Please wait a minute...
Shopping Cart Email List Chinese
Advanced Search Fig/Tab
Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering

ISSN 2095-2430

ISSN 2095-2449(Online)

CN 10-1023/X

Postal Subscription Code 80-968

2018 Impact Factor: 1.272

Featured Articles  |  Most Downloaded  |  Most Reading
Online Submission Subscribe to Our RSS Content Feed
Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.    2021, Vol. 15 Issue (1) : 275-303    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-021-0685-0
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Influence of site conditions on seismic design parameters for foundations as determined via nonlinear site response analysis
Muhammad Tariq A. CHAUDHARY()
Civil Engineering Department, Kuwait University, Khalidya 13060, Kuwait
 Download: PDF(8689 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

Site conditions, including geotechnical properties and the geological setting, influence the near-surface response of strata subjected to seismic excitation. The geotechnical parameters required for the design of foundations include mass density (ρ), damping ratio (βs), shear wave velocity (Vs), and soil shear modulus (Gs). The values of the last three parameters are sensitive to the level of nonlinear strain induced in the strata due to seismic ground motion. In this study, the effect of variations in soil properties, such as plasticity index (PI), effective stress (σ′), over consolidation ratio (OCR), impedance contrast ratio (ICR) between the bedrock and the overlying strata, and depth of soil strata over bedrock (H), on seismic design parameters (βs, Vs, and Gs) was investigated for National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) site classes C and D, through 1D nonlinear seismic site response analysis. The Morris one-at-a-time (OAT) sensitivity analysis indicated that βs, Vs, and Gs were significantly influenced by variations in PI, while ICR affected βs more than it affected Vs and Gs. However, the influence of H on these parameters was less significant. It was also found that variations in soil properties influenced seismic design parameters in soil type D more significantly than in soil type C. Predictive relationships for βs, Vs, and Gs were derived based on the 1D seismic site response analysis and sensitivity analysis results. The βs, Vs, and Gs values obtained from the analysis were compared with the corresponding values in NEHRP to determine the similarities and differences between the two sets of values. The need to incorporate PI and ICR in the metrics for determining βs, Vs, and Gs for the seismic design of foundations was highlighted.
Keywords site effects      1D seismic site response analysis      sensitivity analysis      foundations      shear wave velocity      soil shear modulus     
Corresponding Author(s): Muhammad Tariq A. CHAUDHARY   
Just Accepted Date: 03 March 2021   Online First Date: 29 March 2021    Issue Date: 12 April 2021
 Cite this article:   
Muhammad Tariq A. CHAUDHARY. Influence of site conditions on seismic design parameters for foundations as determined via nonlinear site response analysis[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2021, 15(1): 275-303.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/10.1007/s11709-021-0685-0
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/Y2021/V15/I1/275
rock class rock description NEHRP site class RMR ρ (g/cm3) ν E (GPa) G (GPa) Vrock (m/s)
I very good A 85 2.92 0.15 74.99 32.60 3353
II good 70 2.61 0.20 31.62 13.18 2251
III fair B 50 2.32 0.25 10.00 ?4.00 1320
IV poor 30 2.09 0.30 ?3.16 ?1.22 ?780
V very poor C 17 2.06 0.35 ?2.02 ?0.74 ?600
