Improved Approach for Modeling Nonlinear

Site Response of Highly Strained Soils: Case

Study of the Service Hall Array in Japan

Ramin Motameda) M.EERI, Kevin Stantona), Ibrahim Almuftib) M.EERI,

Kirk Ellisonb), Michael Willfordb) M.EERI

A nonlinear ground response analysis is conducted for the Niigata-ken Chuetsu-

oki earthquake recorded at a free-field vertical array near the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa
Nuclear Power Plant in Japan. A bi-directional site response analysis is carried out
using LS-DYNA which allows user defined stress – strain relationships to dictate
soil behavior subjected to dynamic loading. Dynamic soil behavior is characterized
using a two-stage hyperbolic backbone curve implemented with modifications to
consider the peak strength of soil layers as well as the strain at which the peak
strength is fully mobilized. The effects of two-directional input motions, strain rate
and the shape of the shear modulus degradation curves are investigated and it is
demonstrated that each factor can have a significant influence on the results.

INTRODUCTION

The primary goal of this research is to evaluate and potentially improve upon the current
standards of site response analysis. As a first step to accomplishing this goal, it was proposed
that a site response analysis be carried out for an event recorded by a free-field downhole array
located at a site which is characterized by relatively “simple” geologic conditions. Available
data from vertical arrays around the world were surveyed with special attention given to non-
basin sites where large amplitude ground motions had been recorded. As a result, the Service
Hall Array (SHA) near the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant (KKNPP) in Japan was
selected for the study because minimal basin effects were anticipated and the likelihood of

a)
University of Nevada, Reno, 1664 N. Virginia St., Mail stop 258, Reno, NV 89557
b)
Arup, 560 Mission St., San Francisco, CA 94105
liquefaction appeared low (Stewart and Yee, 2012). Figure 1 shows the location of the SHA
array with respect to the KKNPP.

Figure 1. Location map of the seismic observation points in the KKNPP (image provided by the
Tokyo Electric Power Company).
The Mw 6.6 Niigata-ken Chuetsu-oki earthquake occurred off the coast of Niigata
Prefecture on July 16, 2007 and was recorded by the SHA. Despite the fact that the KKNPP is
located about 16 km from the rupture surface, the horizontal distance to the vertical surface
projection of rupture (i.e. the Joyner-Boore distance) is approximately 0 km. The reverse-slip
fault rupture occurred on conjugate planes with a strike of 34° and dips of 54° northwest and
36° southeast. The southeast dip is assumed herein based on work by Miyake et al. (2010).
Relatively strong shaking (PGA in excess of 0.4g at the SHA) induced large strains in the soil
as well as a highly nonlinear response.

The ground motion data obtained from the SHA has already been used in Yee et al. (2013)
to conduct research in site response analysis. They performed one dimensional equivalent
linear and nonlinear analyses using DEEPSOIL (Hashash et al., 2011) to predict the ground
motions recorded by the array and to determine the predicted shear strains. The dynamic soil
properties used in Yee et al. (2013) represent an improvement upon previous methods because
they employed a new type of two-stage hyperbolic backbone curve which allowed the shear

2
stress developed at large strains to be controlled such that it matched expectations inferred from
laboratory test data. This formulation of the backbone curve is a modification of that proposed
by Stewart and Kwok (2008) which sometimes resulted in a “kink” in the modulus degradation
curve.

Similar to Yee et al. (2013), this study aims to predict the ground motions recorded by the
SHA during the Niigata-ken Chuetsu-oki earthquake. Instead of DEEPSOIL, the finite element
program LS-DYNA is used to conduct the nonlinear analysis for both one and two directional
shaking inputs. Since measured data exists for this site and event, the analyses performed
herein represent a class C1 prediction according to the scale proposed by Lambe (1973).

In LS-DYNA, the soil column is built using solid elements constrained to move in shear
and the dynamic equations of motions are solved using the explicit method to calculate the
response of the soil layers. In addition, LS-DYNA calculates modulus degradation and
damping based on a user defined stress – strain relationship for each layer. This is a potential
advantage because it ensures that the intended stress – strain behavior is captured in the model
and will not be influenced by the quality of curve fits to user defined modulus degradation
relationships. However, the additional control over the stress – strain behavior in LS-DYNA
comes at the expense of complete control over the damping, which is governed by the Masing
rules in the soil model used for this study.

