1 

CHAPTER C21 SITE-SPECIFIC GROUND MOTION PROCEDURES FOR SEISMIC

2  DESIGN

3  C21.0 GENERAL

4  Site-specific procedures for computing earthquake ground motions include dynamic site

at
5  response analyses and probabilistic and deterministic seismic hazard analyses (PSHA and

e LY
6  DSHA), which may include dynamic site response analysis as part of the calculation. Use of site-

rm
7  specific procedures may be required in lieu of the general procedure in Sections 11.4.2 through

lin N
8  11.4.7; Section C11.4.8 in ASCE 7-16 explains the conditions under which the use of these

Fo
er n O
9  procedures is required. Such studies must be comprehensive and must incorporate current
10  scientific interpretations. Because there is typically more than one scientifically credible
11  alternative for models and parameter values used to characterize seismic sources and ground
nd o
12  motions, it is important to formally incorporate these uncertainties in a site-specific analysis. For
U ati
13  example, uncertainties may exist in seismic source location, extent, and geometry; maximum
14  earthquake magnitude; earthquake recurrence rate; ground motion attenuation; local site
t / rm

15  conditions, including soil layering and dynamic soil properties; and possible two- or three-
16  dimensional wave-propagation effects. The use of peer review for a site-specific ground motion
ou fo

17  analysis is encouraged.

e In

18  Site-specific ground motion analysis can consist of one of the following approaches: (a) PSHA
and possibly DSHA if the site is near an active fault, (b) PSHA/DSHA followed by dynamic site
r

19 
Fo

20  response analysis, and (c) dynamic site response analysis only. The first approach is used to
21  compute ground motions for bedrock or stiff soil conditions (not softer than Site Class D). In this
22  approach, if the site consists of stiff soil overlying bedrock, for example, the analyst has the
rik

23  option of either (a) computing the bedrock motion from the PSHA/DSHA and then using the site

24  coefficient ( Fa and Fv ) tables in Section 11.4.3 to adjust for the stiff soil overburden or (b)
St

25  computing the response spectrum at the ground surface directly from the PSHA/DSHA. The
26  latter requires the use of attenuation equations for computing stiff soil-site response spectra
27  (instead of bedrock response spectra).

1 
 
 1  The second approach is used where softer soils overlie the bedrock or stiff soils. The third
2  approach assumes that a site-specific PSHA/DSHA is not necessary but that a dynamic site
3  response analysis should, or must, be performed. This analysis requires the definition of an
4  outcrop ground motion, which can be based on the 5% damped response spectrum computed
5  from the PSHA/DSHA, or obtained from the general procedure in Section 11.4. A representative
6  set of acceleration time histories is selected and scaled to be compatible with this outcrop
7  spectrum. Dynamic site response analyses, using these acceleration histories as input, are used to

at
e LY
8  compute motions at the ground surface. The response spectra of these surface motions are used

rm
9  to define a maximum considered earthquake (MCE) ground motion response spectrum.

lin N
10  The approaches described in the aforementioned have advantages and disadvantages. In many

Fo
er n O
11  cases, user preference governs the selection, but geotechnical conditions at the site may dictate
12  the use of one approach over the other. If bedrock is at a depth much greater than the extent of
13  the site geotechnical investigations, the direct approach of computing the ground surface motion
nd o
14  in the PSHA/DSHA may be more reasonable. On the other hand, if bedrock is shallow and a
U ati
15  large impedance contrast exists between it and the overlying soil (i.e., density times shear wave
16  velocity of bedrock is much greater than that of the soil), the two-step approach might be more
t / rm

17  appropriate.
ou fo

18  Use of peak ground acceleration as the anchor for a generalized site-dependent response
19  spectrum is discouraged because sufficiently robust ground motion attenuation relations are
e In

20  available for computing response spectra in western U.S.United States and eastern U.S.United
States tectonic environments.
r

21 
Fo

22  C21.1 SITE RESPONSE ANALYSIS

23  C21.1.1 Base Ground Motions.

rik

24  Ground motion acceleration histories that are representative of horizontal rock motions at the site
St

25  are required as input to the soil model. Where a site-specific ground motion hazard analysis is
26  not performed, the MCE response spectrum for Site Class B (rock) is defined using the general
27  procedure described in Section 11.4.1. If the model is terminated in material of Site Class A, C,
28  or D, the input MCE response spectrum is adjusted in accordance with Section 11.4.3. The

2 
 
 1  USU.S. Geological Survey (USGS) national seismic hazard mapping project website
2  (www.earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/products/conterminous) includes hazard deaggregation
3  options that can be used to evaluate the predominant types of earthquake sources, magnitudes,
4  and distances contributing to the probabilistic ground motion hazard. Sources of recorded
5  acceleration time histories include the databases of the Consortium of Organizations for Strong
6  Motion Observation Systems (COSMOS) Virtual Data Center website (www.cosmos-eq.org),
7  the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center Strong Motion Database website

at
e LY
8  (peer.berkeley.edu/products/strong_ground_motion_db.html), and the USU.S. National Center

rm
9  for Engineering Strong Motion Data (NCESMD) website (http://www.strongmotioncenter.org).
Ground motion acceleration histories at these sites generally were recorded at the ground surface

lin N
10 

Fo
11  and hence apply for an outcropping condition and should be specified as such in the input to the

er n O
12  site response analysis code (Kwok et al. 2007 have additional details).