Tab.1  Rock properties used in the study and their mechanical properties
Fig.1  Shear wave velocity profile for various site classes. (a) 40-m-deep strata; (b) 110-m-deep strata.
parameter range
Vs30 (m/s) 600 (C_high)
475 (C_avg)
350 (D_high)
275 (D_avg)
180 (D_low)
PI 0,15,60
OCR 1
σ′ (atm) 2,4
strata depth (m) 40,110
Vrock (m/s) 600,760,1350,2251,3353
ICR 1–16 (40-m strata)
1.21–18 (110-m strata)
Tab.2  Variation in soil / bedrock parameters
NEHRP site class soil profile Vs30 (m/s) ρ (kg/m3) ν G (MPa) β (%)
C C_high 600 2060 0.35 741 3
C_avg 475 2020 0.35 456 4
D D_high 350 1980 0.40 243 5
D_avg 275 1900 0.40 144 7
D_low 180 1850 0.42 57 8
Tab.3  Soil profiles and their mechanical properties
Fig.2  Acceleration response spectra of selected ground motions. (a) DBE; (b) FEE; (c) MCE.
Fig.3  MKZ modulus reduction and damping curves. (a) Non-plastic soils (PI=0); (b) plastic soils (PI=15, 60).
Fig.4  Variation in values of dynamic soil design parameters. (a) bs for 40-m strata; (b) Vs for 40-m strata; (c) Gs for 40-m strata; (d) βs for 110-m strata; (e) Vs for 110-m strata; (f) Gs for 110-m strata.
Fig.5  Effect of PI, Vrock and earthquake intensity on bs for various site classes. (a) DBE for 40 m strata; (b) FEE for 40-m strata; (c) MCE for 40-m strata; (d) DBE for 110 m strata; (e) FEE for 110-m strata; (f) MCE for 110-m strata.
Fig.6  Effect of PI, Vrock and earthquake intensity on Vs for various site classes. (a) DBE for 40-m strata; (b) FEE for 40-m strata; (c) MCE for 40-m strata; (d) DBE for 110-m strata; (e) FEE for 110-m strata; (f) MCE for 110-m strata.
Fig.7  Effect of PI, Vrock and earthquake intensity on Gs for various site classes. (a) DBE for 40 m strata; (b) FEE for 40 m strata; (c) MCE for 40 m strata; (d) DBE for 110 m strata; (e) FEE for 110 m strata; (f) MCE for 110 m strata.
Fig.8  Variation in bs with earthquake intensity as a function of Vrock and site classes. (a) PI=0 for 40 m strata; (b) PI=15 for 40 m strata; (c) PI=60 for 40 m strata; (d) PI=0 for 110 m strata; (e) PI=15 for 110 m strata; (f) PI=60 for 110 m strata.
Fig.9  Variation in Vs with earthquake intensity as a function of Vrock and site classes. (a) PI=0 for 40 m strata; (b) PI=15 for 40 m strata; (c) PI=60 for 40 m strata; (d) PI=0 for 110 m strata; (e) PI=15 for 110 m strata; (f) PI=60 for 110 m strata.
Fig.10  Variation in Gs with earthquake intensity as a function of Vrock and site classes. (a) PI=0 for 40 m strata; (b) PI=15 for 40 m strata; (c) PI=60 for 40 m strata; (d) PI=0 for 110 m strata; (e) PI=15 for 110 m strata; (f) PI=60 for 110 m strata.
Fig.11  EE of PI on bs, Vs and Gs for various site classes, Vrock and earthquake intensities. (a) dβs for 40-m strata; (b) dVs for 40-m strata; (c) dGs for 40-m strata; (d) dβs for 110-m strata; (e) dVs for 110-m strata; (f) dGs for 110-m strata.
Fig.12  EE of ICR or Vrock on bs, Vs and Gs, for various site classes, PI and earthquake intensities. (a) dbs for 40-m strata; (b) dVs for 40-m strata; (c) dGs for 40-m strata; (d) dbs for 110-m strata; (e) dVs for 110-m strata; (f) dGs for 110-m strata.
Fig.13  Correlation between bs ((a) PI=0; (b) PI=15; (c) PI=60), Vs ((d) PI=0; (e) PI=15; (f) PI=60), and Gs ((g) PI=0; (h) PI=15; (i) PI=60) with ICR for various earthquake intensities and PI values for 40-m strata.
Fig.14  EE of strata depth on: (a) βs, (b) Vs, and (c) Gs for various site classes, Vrock, PI and earthquake intensities.
Fig.15  Morris sensitivity plots for: (a) βs, (b) Vs and (c) Gs for EEs of PI, ICR and strata depth.
site class bs Vs Gs
PI ICR H PI ICR H PI ICR H
µ σ µ σ µ σ µ σ µ σ µ σ µ σ µ σ µ σ
C_high 68 18 30 9 10 6 9 5 3 3 1 1 19 10 6 6 2 3