Past research has shown that the effects of strain rate can significantly influence the
behavior of cohesive soil subjected to cyclic loading (e.g. Lo Presti et al., 1997; Park and
Hashash, 2008; Vardanega and Bolton, 2013). Hence, another goal of this study is to
investigate the effects of loading rate on the computed site response. The effects of loading rate
are accounted for herein using the MAT_HYSTERETIC_SOIL model available in LS-DYNA,
which includes an option to adjust soil stiffness based on the level of strain rate. This allows
the impact of strain rate to be scrutinized by conducting analyses with and without this
adjustment and comparing the computed results to the measured data. The strain rate
corrections employed herein are discussed in greater detail in the next section.

In addition to strain rate, LS-DYNA also enables the effects of bi-directional input shaking
to be explored. Studies such as Stewart et al. (2008), Carter et al. (2014) and Bolisetti et al.
(2014) provide evidence suggesting that wave energy can be diverted from one direction to
another when shaking occurs in two directions. This is explored herein through a simple

3
parametric study involving analyses conducted using the fault normal (FN) and fault parallel
(FP) inputs independently as well as simultaneously.

GROUND MOTION DATA

To maximize comparability with Yee et al. (2013), the essentially unprocessed data
obtained from the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) was filtered in the same manner
as is described in Stewart and Yee (2012). This method adheres to procedures outlined in Boore
(2005) and Boore and Bommer (2005) and involves adding zero pads at the beginning and end
of each record equal to 1.5n/(fc*dt) where n = 4 (the Butterworth filter order), fc is the filter
corner frequency and dt is the sampling interval. An acausal high-pass filter was applied at the
filter corner frequencies given in Stewart and Yee (2012). The processed acceleration time
histories were rotated to match the fault normal and fault parallel directions before being input
into LS-DYNA. Figure 2 shows the measured response spectra after the acceleration data was
rotated to the FN and FP directions.

Figure 2. Measured response spectra from the SHA after rotation to fault normal and fault
parallel directions.

SITE CHARACTERIZATION

Site data for the SHA, shown in Figure 3, was obtained from TEPCO and has been modified
herein based on SPT data, shear wave velocity data and the results of site specific laboratory
testing from Yee et al. (2013). The primary change made to the TEPCO site data is the
incorporation of an updated shear wave velocity profile which was developed with P-S
suspension logging as described in Yee et al. (2013). A summary of the assumed soil properties

4
used in this analysis is presented in Table 1 below. Note that it was assumed that the water
table is located at 45.5m depth and the in-field motion was applied at 99.4m depth.

Table 1. Assumed soil types and unit weights used for analysis

Depth Range (m) Soil Type Unit Weight (kN/m3)

0-4 Sand 16

4 – 45 Sand 17.75

45 – 70 Sand 20.8

70 – 99.4 Clay 20.8

Figure 3. Geologic section, location of sensors, and Vs logging data at the SHA (modified from original
figure provided by TEPCO).

DYNAMIC SOIL PROPERTIES

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have shown that the dynamic shear stress response of soil at large strain is,
in some cases, underestimated or overestimated when determined using traditional approaches
(Stewart and Kwok, 2008; Yee et al., 2013; Hashash et al., 2010). Thus, for cases in which
large strains are induced, this limitation can significantly influence the results of a site response
analysis. In an initial attempt to correct this problem, Stewart and Kwok (2008) introduced a

5
hybrid backbone curve which allows the shear stress at large strain to be asymptotic with values
interpreted from laboratory testing or empirical correlations. This approach, however,
sometimes resulted in a “kink” in the modulus degradation curve which was later corrected in
Yee et al. (2013). While the Yee et al. (2013) formulation ensures the modulus degradation
curve will match a desired initial stiffness and peak strength, it does not give the user as much
control over the shape of the curve beyond the transition strain. Hence, the modified backbone
curve of Yee et al. (2013) is adopted herein with two additional modifications to allow for
greater control of the strain corresponding to peak strength.

