
Histories,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering
Vibration, 15: 341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-
016-0326-0.
Darendeli M (2001) “Development of a New Family of
Normalized Modulus Reduction and Material Damping
Curves,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Texas, Austin.
Dickenson SA (1994), “The Dynamic Response of
Soft and Deep Cohesive Soils During the Loma Prieta
Earthquake of October 17, 1989,” Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of California, Berkeley.
Dobry R, Oweis I and Urzua A (1976), “Simplified
Procedures for Estimating the Fundamental Period of
a Soil Profile,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America, 66(4): 1293–1321.
Dwairi HM, Kowalsky MJ and Nau JM (2007),
“Equivalent Damping in Support of Direct Displacement-
Based Design,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering,
11(4): 512–530.
Ergun M and Ates S (2014), “Comparing of the Effects
of Scaled and Real Earthquake Records on Structural
Response,” Earthquakes and Structures, 6(4): 375–392.
Eser M and Aydemir C (2011), “The Effect of Soil-
Structure Interaction on Inelastic Displacement
Ratio of Structures,” Structural Engineering and
Mechanics, 39(5): 683–701.
FEMA 273 (1997), NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic
Rehabilitation of Buildings, Federal Emergency
Management Agency ,Washington, D.C., USA.
FEMA 356 (2000), Prestanard and Commentary for the
Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Federal Emergency
Management Agency,Washington, D.C., USA.
FEMA 440 (2005), Improvement of Nonlinear Static
Seismic Analysis Procedures, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington, D.C., USA.
Gazetas G (2006), “Seismic Design of Foundations
and Soil-Structure Interaction,”, Proceedings of the 1st
European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and
Seismology, Paper no. K7.
Vol. 18
Gazetas G (2012) “Some Presumptions on the Nature of
Base Excitation May Erroneously Affect the Response
of Strongly Inelastic Systems”, Proceedings of the 15th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Sept.
24–28, Lisbon, Paper No. 69.
Ghofrani H, Atkinson GM and Goda K (2013),
“Implications of the 2011 M9.0 Tohoku Japan Earthquake
for the Treatment of Site Effects in Large Earthquakes,”
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 11(1): 171–203.
Gkatzogias KI and Kappos AJ (2015), “Deformation-
Based Seismic Design of Concrete Bridges,”
Earthquakes and Structures, 9(5): 1045–1067.
Grant DN, Blandon CA Priestley MJN (2005),
Modelling Inelastic Response in Direct Displacement-
Based Design, Report 2005/03, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy,
p. 104.
Gulkan P and Sozen MA (1974), “Inelastic Responses of
Reinforced Concrete Structure to Earthquake Motions”,
ACI Journal Proceedings (71: ACI).
Hachem MM (2004), “BISPEC: Interactive Software
for the Computation of Unidirectional and Bidirectional
Nonlinear Earthquake Spectra,” (ASCE).
Hancock J, Bommer JJ and Stafford P J (2008), “Numbers
of Scaled and Matched Accelerograms Required for
Inelastic Dynamic Analyses,” Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics, 37(14):1585–1607.
Hashash YMA, Groholski DR, Phillips CA, Park D and
Musgrove M (2011), DEEPSOIL 4.0, User manual and
tutorial.
Idriss IM and Seed HB (1968), “Seismic Response of
Horizontal Soil Layers,” Journal of the Soil Mechanics
and Foundations Division, ASCE, 94(SM4): 1003–1031.
Idriss IM and Sun JI (1992), “SHAKE91: A Computer
Program for Conducting Equivalent Linear Seismic
Response Analyses of Horizontally Layered Soil
Deposits,” User’s Guide, University of California,
Davis, California, pp.13.
Iwan WD (1980), “Estimating Inelastic Response
Spectra from Elastic Spectra,” Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics, 8(4): 375–388.
Jakka R S, Hussain M, and Sharma M L (2015), “Effects
on Amplification of Strong Ground Motion Due to Deep
Soils”, Geomechanics and Engineering, 8(5): 663–674.