C_avg 81 11 41 8 7 6 15 7 6 4 1 1 30 14 11 8 2 3
D_high 72 16 32 9 12 5 30 11 12 4 5 4 60 20 23 8 11 7
D_avg 71 14 31 11 7 6 40 16 15 7 6 6 80 28 31 15 11 8
D_low 51 10 9 4 10 4 35 2 7 2 5 5 69 5 13 4 10 7
Tab.4  Sensitivity parameters (SP) for βs, Vs and Gs evaluated for various EEs (%)
site class bs Vs Gs
PI ICR H PI ICR H PI ICR H
C_high high medium ignore ignore ignore ignore low ignore ignore
C_avg very high medium ignore low ignore ignore medium ignore ignore
D_high high medium ignore medium ignore ignore high low ignore
D_avg high medium ignore medium low ignore very high medium ignore
D_low high ignore ignore medium ignore ignore high ignore ignore
Tab.5  Sensitivity indicators (SI) for βs, Vs, and Gs for EEs of PI, ICR and H
PI c1* ( ×10−2) c2 ( ×10−2) c3 ( ×100) c4 ( ×10−4) c5 ( ×10−3) c6 ( ×10−1)
0 −4.61 ?9.45 36.09 2.55 −7.96 6.22
15 −4.76 ?7.97 31.93 4.01 −9.34 8.71
60 −3.32 25.07 20.41 9.21 −3.65 8.87
Tab.6  Regression coefficients for βs
Fig.16  Comparison of predicted values of βs with the 1D site response values. (a) ICR not included, (b) ICR included.
item c1* (×10-5) c2(×10-3) c3 (×10-2) c4 (×100) c5 (×100) c6(×100) c7(×10-4) c8(×100) c9(×10-1) c10(×100)
Vs −5.01 4.42 4.14 −3.32 −4.92 286.97 −10.11 1.09 5.36 −42.05
Gs −3.02 3.51 3.15 −3.58 −4.98 474.99 −6.01 1.69 4.58 −316.59
Tab.7  Regression coefficients for Vs and Gs
Fig.17  Comparison of predicted values of Vs with the 1D site response values. (a) PI not included; (b) PI included.
Fig.18  Comparison of predicted values of Gs with the 1D site response values. (a) PI not included; (b) PI included.
Fig.19  Comparison of computed soil damping ratio (βs) with NEHRP and the proposed values. (a) Soil class C; (b) Soil class D.
Fig.20  Comparison of computed Vs reduction with NEHRP and the proposed values. (a) Soil class C; (b) Soil class D.
Fig.21  Comparison of computed Gs/G0 values with NEHRP and the proposed values. (a) Soil class C; (b) Soil class D.
Group EQ record ID seismic event and station details magnitude PGA (g) fault distance (km) Vs (m/s)
Group 1 (DBE)
(median PGA= 0.17 g)
(Avg. Vs = 724 m/s)		 1 Umbria Marche (AF 8) Italy, 10/12/1997, Norcia, 0 5.20 0.04 16 678
2 Chi-Chi Taiwan, 9/20/1999, CHY042, N 7.62 0.07 27 665
3 Northridge-01, 1/17/1994, Vasquez Rocks Park, 0 6.69 0.15 24 996
4 Lytle Creek, 9/12/1970, Devil's Canyon, 90 5.33 0.17 18 667
5 San Fernando, 2/9/1971, Lake Hughes #4, 111 6.61 0.20 19 671
6 Kozani Greece-01, 5/13/1995, Kozani, L 6.40 0.21 14 650
7 Northridge-01, 1/17/1994, LA- Chalon Rd, 70 6.69 0.22 20 740
Group 2 (FEE)
(median PGA= 0.32 g)
(Avg. Vs = 703 m/s)		 8 Northridge-01, 1/17/1994, LA 00, 180 6.69 0.26 19 706
9 Kobe, Japan, 1/16/1995, Kobe University, 90 6.90 0.29 16 828
10 Morgan Hill, 4/24/1984, Gilroy Array #6, 90 6.19 0.29 10 663
11 Tabas Iran, 9/16/1978, Dayhook, L 7.35 0.32 14 660
12 Loma Prieta, 10/18/1989, Gilroy- Gavilan Coll., 337 6.93 0.33 10 730
13 Loma Prieta, 10/18/1989, Gilroy- Gavilan Coll., 67 6.93 0.36 10 730
14 San Fernando, 2/9/1971, Lake Hughes #12, 21 6.61 0.37* [0.38] 19 602
Group 3 (MCE)
(median PGA= 0.42 g)
(Avg. Vs = 792 m/s)		 15 Northridge-01, 1/17/1994, LA 00, 270 6.69 0.38 19 706
16 Loma Prieta, 10/18/1989, UCSC, 0 6.93 0.39* [0.31] 18 714
17 Tabas Iran, 9/16/1978, Dayhook, T 7.35 0.41 14 660
18 Loma Prieta, 10/18/1989, Gilroy Array #1, 0 6.93 0.42 10 1428
19 Chi-Chi Taiwan, 9/20/1999, TCU045, E 7.62 0.44* [0.47] 26 705
20 Manjil Iran 06/20/90, Abbar L 7.37 0.45* [0.51] 13 724
21 Kobe Japan, 1/16/1995, Nishi-Akashi, 90 6.90 0.46 9 609
  Table A-1: Ground motions used in the study
1 M J Pender. Earthquake resistant design of foundations. Bulletin-New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, 1996, 29(3): 155–171