 , which is used in the second portion

In this study, the strength based reference strain,  ref

of the backbone curve, takes the form described in Equations 1 and 2.

   *ff   1  G 1
 ref (1)

 *ff  a   ff (2)

In Equation 1, G 1 is the tangent shear modulus corresponding to the user defined transition

strain,  1 , and transition stress,  1 . Manipulation of  *ff , termed the pseudo-failure shear stress,

through the shear strength coefficient, a , allows for a better match to be achieved between
theoretical stress – strain relationships for strains greater than  1 . For values of a greater than
one, the user must ensure (e.g. with a conditional “if” statement) that the peak shear strength
entering the model does not exceed the theoretical limit. Thus, changing a does not affect the
peak shear strength entering the model but instead influences the points on the stress – strain
curve between  1 and the strain at peak strength. Also note that when a =1, the strength based
reference strain is the same herein as for Yee et al. (2013).
The curve fitting parameters  and  (Equation 3) are required to equal one for the second
portion of the backbone curve from Yee et al. (2013) in order for the curve to become
asymptotic with the appropriate shear strength. In this study, however, the equation for the
second stage of the backbone curve (Equation 4) has been re-evaluated with new curve fitting
parameters   and   . The values   and   are unique to the second stage of the backbone
curve and may allow for improved curve fitting precision as long as the correct shear strength
is preserved by adjusting a and they are chosen such that the curve remains smooth. In this
study,  =   =1 and   was chosen on a case-by-case basis with a curve fitting algorithm
which minimizes abrupt changes in slope on the stress-strain curve while still preserving the

6
overall trend in the data (or improves the match to target data if specified). If the resulting
curve fits were deemed inadequate, the same algorithm could be applied with  and   to
improve the final input.

G 1
 (3)
Gmax 1     r 

1  


G 1
G max

1     1    
1   
G r 
 ref
 (4)
Gmax 
Equations 3 and 4 represent the first and second portions of the backbone curve,
respectively, and 𝛾𝑟 is a pseudo-reference strain defined as the strain at which 𝐺 ⁄𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 is 0.5
and     1   . Aside from the aforementioned modifications, both expressions are the same
as those used in Yee et al. (2013).

A spreadsheet was created to calibrate the dynamic soil properties for the finite element
analysis in LS-DYNA. The method by which this calibration was conducted and how it can be
used in a site response analysis is summarized in the flowchart given in Appendix A. Note that
the procedure outlined in Appendix A was followed exactly herein with the exception of the
adjustments to  1 which was set to 0.1% to maintain consistency with Yee et al. (2013).

Parameters  and  r were selected based on recommendations from Stewart and Yee
(2012), shown in Equations 5 and 6. The resulting γr stress – strain curves were then altered
for some layers using the shear strength coefficient, a , to force the model to capture the
theoretical peak shear stress at the appropriate strain. To ensure that the calibrated value for a
did not render the modulus degradation and damping relationships unreasonable, the effect on
each was evaluated on a case-by-case basis and further modifications were made using   if
necessary. It is also important to clarify that the stresses calculated using a and   are capped
so that they never exceed the theoretical peak shear strength or, when available, the theoretical
shear stress corresponding to a specific strain level.

  1   2 log    o
pa
(5)

 r   r ,1    o n
pa (6)

Stewart and Yee (2012) used laboratory tests to estimate the values of  1 and  2 from
Equation 5 to be 0.82 ± 0.10 and 0.34 ± 0.27 respectively. Similarly, they estimated the values

7
of  r ,1 and n from Equation 6 to be 0.0904 and 0.4345 respectively. Their recommendations,

however, are to use their values for Equation 5 only down to the depth of the water table and
for Equation 6 down to a depth of 20m, where the deepest sample was taken. Beyond these
points, the values suggested by Menq (2003) were employed:  1 =0.86,  2 =0.1,  r ,1 =0.0684

and n=0.4345. It should be noted that these recommendations are unique to this site and are
not appropriate for general use. If site specific laboratory testing had not been conducted for
the SHA, an alternate approach would be to use empirical correlations such as those from
Darendeli (2001) or Menq (2003).