13  C21.1.2 Site Condition Modeling.

nd o
U ati
14  Modeling criteria are established by site-specific geotechnical investigations that should include
15  (a) borings with sampling; (b) standard penetration tests (SPTs), cone penetrometer tests (CPTs),
t / rm

16  and/or other subsurface investigative techniques; and (c) laboratory testing to establish the soil
17  types, properties, and layering. The depth to rock or stiff soil material should be established from
ou fo

18  these investigations. Investigation should extend to bedrock or, for very deep soil profiles, to
e In

19  material in which the model is terminated. Although it is preferable to measure shear wave
20  velocities in all soil layers, it is also possible to estimate shear wave velocities based on
r

21  measurements available for similar soils in the local area or through correlations with soil types
Fo

22  and properties. A number of such correlations are summarized by Kramer (1996).

23  Typically, a one-dimensional soil column extending from the ground surface to bedrock is
adequate to capture first-order site response characteristics. For very deep soils, the model of the
rik

24 
25  soil columns may extend to very stiff or very dense soils at depth in the column. Two- or three-
St

26  dimensional models should be considered for critical projects when two- or three-dimensional
27  wave propagation effects may be significant (e.g.for example, sloping ground sites). The soil
28  layers in a one-dimensional model are characterized by their total unit weights and shear wave
29  velocities from which low-strain (maximum) shear moduli may be obtained and by relationships

3 
 
 1  defining the nonlinear shear stress–strain behavior of the soils. The required relationships for
2  analysis are often in the form of curves that describe the variation of soil shear modulus with
3  shear strain (modulus reduction curves) and by curves that describe the variation of soil damping
4  with shear strain (damping curves). In a two- or three-dimensional model, compression wave
5  velocities or moduli or Poisson ratios also are also required. In an analysis to estimate the effects
6  of liquefaction on soil site response, the nonlinear soil model also must also incorporate the
7  buildup of soil pore water pressures and the consequent reductions of soil stiffness and strength.

at
e LY
8  Typically, modulus reduction curves and damping curves are selected on the basis of published

rm
9  relationships for similar soils (e.g.for example, Vucetic and Dobry 1991, Electric Power
Research Institute 1993, Darendeli 2001, Menq 2003, and Zhang et al. 2005). Site-specific

lin N
10 

Fo
11  laboratory dynamic tests on soil samples to establish nonlinear soil characteristics can be

er n O
12  considered where published relationships are judged to be inadequate for the types of soils
13  present at the site. Shear and compression wave velocities and associated maximum moduli
should be selected based on field tests to determine these parameters or, if such tests are not
nd o
14 
U ati
15  possible, on published relationships and experience for similar soils in the local area. The
16  uncertainty in the selected maximum shear moduli, modulus reduction and damping curves, and
t / rm

17  other soil properties should be estimated (Darendeli 2001, Zhang et al. 2008). Consideration of
18  the ranges of stiffness prescribed in Section 12.13.3 (increasing and decreasing by 50%) is
ou fo

19  recommended.
e In

20  C21.1.3 Site Response Analysis and Computed Results.

r

21  Analytical methods may be equivalently linear or nonlinear. Frequently used computer programs
Fo

22  for one-dimensional analysis include the equivalent linear program SHAKE (Schnabel et al.
23  1972, Idriss and Sun 1992) and the nonlinear programs FLAC (Itasca 2005),; DESRA-2 (Lee and
24  Finn 1978),; MARDES (Chang et al. 1991),; SUMDES (Li et al. 1992),; D-MOD_2 (Matasovic
rik

25  2006),; DEEPSOIL (Hashash and Park 2001),; TESS (Pyke 2000),; and OpenSees (Ragheb
26  1994, Parra 1996, and Yang 2000). If the soil response induces large strains in the soil (such as
St

27  for high acceleration levels and soft soils), nonlinear programs may be preferable to equivalent
28  linear programs. For analysis of liquefaction effects on site response, computer programs that
29  incorporate pore water pressure development (effective stress analyses) should be used (e.g.for
30  example, FLAC, DESRA-2, SUMDES, D-MOD_2, TESS, DEEPSOIL, and OpenSees).