Kramer SL (1996), Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering, Pearson Education, Indian LPE, New
Delhi.
Kowalsky MJ (1994), “Displacement-Based Design-a
Methodology for Seismic Design Applied to RC Bridge
Columns,” Master’s Thesis, University of California at
San Diego, La Jolla, California.
Kwan WP and Billington SL (2003), “Influence
of Hysteretic Behavior on Equivalent Period and
Damping of Structural Systems,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, 129(5): 576–585.
Lermo J and Chávez-García FJ (1993), “Site Effect
No. 3 Adhikary S et al.: Effect of site amplification on inelastic seismic response
Evaluation Using Spectral Ratios with Only One
Station,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America, 83(5): 1574–1594.
Lopez F (2002), “Does Liquefaction Protect Overlying
Structures from Ground Shaking?” M.Sc. Dissertation,
European School of Advanced Studies in Reduction of
Seismic Risk, Rose School, p.105.
Miranda E (1993), “Site-Dependent Strength-Reduction
Factors,” Journal of Structural Engineering, 119(12):
3503–3519.
Miranda E (2000), “Inelastic Displacement Ratios
for Structures on Firm Sites,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, 126(10): 1150-1159.
Miranda E and Bertero VV (1991), “Evaluation of
Structural Response Factors Using Ground Motions
Recorded during the Loma Prieta Earthquake,”
CSMIP-1991.
Miranda E and Ruiz-Garcia J (2002), “Influence of
Stiffness Degradation on Strength Demands of Structures
Built on Soft Soil Sites,” Engineering Structures, 24(10):
1271–1281.
Mollaioli F and Bruno S (2008), “Influence of Site
Effects on Inelastic Displacement Ratios for SDOF and
MDOF Systems,” Computers and Mathematics with
Applications, 55(2): 184–207.
Mukherjee S and Gupta VK (2002), “Wavelet-Based
Generation of Spectrum-Compatible Time-histories”,
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 22(9):
799–804.
Mylonakis G and Gazetas G (2000), “Seismic Soil-
Structure Interaction: Beneficial or Detrimental?”
Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 4(3): 277–301.
Nakamura Y (1989), A Method for Dynamic
Characteristics Estimation of Subsurface Using
Microtremor on the Ground Surface, Railway Technical
Research Institute, Quarterly Reports.
Newmark NM and Hall WJ(1982), Earthquake Spectra
and Design, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute,
Berkeley, CA, 1982.
Pavel F, Vacareanu R and Lungu D (2013), “Bi-
Normalized Response Spectra for Various Frequency
Content Ground Motions,” Journal of Earthquake
Engineering, 18(2): 264–289.
Pavel F, Vacareanu R, Neagu C and Andrei P
(2014), “Bi-Normalized Response Spectra and
Seismic Intensity in Bucharest for 1986 and 1990
Vrancea Seismic Events,” Earthquake Engineering
and Engineering Vibration, 13: 125. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11803-014-0217-1.
PGMD. PEER Ground Motion Database (BETA version
as on October 10, 2011) (http://peer.berkeley.edu/peer_
ground_motion_database); 2011.
Priestley MJN, Calvi GM and Kowalsky MJ (2007),
Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures, IUSS
Press, Pavia, Italy.
553
Regnier J, Cadet H, Bonilla LF, Bertrand E and Semblat
JF (2013), “Assessing Nonlinear Behavior of Soils in
Seismic Site Response: Statistical Analysis on KiK-
net Strong-Motion Data,” Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America, 103(3): 1750–1770.
Rosenblueth E and Herrera I (1964), “On a Kind of
Hysteretic Damping,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics
Division ASCE, 90: 37–48.
Ruiz-Garcia J and Miranda E (2004) “Inelastic
Displacement Ratios for Design of Structures on Soft
Soils Sites,” Journal of Structural Engineering-ASCE,
130(12): 2051-2061.
Sahin A (2015a), “Dynamic Simulation Models for
Seismic Behavior of Soil Systems-Part I: Block
Diagrams,” Geomechanics and Engineering, 9(2): 145–
167.