STRAIN AT PEAK STRENGTH

For cohesionless soil layers, a spreadsheet solver was employed to automatically choose
the parameters a and  such that the stress – strain curve matched an empirically derived
relationship given in Hayashi et al. (1994) as closely as possible at strains greater than the
transition strain. The parameters given Hayashi et al. (1994) for “standard sand” were used for
this process (maximum grain size of 0.42 mm, uniformity coefficient of 1.5). This relationship
depends on the strain level and strength based pseudo-reference strain from Hardin and
Drnevich (1972). It was also used as the maximum limit for shear stress at all strain levels so
that the shear stress would not exceed the theoretical value for any value of a. An example of
hypothetical cohesionless soil properties before and after strength adjustments as well as the
impact of the strength coefficient, a , is shown in Figure 4.

8
Figure 4. Hypothetical examples showing the impact of the strength adjusted backbone curve as well
as the strength coefficient, a . All of the strength adjusted curves were developed with
          1 and  1  0.1% .

From Figure 4, it is clear that increasing a allows for a closer match to the target stress –
strain curve at the peak strength as well as for the points leading up to the peak strength,
although this is not so obvious when judging from the modulus degradation curve alone. That
being said, it is important to note that for many of the soil layers developed for this analysis,
setting a =1 resulted in an acceptable fit. Overall, the values of a ranged between 1.0 and 1.3
with 60% greater than 1.0 and an average of 1.05. It is generally observed that strengths are
underestimated when a =1 for relatively weak, deep layers and in layers near the ground
surface. This effect also becomes more pronounced as the transition strain increases.

9
 For cohesive soils, the authors sought to achieve reasonable stress – strain relationships by
comparing values to recommendations obtained through personal communications with Dr.
Satoshi Nishimura of Hokkaido University (Nishimura, 2014) and to reasonable limits evident
from relationships between overconsolidation ratio (OCR), strain level and mobilized shear
strength (  mob ) given by Vardanega et al. (2012). Based on personal experience conducting
laboratory tests, Dr. Nishimura suggested the following reasonable ranges for the strains
corresponding to the peak strengths of clay soils: 5 – 15% (normally consolidated), 3 – 5%
(over consolidated) and 1 – 5% (cemented) (Nishimura, 2014). The dataset from Vardanega et
al. (2012) provides information concerning the shear strain at stress levels ranging between 20
and 80% of the undrained strength of 19 different clay samples. In total, 115 tests were included
in the database which was compiled from 17 studies and involved consolidated undrained
triaxial tests, cyclic triaxial tests and direct simple shear tests. This data was used by Vardanega
et al. (2012) to derive a relationship between mobilization strength and stress history which is
given in Equations 7 through 9. Note that,  M 2 is the strain at which half of the undrained

strength ( cu ) has been mobilized.

 
 mob cu  0.5  
M 2
b
for 0.2   mob cu  0.8 (7)

b  0.011OCR  0.371 (8)

 M 2  0.004OCR0.68 (9)

The values of OCR for the clay layers in the present study likely range between 1 and 2.
This is based on empirical correlations with preconsolidation stress and hammer energy
corrected standard penetration blow counts (N60) from Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) as well as
on correlations with shear wave velocity from Mayne et al. (1998). It was found that the overall
model results do not change noticeably whether OCR is estimated from N60 or shear velocity.
For the results presented in this paper, the OCR values were estimated with Mayne et al. (1998).
Given this and using Equations 7 through 9, it can be roughly estimated for the conditions
considered in this study that 80% of clay soil strength will typically mobilize between 1.4 –
2.1% strain. This roughly agrees with the estimates from Dr. Nishimura, considering that they
are for the strain at 100% strength mobilization which should be slightly greater than that for
80%.

10
 ADJUSTMENTS FOR STRAIN RATE EFFECTS

Based on recommendations in Lo Presti et al. (1997) and Vardanega and Bolton (2013), a
5% increase in stiffness per log cycle of plastic strain rate was applied in LS-DYNA for
cohesive layers at strains greater than 10-5. The premise for only applying the correction at
strains greater than 10-5 is that strain rate effects only take place after the onset of grain slippage
(i.e. G < Gmax) which, following Vardanega and Bolton (2013), is assumed to occur at 10-5
shear strain. The correction was implemented with an option available in LS-DYNA which
affects the viscoplastic formulation by automatically adjusting the size of the yield surfaces for
cohesive layers at each time step in the analysis. It should be noted that using this method, both
the computed modulus degradation and damping relationships are affected.