4 
 
 1  Response spectra of output motions at the ground surface are calculated as the ratios of response
2  spectra of ground surface motions to input outcropping rock motions. Typically, an average of
3  the response spectral ratio curves is obtained and multiplied by the input MCE response
4  spectrum to obtain the MCE ground surface response spectrum. Alternatively, the results of site
5  response analyses can be used as part of the PSHA using procedures described by Goulet et al.
6  (2007) and programmed for use in OpenSHA (www.opensha.org; Field et al. 2005). Sensitivity
7  analyses to evaluate effects of soil-property uncertainties should be conducted and considered in

at
e LY
8  developing the final MCE response spectrum.

rm
9  C21.2 RISK-TARGETED MAXIMUM CONSIDERED EARTHQUAKE ( MCER )

lin N
Fo
10  GROUND MOTION HAZARD ANALYSIS

er n O
11  Site-specific risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake ( MCER ) ground motions are based
nd o
12  on separate calculations of site-specific probabilistic and site-specific deterministic ground
U ati
13  motions.

14  Both the probabilistic and deterministic ground motions are defined in terms of 5% damped
t / rm

15  spectral response in the maximum direction of horizontal response. The maximum direction in
16  the horizontal plane is considered the appropriate ground motion intensity parameter for seismic
ou fo

17  design, using the equivalent lateral force (ELF) procedure of Section 12.8, with the primary
e In

18  intent of avoiding collapse of the structural system.

Most ground motion relations are defined in terms of average (geometric mean) horizontal
r

19 
Fo

20  response. Maximum response in the horizontal plane is greater than average response by an
21  amount that varies with period. Maximum response may be reasonably estimated by factoring
22  average response by period-dependent factors, such as 1.1 at short periods and 1.3 at a period of
rik

23  1.0 s (Huang et al. 2008). The maximum direction was adopted as the ground motion intensity
24  parameter for use in seismic design, in lieu of explicit consideration of directional effects.
St

25  When performing a ground motion hazard analysis, it is important to consider the regional
26  tectonic setting, geology, and seismology. An important geologic consideration is topography,
27  which has been shown to contribute significantly to the effects of local geology on ground
28  motions by increasing the amplitude of ground motions relative to flat ground conditions and

5 
 
 1  causing damage to structures near the crests of slopes (e.g., Assimaki et al., 2005). Since most
2  existing ground motion models do not account for the effects of site topography (Rai et al.,
3  2017), the ground motion hazard analysis should consider topographic effects where appropriate.
4  Topographic amplification is typically considered significant where all of the following are
5  present: (1) slope angles are greater than about 17 degrees° (Bouckovalas and Papadimitriou,
6  2005), (2) the horizontal or vertical dimensions of the topographic feature are comparable to the
7  seismic wavelengths of interest (e.g., the shear wave velocity of the feature divided by the

at
e LY
8  frequencies that impact structural response), and (3) the location of interest is within a horizontal

rm
9  distance approximately equal to one wavelength from the slope crest. Topographic amplification
can be estimated by semi-analytical solutions (e.g., Bouckovalas and Papadimitriou, 2005),

lin N
10 

Fo
11  numerical modeling (e.g., Jeong et al., 2019), laboratory experiments (e.g., Jeong et al., 2019),

er n O
12  field experiments (e.g., Wood and Cox, 2016), and ground motion models (e.g., Rai et al., 2017).
13  Engineers should be cognizant of the large degree of spatial variability in the effects of surface
topography on ground motions (Wood and Cox, 2016) and the limitations, applicability, and
nd o
14 
U ati
15  uncertainty of each method of analysis.

C21.2.1 Probabilistic ( MCER ) Ground Motions.

t / rm

16 

Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) methods and subsequent computations of risk-
ou fo

17 
18  targeted probabilistic ground motions, based on the output of PSHA, are sufficient to define
e In

19  MCER ground motion at all locations except those near highly active faults. Descriptions of
r

20  current PSHA methods can be found in McGuire (2004). The primary output of PSHA methods
Fo

21  is a so-called hazard curve, which provides mean annual frequencies of exceeding various user-
22  specified ground motion amplitudes. Risk-targeted probabilistic ground motions are derived
23  from hazard curves using one (or both for comparison purposes) of the methods described in the
rik

24  following two subsections.

St

25  C21.2.1.1 Method 1.

26  The simpler, but more approximate, method of computing a risk-targeted probabilistic ground
27  motion for each spectral period in a response spectrum is to first interpolate from a site-specific
28  hazard curve the ground motion for a mean annual frequency corresponding to 2% probability of
29  exceedance in 50 years (namely 1/2,475 per year). Then, this “uniform-hazard” ground motion is
6 
 
 1  factored by a so-called risk coefficient for the site location that is based on those mapped in
2  Figgsures. 22-18 and 22-19. Via the method explained in the next subsection, the mapped risk
3  coefficients have been computed from the USGS hazard curves for Site Class B and spectral
4  periods of 0.2 and 1.0 s.