Sahin, A (2015b), “Dynamic Simulation Models for
Seismic Behavior of Soil Systems-Part II: Solution
Algorithm and Numerical Applications,” Geomechanics
and Engineering, 9(2): 169–193.
Schnabel PB, Lysmer J and Seed HB (1972) “SHAKE:
A Computer Program for Earthquake Response Analysis
of Horizontally Layered Sites,” Report No. EERC 72-12,
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California, Berkeley, California.
Seed HB and Idriss IM (1970), “Soil Moduli and
Damping Factors for Dynamic Response Analyses.”
Report No. EERC 70-10, Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, University of California, Berkeley,
California, pp.40.
Seed HB, Romo MP, Sun JI, Jaime A and Lysmer J
(1988), “The Mexico Earthquake of September 19,
1985—Relationships Between Soil Conditions and
Earthquake Ground Motions,” Earthquake Spectra,
4(4): 687–729.
Seed HB, Ugas C and Lysmer J (1976), “Site-Dependent
Spectra for Earthquake-Resistant Design, Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America, 66: 221–243.
Steidl JH, Tumarkin AG and Archuleta RJ (1996),
“What is a Reference Site?” Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America, 86(6): 1733–1748.
Stewart JP and Center, Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research (2008), Benchmarking of Nonlinear
Geotechnical Ground Response Analysis Procedures,
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
Sullivan TJ, Calvi GM and Priestley MJN (2004), “Initial
Stiffness Versus Secant Stiffness in Displacement Based
Design,” Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, 1–6.
Tavakoli HR, Amiri MT, Abdollahzade G, and Janalizade
A (2016), “Site Effect Microzonation of Babol, Iran,”
Geomechanics and Engineering, 11(6): 821–845.
Trifunac MD and Brady AG (1976), “Correlations of
Peak Acceleration, Velocity and Displacement with
Earthquake Magnitude, Distance and Site Conditions,”
554 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 4(5):
455–471.
Veletsos AS and Newmark NM (1960), “Effect of
Inelastic Behavior on the Response of Simple Systems
to Earthquake Motions,” Proceedings of the 2nd World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 2: 895–912,
Tokyo, Japan.
Veletsos AS, Newmark NM and Chelapati CV (1965),
“Deformation Spectra for Elastic and Elastoplastic
Systems Subjected to Ground Shock and Earthquake
Motions,” Proceedings of the 3rd World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, 2: 663–682, New Zealand.
Vijayendra KV, Prasad SK and Nayak S (2010),
“Computation of Fundamental Period of Soil
Deposit: A Comparative Study,” Oxford, UK, Second
Edition, Indian Geotechnical Conference, December
16–18.
Xu L and Xie L (2004), “Bi-Normalized Response
Spectral Characteristics of the 1999 Chi-Chi
Earthquake,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering
Vibration, 3(2): 147–155.
Vol. 18
Zeghal M, Elgamal AW, Tang HT and Stepp JC
(1995), “Lotung Downhole Array, II: Evaluation of
Soil Nonlinear Properties,” Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 121(4): 363–378.
Zhao JX, Irikura K, Zhang J, Fukushima Y, Somerville
PG, Asano A et al. (2006), “An Empirical Site-
Classification Method for Strong-Motion Stations in
Japan using H/V Response Spectral Ratio,” Bulletin of
the Seismological Society of America, 96(3): 914–925.
Zhai C, Li S, Xie L and Sun Y (2007), “Study on Inelastic
Displacement Ratio Spectra for Near-Fault Pulse-
Type Ground Motions,” Earthquake Engineering and
Engineering Vibration, 6: 351. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11803-007-0755-x.
Ziotopoulou A and Gazetas G (2009), Non-Linear
Seismic Response Analysis of Soil Deposits and Piles and
Proposed Unique Bi-Normalized Spectrum, Research
Report LSM, NTUA-09-01.
Ziotopoulou A and Gazetas G (2010), “Are Current
Design Spectra Sufficient for Soil-Structure Systems
on Soft Soils?” Advances in Performance-Based
Earthquake Engineering (Springer), 79–87.