LS-DYNA MODEL

A model of the soil column, shown in Figure 5, was built in LS-DYNA using solid elements
stacked on top of each other and constrained to move in shear, allowing the soil to be subjected
to multi-directional shaking to reproduce free-field ground motions. In LS-DYNA, the
dynamic equations of motions are solved using the explicit method to calculate the response of
the soil layers. Dynamic soil properties are defined using the MAT_HYSTERETIC_SOIL
model which accounts for nonlinear shear stiffness in a piecewise manner by separating the
shear behavior across multiple linear elastic-perfectly plastic yield surfaces. The elastic
stiffness and size of the yield surfaces are controlled by a backbone curve of the shear stress
versus shear strain at a reference pressure. Modulus degradation and Masing rule damping are
determined internally based on the user defined stress – strain inputs.

11
Figure 5. Soil column developed in LS-DYNA (left) as well as acceleration time histories of both
recorded and predicted ground motions (right). Accelerometer depths are: SG1-2.4m, SG2-50.8m, SG3-
99.4m.

Since the acceleration data was recorded at the appropriate depth, as opposed to using an
outcrop record, the bi-directional horizontal input motions (FN and FP) were applied in LS-
DYNA assuming a “rigid base” below the depth 99.4m as in Yee et al. (2013) and
recommended in Kwok et al. (2007). Above 99.4m, the soil column was broken into 103 layers
all equal to or less than 1m in thickness. This ensured that the maximum frequency each layer
could propagate was greater than 25Hz and helped provide a means for precise control of the
dynamic soil properties with depth. It should be noted, however, that for such a fine layer
discretization the maximum frequency of some layers was much higher than the 50Hz
recommended in Kwok et al. (2007). As is discussed in the next section, high frequency “noise”
is often present in LS-DYNA outputs regardless of the maximum frequency each layer can
propagate. Thus, the maximum layer frequencies were ignored in favor of greater control over
the dynamic soil properties with depth.

12
 The soil model used for this study allows for pressure sensitive soil yield strength and linear
variation in soil strength within each layer. Also, small strain damping (Dmin) was applied to
investigate its effect on the results. This was accomplished by using the
DAMPING_FREQUENCY_RANGE_DEFORM option in LS-DYNA which adds frequency
independent damping to a prescribed frequency range outside of which the additional damping
gradually decreases to zero. While this approach enables a more realistic approximation of
dynamic soil behavior, there are some known shortcomings:

1. Frequency independent damping cannot be applied at all frequencies at once so a range

of interest must be specified.

2. Constant damping is only approximated and the amount of error depends on the ratio
of the maximum to minimum frequencies of interest. For this case LSTC (2009)
suggests that an error of about 12% is expected.

3. Dynamic stiffnesses may be reduced slightly, especially at low frequencies.

Dmin of 2% was applied to all soil layers for a specified frequency range of 0.3 to 9Hz (0.11
to 3.33 seconds). The value of Dmin was selected based on an average for all layers as calculated
with the methodology given in Darendeli (2001).

RESULTS

The data obtained from LS-DYNA initially contained high frequency acceleration “noise”
which required filtering as part of post-processing. This effect was also observed by Bolisetti
et al. (2014), though their solution was to smooth the piecewise linear backbone curve by
adding more points to the stress - strain curves. To process the data giving the results shown
below, however, a low-pass Butterworth filter with a cutoff frequency of 25 Hz was applied to
each acceleration time history to remove the high frequency content.

STRAIN RATE EFFECTS

Figures 6 through 9 highlight the effects of considering rate-dependent stiffness in the

manner discussed earlier. Inspection of the response spectra shown in Figures 6 and 7 reveals
that the strain rate corrections stiffen the overall response. The predictions shown in Figures 8
and 9 are of similar accuracy, despite the fact that the adjusted results predict higher PGA
values for most depths.