5  C21.2.1.2 Method 2.
6  The direct method of computing risk-targeted probabilistic ground motions uses the entire site-

at
7  specific hazard curve that results from PSHA. The computation is detailed in Luco et al. (2007).

e LY
8  SummarizingIn summary, the hazard curve is combined with a collapse fragility (or probability

rm
9  distribution of the ground motion amplitude that causes collapse) that depends on the risk-

lin N
10  targeted probabilistic ground motion itself. The combination quantifies the risk of collapse.

Fo
er n O
11  Iteratively, the risk-targeted probabilistic ground motion is modified until combination of the
12  corresponding collapse fragility with the hazard curve results in a risk of collapse of 1% in 50
13  years. This target is based on the average collapse risk across the western United States that is
nd o
14  expected to result from design for the probabilistic MCE ground motions in ASCE 7.
U ati

15  C21.2.2 Deterministic ( MCER ) Ground Motions.

t / rm

16  Deterministic ground motions are to be based on characteristic earthquakes on all known active
ou fo

17  faults in a region. The magnitude of a characteristic earthquake on a given fault should be a best
e In

18  estimate of the maximum magnitude capable for that fault but not less than the largest magnitude
19  that has occurred historically on the fault. The maximum magnitude should be estimated
r

20  considering all seismic-geologic evidence for the fault, including fault length and paleoseismic
Fo

21  observations. For faults characterized as having more than a single segment, the potential for
22  rupture of multiple segments in a single earthquake should be considered in assessing the
23  characteristic maximum magnitude for the fault.
rik

24  For consistency, the same attenuation equations and ground motion variability used in the PSHA
St

25  should be used in the deterministic seismic hazard analysis (DSHA). Adjustments for directivity
26  and/or directional effects should also be made, when appropriate. In some cases, ground motion
27  simulation methods may be appropriate for the estimation of long-period motions at sites in deep

7 
 
 1  sedimentary basins or from great ( M  8 ) or giant ( M  9 ) earthquakes, for which recorded
2  ground motion data are lacking.

3  When the maximum ordinate of the deterministic (MCER) ground motion response spectrum is
4  less than 1.5Fa, it is scaled up to 1.5Fa in order to put a lower limit or floor on the deterministic
5  ground motions. A single factor is used to maintain the shape of the response spectrum. The
6  intent of the exception defining site-specific MCER ground motions solely in terms of

at
7  probabilistic MCER ground motions (i.e., when peak MCER response spectral accelerations are

e LY
8  less than 1.2Fa) is to preclude unnecessary calculation of deterministic MCER ground motions.

rm
lin N
9  Values of the site coefficients ( Fa and Fv ) for setting the deterministic ( MCER ) ground motion

Fo
er n O
10  floor are introduced to incorporate both site amplification and spectrum shape adjustment as
11  described in the research study “Investigation of an Identified Short-Coming in the Seismic
12  Design Procedures of ASCE 7-16 and Development of Recommended Improvements for ASCE
nd o
13  7-16” (Kircher 2015). This study found that the shapes of the response spectra of ground motions
U ati
14  were not accurately represented by the shape of the design response spectrum of Figure 11.4-1
15  for the following site conditions and ground motion intensities: (1) Site Class D where values of
t / rm

16  S1  0.2 ; and (2) Site Class E where values of SS  1.0 and/or S1  0.2 . An adjustment of the
ou fo

17  corresponding values of Fa and Fv was required to account for this difference in spectrum

shape, which was causing the design response spectrum to underestimate long-period motions.
e In

18 
19  Two options were considered to address this shortcoming. For the first option, the subject study
r

20  developed values of new “spectrum shape adjustment” factors ( Ca and Cv ) that could be used
Fo

21  with site factors ( Fa and Fv ) to develop appropriate values of design ground motions ( SDS and

22  SD1 ). The second option, ultimately adopted by ASCE 7-16, circumvents the need for these new
rik

23  factors by requiring site-specific analysis for Site Class D site conditions where values of

24  S1  0.2 , and for Site Class E site conditions where values of SS  1.0 and/or S1  0.2 (i.e.,
St

25  new requirements of Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16). The spectrum shape adjustment factors
26  developed by the subject study for Option 1 provide the basis for the values of site coefficients (

27  Fa and Fv ) proposed for Section 21.2.2 and Section 21.3 that incorporate both site amplification

8 
 
 1  and adjustment for spectrum shape. Specifically, the proposed value of Fv  2.5 for Site Class D

2  is based on the product of 1.7 (Site Class D amplification at S1  0.6 , without spectrum shape

3  adjustment) and 1.5 (spectrum shape adjustment factor); the proposed value of Fv  4.0 is based

4  on the product of 2.0 (Site Class E amplification at S1  0.6 without spectrum shape adjustment)

5  and 2.0 (spectrum shape adjustment factor), where values of spectrum shape adjustment are

at
6  taken from Section 6.2.2 (Table 11.4-4) of the subject study. The proposed value of Fa  1.0 is

e LY
based on the product of 0.8 (Site Class E amplification at SS  1.5 without spectrum shape

rm
7 

lin N
8  adjustment) and 1.25 (spectrum shape adjustment factor), where the value of the spectrum shape

Fo
adjustment is taken from Section 6.2.2 (Table 11.4-3) of the subject study. Site amplification

er n O
9 
10  adjusted for spectrum shape effects is approximately independent of ground motion intensity
11  and, for simplicity, the proposed values of site factors adjusted for spectrum shape are assumed
nd o
12  to be valid for all ground motion intensities.
U ati

13  C21.2.3 Site-Specific MCER .

t / rm

14  Because of the deterministic lower limit on the MCER spectrum (Fig.ure 21.2-1), the site-
ou fo

15  specific MCER ground motion is equal to the corresponding risk-targeted probabilistic ground
e In

16  motion wherever it is less than the deterministic limit (e.g., 1 .5 g and 0 .6 g for 0.2 and 1.0 s,
17  respectively, and Site Class B). Where the probabilistic ground motions are greater than the
r
Fo

18  lower limits, the deterministic ground motions sometimes govern, but only if they are less than

19  their probabilistic counterparts. On the MCER ground motion maps in ASCE/SEI 7-10, the

20  deterministic ground motions govern mainly near major faults in California (like such as the San
rik

21  Andreas) and Nevada. The deterministic ground motions that govern are as small as 40% of their
22  probabilistic counterparts.
St

23  The exception defining site-specific MCER ground motions solely in terms of probabilistic
24  MCER ground motions (i.e., when peak MCER probabilistic ground motions are less than 1.2Fa)
25  precludes unnecessary calculation of deterministic MCER ground motions. Probabilistic MCER

9 
 
 1  ground motions are presumed to govern at all periods where the peak probabilistic MCER
2  response spectral acceleration (i.e., < 1.2Fa) is less than 80% percent of peak deterministic
3  (MCER) response spectral acceleration (i.e., ≥ 1.5Fa).

4  The requirement that the site-specific MCER response spectrum not be less than 150% of
5  the site-specific design response spectrum of Section 21.3 effectively applies the 80% limits of
6  Section 21.3 to the site-specific MCER response spectrum (as well as the site-specific design

at
7  response spectrum).

e LY
rm
8  C21.3 DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM

lin N
Fo
9  Eighty percent of the design response spectrum, determined in accordance with Section 11.4.6,

er n O
10  was established as the lower limit to prevent the possibility of site-specific studies generating
11  unreasonably low ground motions from potential misapplication of site-specific procedures or
12  misinterpretation or mistakes in the quantification of the basic inputs to these procedures. Even if
nd o
13  site-specific studies were correctly performed and resulted in ground motion response spectra
U ati
14  less than the 80% lower limit, the uncertainty in the seismic potential and ground motion
t / rm

15  attenuation across the United States was recognized in setting this limit. Under these
16  circumstances, the allowance of up to a 20% reduction in the design response spectrum based on
ou fo

17  site-specific studies was considered reasonable.

e In

18  As described in Section 21.2.2, values of the site coefficients ( Fa and Fv ) for setting the

19  deterministic ( MCER ) ground motion floor are introduced to incorporate both site amplification
r
Fo

20  and spectrum shape adjustment.Values of the site coefficients (Fa and Fv) for setting the 80%
21  lower limit are introduced to incorporate both site amplification and spectrum shape adjustment,
22  as described in the research study, “Investigation of an Identified Short-Coming in the Seismic
rik

23  Design Procedures of ASCE 7-16 and Development of Recommended Improvements for ASCE 7-
24  16” (Kircher 2015). This study found that the shapes of the response spectra of ground motions
St

25  were not accurately represented by the shape of the design response spectrum of Figure 11.4-1
26  for the following site conditions and ground-motion intensities: (1) Site Class D where values of
27  S1 ≥ 0.2; and, (2) Site Class E where values of SS ≥1.0 and/or S1 ≥0.2. An adjustment of the
28  corresponding values of Fa and Fv was required to account for this difference in spectrum shape,

10 
 
 1  which was causing the design response spectrum to underestimate long period motions. Two
2  options were considered to address this short-coming. For the first option, the subject study
3  developed values of new “spectrum shape adjustment” factors (Ca and Cv) that could be used
4  with site factors (Fa and Fv) to develop appropriate values of design ground motions (SDS and
5  SD1). The second option, ultimately adopted by ASCE 7-16, circumvents the need for these new
6  factors by requiring site-specific analysis for Site Class D site conditions where values of S1 ≥
7  0.2, and for Site Class E site conditions where values of SS ≥1.0 and/or S1 ≥0.2 (i.e., new

at
e LY
8  requirements of Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16). The spectrum shape adjustment factors

rm
9  developed by the subject study for Option 1 provide the basis for the values of site coefficients
(Fa and Fv) of Section 21.3 that incorporate both site amplification and adjustment for spectrum

lin N
10 

Fo
11  shape. Specifically, the value of Fv = 2.5 for Site Class D is based on the product of 1.7 (Site

er n O
12  Class D amplification at S1 = 0.6, without spectrum shape adjustment) and 1.5 (spectrum shape
13  adjustment factor); the value of Fv = 4.0 for Site Class E is based on the product of 2.0 (Site
Class E amplification at S1 = 0.6 without spectrum shape adjustment) and 2.0 (spectrum shape
nd o
14 
U ati
15  adjustment factor), where values of spectrum shape adjustment are taken from Section 6.2.2
16  (Table 11.4-4) of the subject study. The value of Fa = 1.0 for Site Class E is based on the
t / rm