13
Figure 6. 2D FN and FP response spectra for a depth of 2.4 m below the surface (the depth of
accelerometer 1). The data shown includes: recorded at accelerometer 1 (thin black line), predicted with
Dmin=2% and strain rate corrections on (thick red line), predicted with Dmin=2% and strain rate
corrections off (thick blue line).

Figure 7. 2D FN and FP response spectra for a depth 50.8 m below the surface (the depth of
accelerometer 2). The data shown includes: recorded at accelerometer 2 (thin black line), predicted with
Dmin=2% and strain rate corrections on (thick red line), predicted with Dmin=2% and strain rate
corrections off (thick blue line).
14
Figure 8. 2D PGA profiles for the FN and FP directions. The data shown includes: measured (black
squares), predicted with Dmin=2% and strain rate corrections on (red line), predicted with Dmin=2% and
strain rate corrections off (blue line).

Figure 9. 2D strain profiles for the FN and FP directions. The data shown includes: predicted strain
with Dmin=2% and strain rate corrections on (red line), predicted strain with Dmin=2% and strain rate
corrections off (blue line).

15
 BI-DIRECTIONAL SHAKING

The results obtained from 1D and 2D shaking inputs, shown in Figures 10 through 13, were
developed with the aforementioned strain rate corrections as well as a small strain damping of
2%. For the 1D input motions, separate analyses were conducted for the FN and FP directions
with motion constrained in the inactive direction. The 2D predicted response spectra for the
2.4 meter depth in the FP direction (Figure 10) is significantly closer to the recorded response
than the 1D prediction. This suggests that attempting to achieve a more accurate model by
considering bi-directional shaking can have a noticeable impact on a site response analysis.
That being said, the strain profiles are nearly identical and the PGA profile seems only slightly
more accurate for the 2D case in the FP direction.

Figure 10. FN and FP measured and predicted response spectra for both 2D and 1D input motions at
a depth of 2.4 m below the surface (the depth of accelerometer 1). All predicted data shown was
developed with Dmin=2% and strain rate corrections on.

16
Figure 11. FN and FP measured and predicted response spectra for both 2D and 1D input motions at
a depth of 50.8 m below the surface (the depth of accelerometer 2). All predicted data shown was
developed with Dmin=2% and strain rate corrections on.

Figure 12. PGA profiles for the FN and FP directions. The data shown includes: measured (black
squares), 1D prediction (blue line) and 2D prediction (red line). The predicted data was developed
with Dmin=2% and strain rate corrections on.

17
Figure 13. Strain profiles using 1D (blue line) and 2D (red line) input motions for the FN and FP
directions. Both results were developed with strain rate corrections on and Dmin=2%.

COMPARISON WITH PAST RESEARCH

Yee et al. (2013) made predictions for the same event and soil profile as in this study using
a 1D shaking model implemented in DEEPSOIL. They experimented with an equivalent-linear
model, nonlinear with Dmin=2% and nonlinear with Dmin=5%. Of these, the nonlinear, the
Dmin=5% model produced the closest match to the measured data. In this study, however, the
value for small strain damping was set to 2% for all layers based on typical values estimated
using Darendeli (2001). Hence, Figures 14 through 17 compare the Yee et al. (2013) nonlinear,
Dmin=2 and 5% predictions to those generated in this study with 2D shaking input along with
strain rate corrections enabled and Dmin=2%.

The response spectra, PGA and strain profiles shown in Figures 14 through 17 suggest that
the method used in this analysis has the potential to provide results of similar quality to Yee et
al. (2013), despite the use of a smaller value for small strain damping herein. This may be due
to the efforts made herein to develop a more realistic simulation of free-field ground shaking.
Between the differences in the dynamic soil properties, the implementation in LS-DYNA and
using bi-directional input shaking, the model used for this study represents a significant step
closer to capturing all of the physical phenomena taking place.
In the FN direction, the data which was not corrected for strain rate expressed what appears
to be a pattern of artificial fluctuations in the maximum strain profile. The reason for this is not
18
clear but the authors speculate that it might be related to instability in the model as the soil
approaches failure or possibly the manner by which the profile was discretized. Further
investigation is required to properly understand this phenomenon.

Figure 14. FN and FP measured and predicted response spectra for a depth of 2.4 m from this study
and Yee et al. (2013). The data presented from this study was developed using 2D input shaking with
strain rate corrections on and Dmin=2%.