17  product of 0.8 (Site Class E amplification at SS = 1.5 without spectrum shape adjustment) and
18  1.25 (spectrum shape adjustment factor), where the value of the spectrum shape adjustment is
ou fo

19  taken from Section 6.2.2 (Table 11.4-3) of the subject study. Site amplification adjusted for
20  spectrum shape effects is approximately independent of ground motion intensity and, for
e In

21  simplicity, the proposed values of site factors adjusted for spectrum shape are assumed to be
valid for all ground motion intensities.
r

22 
Fo

23  Although the 80% lower limit is reasonable for sites not classified as Site Class F, an exception
24  has been introduced at the end of this section to permit a site class other than E to be used in
25  establishing this limit when a site is classified as F. This revision eliminates the possibility of an
rik

26  overly conservative design spectrum on sites that would normally be classified as Site Class C or
27  D.
St

28  C21.4 DESIGN ACCELERATION PARAMETERS

11 
 
 1  The SDS criteria of Section 21.4 are based on the premise that the value of the parameter SDS

2  should be taken as 90% of peak value of site-specific response spectral acceleration, regardless
3  of the period (greater than or equal to 0.2 s) at which the peak value of response spectral
4  acceleration occurs. Consideration of periods beyond 0.2 s recognizes that site-specific studies
5  (e.g., softer site conditions) can produce response spectra with ordinates at periods greater than
6  0.2 s that are significantly greater than those at 0.2 s. Periods less than 0.2 s are excluded for

at
7  consistency with the 0.2 -s period definition of the short-period ground motion parameter, Ss ,

e LY
and recognizing that certain sites, such as Central and Eastern United States (CEUS) sites, could

rm
8 
9  have peak response at very short periods that would be inappropriate for defining the value of the

lin N
Fo
10  parameter SDS . The upper bound limit of 5 s precludes unnecessary checking of response at

er n O
11  periods that cannot govern the peak value of site-specific response spectral acceleration. Ninety
12  percent (rather than 100%) of the peak value of site-specific response spectral acceleration is
nd o
13  considered appropriate for defining the parameter SDS (and the domain of constant acceleration)
U ati
14  since most short-period structures have a design period that is not at, or near, the period of peak
15  response spectral acceleration. Away from the period of peak response, response spectral
t / rm

16  accelerations are less, and the domain of constant acceleration is adequately described by 90% of
17  the peak value. For those short-period structures with a design period at, or near, the period of
ou fo

18  peak response spectral acceleration, anticipated yielding of the structure during MCER ground
e In

19  motions effectively lengthens the period and shifts dynamic response to longer periods at which
20  spectral demand is always less than that at the peak of the spectrum.
r
Fo

21  The SD1 criteria of Section 21.4 are based on the premise that the value of the parameter SD1

22  should be taken as 100% of the peak value of site-specific response spectral acceleration for a

period range, 1 s  T  2 s , for stiffer sites vs,30 ft/ s  1,200 ft / s ( vs,30 m/ s  366 m/ s ) similar
rik

23 

24  to the previous requirements of Section 21.4 of ASCE 7-10 and for a period range, 1 s  T  5 s ,
St

25  for softer sites vs,30 ft / s  1,200 ft / s ( vs,30 m/ s  366 m/ s ), which are expected to have peak

26  values of response spectral velocity at periods greater than 2 s. The criteria use the maximum

27  value of the product, TSa , over the period range of interest to effectively identify the period at

12 
 
 1  which the peak value of response spectral velocity occurs. Consideration of periods beyond 1 s
2  accounts for the possibility that the assumed 1/ T proportionality for the constant velocity
3  portion of the design response spectrum begins at periods greater than 1 s or is actually 1 / T n
4  (where n  1 ). Periods less than 1 s are excluded for consistency with the definition of the 1-s

5  ground motion parameter, S1 . Peak velocity response is expected to occur at periods less than or

6  equal to 5 s, and periods beyond 5 s are excluded by the criteria to avoid potential misuse of very

at
7  long period ground motions that may not be reliable. One hundred percent (rather than a reduced

e LY
8  percentage) of the peak value of site-specific response spectral acceleration at the period of peak

rm
9  velocity response is considered appropriate for defining the value of the parameter SD1 since

lin N
response spectral accelerations can be approximately proportional to the assumed 1/ T shape of

Fo
10 

er n O
11  the domain of constant velocity for design periods of interest.