19
Figure 15. FN and FP measured and predicted response spectra for a depth of 50.8 m from this study
and Yee et al. (2013). The data presented from this study was developed using 2D input shaking with
strain rate corrections on and Dmin=2%.

Figure 16. PGA profiles for the FN and FP directions. The data shown includes: measured, prediction
from this study with Dmin=2% and strain rate corrections on, prediction from Yee et al. (2013).

20
Figure 17. Strain profiles from this study and Yee et al. (2013) for the FN and FP directions. The results
from this study were developed using a 2D input motions with strain rate corrections on and Dmin=2%.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that dynamic finite element analyses can provide
comparable ground response estimates to that of state-of-the-art prediction methods in site
response analysis. It has been demonstrated that including both bi-directional input shaking as
well as the aforementioned adjustments for the effects of strain rate can significantly affect the
results of a site response analysis and, in general, provide improved accuracy. In addition, the
method employed for characterizing dynamic soil properties with the shear strength
coefficient, a , has been shown to produce reasonable results.

The strain profiles in Figure 17 reveal that a stiffened response is consistent throughout the
entire depth of the soil profile compared to the Yee et al. (2013) site response analysis for the
same site. The method by which the dynamic soil properties were defined (see Appendix A) in
this study contributed to the generally stiffened response by enabling a steeper slope of the
stress-strain curve beyond the transition strain when a is greater than 1. This would not be
surprising considering that the slope of the stress – strain curve beyond the transition strain
calculated for any value of a greater than 1 does not level out as quickly as it would if a =1,
as in Yee et al. (2013). However, it is also possible that the stiffened response is largely due
to adjustments for strain rate applied to cohesive layers.

21
 For this case history, strain rate effects significantly increased the PGAs and decreased the
shear strains within the soil profile; however, they only had a modest effect on the predicted
response spectrum. On the other hand, considering a bi-directional ground motion significantly
reduced the predicted response spectrum demands, while having only a modest effect on the
PGA and shear strain profiles.

The observed differences in the 1D and 2D responses support the notion that the shifting
of wave energy from one direction to another can noticeably affect the results of a site response
analysis. Thus, there are two reasons why this is a factor which is important to address: (1) it
should be incorporated to achieve a physically realistic model and (2) it has been shown herein
to improve the match between computed and measured response.

For this particular location, most of the soil was classified as sand which made reproducing
theoretical stress - strain behavior relatively simple due to the availability of the relationships
developed in Hayashi et al. (1994). This is somewhat true for cohesive layers as well but the
limitation of only providing estimates up to 80% of the undrained strength is one which could
be overcome in future work. In addition, it would be advantageous to apply a correction for the
number of loading cycles on the response of cohesive material, similar to that applied herein
for the effects of strain rate.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank Dr. Yuli Huang and Dr. Jongwon Lee of Arup for useful discussions
and valuable comments they provided. We also would like to express our appreciation to Dr.
Satoshi Nishimura for his comments about the typical strains at peak strength of clays and to
Dr. Paul Vardanega for the clay strength data he provided. Furthermore, we thank three
anonymous reviewers for helpful review comments. Lastly, we would like to acknowledge that
the ground motion data used in this study belongs Tokyo Electric Power Company, and the
distribution license of the data belongs to Japan Association for Earthquake Engineering.

22
 REFERENCES

Bolisetti, C., Whittaker, A. S., Mason, H. B., Almufti, I., & Willford, M. (2014). Equivalent linear and
nonlinear site response analysis for design and risk assessment of safety-related nuclear
structures. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 275, 107-121.
Boore, B. M., & Bommer, J. J. (2005). Processing of strong-motion accelerograms: needs, options and
consequences. Soil Dynamics in Earthquake Engineering, 25(2), 93 - 115.
Boore, D. M. (2005). On pads and filters: processing strong-motion data. Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America, 95(2), 745 - 750.
Carter, L., Green, R., Bradley, B., & Cubrinovski, M. (2014). The influence of near-fault motions on
liquefaction triggering during the Canterbury earthquake sequence. Soil Liquefaction during Recent
Large-Scale Earthquakes, 57.