12  C21.5 MAXIMUM CONSIDERED EARTHQUAKE GEOMETRIC MEAN ( MCEG )

nd o
PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION
U ati
13 

14  Site-specific requirements for determination of peak ground acceleration (PGA) are provided in a
t / rm

15  new Section 21.5 that is parallel to the procedures for developing site-specific response spectra

in Section 21.2. The site-specific MCE peak ground acceleration, PGAM , is taken as the lesser
ou fo

16 

17  of the probabilistic geometric mean peak ground acceleration of Section 21.5.1 and the
e In

18  deterministic geometric mean peak ground acceleration of Section 21.5.2. Similar to the

provisions for site-specific spectra, a deterministic lower limit is prescribed for PGAM , with the
r

19 
Fo

20  intent to limit application of deterministic ground motions to the site regions containing active
21  faults where probabilistic ground motions are unreasonably high. However, the deterministic

22  lower limit for PGAM (in g ) is set at a lower value, 0.5 FPGA , than the value set for the zero-
rik

23  period response spectral acceleration, 0.6 Fa . The rationale for the value of the lower
St

24  deterministic limit for spectra is based on the desire to limit minimum spectral values, for
25  structural design purposes, to the values given by the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) for
26  Zone 4 (multiplied by a factor of 1.5 to adjust to the MCE level). This rationale is not applicable

27  to PGAM for geotechnical applications, and therefore a lower value of 0.5 FPGA was selected.

13 
 
 1  Section 21.5.3 of ASCE 7-10 states that the site-specific MCE peak ground acceleration cannot

2  be less than 80% of PGAM derived from the PGA maps. The 80% limit is a long-standing base

3  for site-specific analyses in recognition of the uncertainties and limitations associated with the
4  various components of a site-specific evaluation.

5  REFERENCES

at
6  Assimaki, D., Gazetas, G., and& Kausel, E. (2005). “Effects of local soil conditions on the

e LY
topographic aggravation of seismic motion: parametric investigation and recorded field evidence

rm
7 
8  from the 1999 Athens earthquake”. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 95(3),

lin N
1059-1089.

Fo
9 

er n O
10  Bouckovalas, G. D., and& Papadimitriou, A. G. (2005). “Numerical evaluation of slope
11  topography effects on seismic ground motion.” Soil dynamics and earthquake engineering, 25(7-
nd o
12  10), 547-558.
U ati
13  Chang, C.-Y., Mok, C. M., Power, M. S., and Tang, Y. K. (1991). “Analysis of ground response
at lotung large-scale soil-structure interaction experiment site.” Report NP-7306-SL. EPRI, Palo
t / rm

14 
15  Alto, CAalif.
ou fo

16  Darendeli, M. (2001). “Development of a new family of normalized modulus reduction and
material damping curves.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept.artment of Civil Engineering, University of
e In

17 
18  Texas, Austin.
r
Fo

19  EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). (1993). “Guidelines for determining design
20  basis ground motions.” Report EPRI TR-102293. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA.

21  Field, E. H., Gupta, N., Gupta, V., Blanpied, M., Maechling, P., and Jordan, T. H. (2005).
rik

22  “Hazard calculations for the WGCEP-2002 forecast using OpenSHA and distributed object
23  technologies.” Seismol. Res. Lett., 76, 161–167.
St

24  Goulet, C. A., Stewart, J. P., Bazzurro, P., and Field, E. H. (2007). “Integration of site-specific
25  ground response analysis results into probabilistic seismic hazard analyses.” Paper 1486, In
26  Proc., 4th Intl. Conf.erence on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Thessaloniki, Greece,
27  CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
14 
 
 1  Hashash, Y. M. A., and Park, D. (2001). “Non-linear one-dimensional seismic ground motion
2  propagation in the Mississippi embayment.” Engrg. Geol., 62(1-3), 185–206.

3  Huang, Y.-N., Whittaker, A. S., and Luco, N. (2008). “Maximum spectral demands in the near-
4  fault region.” Earthquake. Spectra, 24(1), 319–341.

5  Idriss, I. M., and Sun, J. I. (1992). User’s manual for SHAKE91. Center for Geotechnical
6  Modeling, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis.

at
e LY
7  Itasca Consulting Group. (2005). FLAC, Fast Langrangian Analysis of Continua, v. 5.0. Itasca

rm
8  Consulting Group, Minneapolis, MN.

lin N
Fo
9  Jeong, S., Asimaki, D., Dafni, J., and& Wartman, J. (2019). “How topography-dependent are

er n O
10  topographic effects?” Complementary numerical modeling of centrifuge experiments. Soil
11  Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 116, 654-667.
nd o
12  Kircher, C. A. (2015). Investigation of an identified short-coming in the seismic design
U ati
13  procedures of ASCE 7-16 and development of recommended improvements for ASCE 7-16,
14  prepared for Building Seismic Safety Council, National Institute of Building Sciences,
t / rm

15  Washington, DC, prepared by Kircher & Associates, Consulting Engineers, Palo Alto, CA,
16  March 15, 2015.
ou fo

17  https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.nibs.org/resource/resmgr/BSSC2/Seismic_Factor_Study.pdf
e In

18  Kramer, S. L. (1996). Geotechnical earthquake engineering, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,

19  NJ.
r
Fo

20  Kwok, A. O. L., Stewart, J. P., Hashash, Y. M. A., Matasovic, N., Pyke, R., Wang, Z., et al.
21  (2007). “Use of exact solutions of wave propagation problems to guide implementation of
22  nonlinear seismic ground response analysis procedures.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engrg.
rik

23  133(11), 1385–1398.

St

24  Lee, M. K. W., and Finn, W. D. L. (1978). DESRA-2, Dynamic effective stress response analysis
25  of soil deposits with energy transmitting boundary including assessment of liquefaction potential,
26  Soil Mechanics Series 36, Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia,
27  Vancouver.

15 
 
 1  Li, X. S., Wang, Z. L., and Shen, C. K. (1992). SUMDES, a nonlinear procedure for response
2  analysis of horizontally-layered sites subjected to multi-directional earthquake loading.
3  Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, Davis.

4  Luco, N., Ellingwood, B. R., Hamburger, R. O., Hooper, J. D., Kimball, J. K., and Kircher, C. A.
5  (2007). “Risk-targeted versus current seismic design maps for the conterminous United States.”
6  In Proc. SEAOC 76th Ann.ual Convention. Structural Engineers Association of California,

at
7  Sacramento, CA.

e LY
rm
8  Matasovic, N. (2006). “D-MOD_2—A computer program for seismic response analysis of
horizontally layered soil deposits, earthfill dams, and solid waste landfills.” User’s manual,

lin N
9 

Fo
10  GeoMotions, LLC, Lacey, WA, 20 (plus Appendices).

er n O
11  McGuire, R. K. (2004). Seismic hazard and risk analysis, Monograph, MNO-10. Earthquake
12  Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, 221.
nd o
Menq, F. (2003). “Dynamic properties of sandy and gravely soils.” Ph.D. Dissertation,
U ati
13 
14  Department of Civil Engineering, University of Texas, Austin.
t / rm

15  Parra, E. (1996). “Numerical modeling of liquefaction and lateral ground deformation including
16  cyclic mobility and dilation response in soil systems.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil
ou fo

17  Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.

e In

18  Pyke, R. M. (2000). “TESS: A computer program for nonlinear ground response analyses.”
19  TAGA Engineering Systems & Software, Lafayette, CA.
r
Fo

20  Ragheb, A. M. (1994). “Numerical analysis of seismically induced deformations in saturated

21  granular soil strata.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, Rensselaer
22  Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
rik

23  Rai, M., Rodriguez-Marek, A., and& Chiou, B. S. (2017). “Empirical terrain-based topographic
St

24  modification factors for use in ground motion prediction.” Earthquake Spectra, 33(1), 157-177.

25  Schnabel, P. B., Lysmer, J., and Seed, H. B. (1972). SHAKE: A Computer program for
26  earthquake response analysis of horizontally layered sites, Report EERC 72-12, Earthquake
27  Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.

16 
 
 1  Vucetic, M., and Dobry, R. (1991). “Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response.” J. Geotech.
2  Engrg., 117(1), 89–107.

3  Wood, C. M., and& Cox, B. R. (2016). “Comparison of field data processing methods for the
4  evaluation of topographic effects.” Earthquake Spectra, 32(4), 2127-2147.

5  Yang, Z. (2000). “Numerical modeling of earthquake site response including dilation and
6  liquefaction.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept.artment of Civil Engineering and Engineering

at
e LY
7  Mechanics., Columbia University, New York.

rm
8  Zhang, J., Andrus, R. D., and Juang, C. H. (2005). “Normalized shear modulus and material

lin N
9  damping ratio relationships.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engrg., 131(4), 453–464.

Fo
er n O
10  Zhang, J., Andrus, R. D., and Juang, C. H. (2008). “Model uncertainty in normalized shear
11  modulus and damping relationships.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engrg., 134(1), 24–36.
nd o
12  OTHER REFERENCES (NOT CITED)
U ati

13  Abrahamson, N. A. (2000). “Effects of rupture directivity on probabilistic seismic hazard

t / rm

14  analysis.” In Proc., 6th Intl. Conf.erence on Seismic Zonation, Earthquake Engineering Research
15  Institute, Oakland, CA.
ou fo

16  Somerville, P. G., Smith, N. F., Graves, R. W., and Abrahamson, N. A. (1997). “Modification of
e In

17  empirical strong ground motion attenuation relations to include the amplitude and duration
18  effects of rupture directivity.” Seismol. Res. Lett., 68, 199–222.
r
Fo

19 
rik
St

17