Darendeli, M. (2001). Development of a new family of normalized modulus reduction and material
damping curves. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas, Austin, Department of Civil Engineering.
Hardin, B.O. and Drnevich, V.P. (1972). “Shear Modulus and Damping in Soils,” Journal of Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 98(7), 667-692.
Hashash, Y. M., Groholski, D. R., Phillips, C. A., Park, D., & Musgrove, M. (2011). Deepsoil v.4.0,
user manual and tutorial. 98p.
Hashash, Y. M., Phillips, C., & Groholski, D. R. (2010). Recent Advances in Non-Linear Site Response
Analysis. Fifth International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering and Soil Dynamics and Symposium in Honor of Professor I.M. Idriss. San Diego.

Hayashi, H., Honda, M., Yamada, T., & Tatsuoka, F. (1994). Modeling of nonlinear stress - strain
relations of sands for dynamic response analysis. Earthquake Engineering, Tenth World
Conference, (pp. 6819 - 6825). Balkema, Rotterdam.
Kulhawy, F.H. and Mayne, P.W. (1990). Manual on estimating soil properties for foundation design.
Report EPRI EL-6800, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, p.306.
Kwok, A. O., Stewart, J. P., Hashash, Y. M., Matasovic, N., Pyke, R., Wang, Z., & Yang, Z. (2007).
Use of exact solutions of wave propagation problems to guide implementation of nonlinear seismic
ground response analysis procedures. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
133(11), 1385 - 1398.
Lambe, T. W. (1973). Predictions in soil engineering. Geotechnique, 23(2), 151-202.
Lo Presti, D. C., Jamiolkowski, M., Pallara, O., Cavallaro, A., & Pedroni, S. (1997). Shear Modulus
and Damping of Soils. Geotechnique, 47(3), 603-617.

23
LSTC, 2009. LS DYNA Keyword User’s Manual – Release 971 R4. Livermore SoftwareTechnology
Corporation, Livermore, California.
Mayne, P. W., Robertson, P. K., & Lunne, T. (1998). Clay stress history evaluated from seismic
piezocone tests. Geotechnical site characterization, 2, 1113-1118.
Menq, F. Y. (2003). Dynamic properties of sandy and gravelly soils. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
Texas, Austin, Department of Civil Engineering.
Miyake, H., Koketsu, K., Hikima, K., Shinohara, M., & Kanazawa, T. (2010). Source fault of the 2007
Chuetsu-oki, Japan, earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 100(1), 384 -
391.
Nishimura, S. (2014). Dynamic Soil Properties for Cohesive Soils. Personal Communications.
Park, D., & Hashash, Y. M. (2008). Rate-dependent soil behavior in seismic site response
analysis. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 45(4), 454-469.
Stewart, J.P.; & Kwok, A.O.L. (2008). Nonlinear seismic ground response analysis: code usage
protocols and verification against vertical array data. Geotechnical Engineering and Soil Dynamics
IV, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 181, 181, 1 - 24.
Stewart, J.P., Kwok, A.O.L., Hashash, Y.M.A., Matasovic, N., Pyke, R., Wang, Z., and Yang, Z.,
(2008) “Benchmarking of nonlinear geotechnical ground response analysis procedures” PEER
Report 2008/04.
Stewart, J. P., & Yee, E. (2012). Nonlinear Site Response and Seismic Compression at Vertical Array
Strongly Shaken by 2007 Niigata-ken Chuetsu-oki Earthquake. Reston, VA: National Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Program, External Research Program.
Vardanega, P. and Bolton, M. (2013). Stiffness of Clays and Silts: Normalizing Shear Modulus and
Shear Strain. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 139(9), 1575–1589.

Vardanega, P., Lau, B., Lam, S., Haigh, S., Madabhushi, S., & Bolton, M. (2012). Laboratory
Measurement of Strength Mobilisation in Kaolin: Link to Stress History. Geotechnique Letters,
2(1), 9–15.
Yee, E., Stewart, J. P., & Tokimatsu, K. (2013). Elastic and Large-Strain Nonlinear Seismic Site
Response Analysis of Vertical Array Recordings. Journal of Geoetechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 139, 1789 - 1801.

24
Appendix A

25