https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.29.3.155-171
2 M P Romo, M J Mendoza, S R Garcia. Geotechnical factors in seismic design of foundations- state-of-the-art report. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 2000, 33(3): 347–370
https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.33.3.347-370
3 K D Pitilakis, D G Raptakis, K A Makra. Site effects: Recent considerations and design provisions. In: Proceedings 2nd International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering. Lisbon: A. A. Balkema, 1999: 901–912
4 M D Trifunac. Site conditions and earthquake ground motion—A review. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2016, 90: 88–100
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.08.003
5 NEHRP. Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures, FEMA P-1050–1, Part 1 (Provisions) and Part 2 (Commentary). Washington, D.C.: Building Seismic Safety Council, 2015
6 CEN. European Committee for Standardization TC250/SC8/, Eurocode 8: Design Provisions for Earthquake Resistance of Structures, Part 1.1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings, PrEN1998–1. Brussels: CEN, 2003
7 JRA. Design Specifications for Highway Bridges, Part V: Seismic Design. Tokyo: Japan Road Association, 2012
8 AS/NZS. AS/NZS 1170.0: Structural Design Actions, Part 0: General Principles. Wellington: Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand, 2002
9 G Mylonakis, S Nikolaou, G Gazetas. Footings under seismic loading: Analysis and design issues with emphasis on bridge foundations. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2006, 26(9): 824–853
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2005.12.005
10 H H M Hwang, C S Lee. Parametric study of site response analysis. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 1991, 10(6): 282–290
https://doi.org/10.1016/0267-7261(91)90045-2
11 K Makra, D Raptakis, F J Chávez-García, K Pitilakis. Site effects and design provisions: the case of Euroseistest. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 2002, 158: 2349–2367
12 K Pitilakis. Site effects. In: Ansal A, ed. Recent Advances in Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering and Microzonation. Dordrecht: Springer, 2004
13 M R Gallipoli, L Chiauzzi, T A Stabile, M Mucciarelli, A Masi, C Lizza, L Vignola. The role of site effects in the comparison between code provisions and the near field strong motion of the Emilia 2012 earthquakes. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2014, 12(5): 2211–2230
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9628-7
14 S Adhikary, Y Singh, D K Paul. Effect of soil depth on inelastic seismic response of structures. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2014, 61–62: 13–28
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.01.017
15 G Tropeano, F M Soccodato, F Silvestri. Re-evaluation of code-specified stratigraphic amplification factors based on Italian experimental records and numerical seismic response analyses. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2018, 110: 262–275
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.12.030
16 M T A Chaudhary. A study on sensitivity of seismic site amplification factors to site conditions for bridges. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 2018, 51(4): 197–211
https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.51.4.197-211
17 S Viti, M Tanganelli, V D’intinosante, M Baglione. Effects of soil characterization on the seismic input. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2019, 23(3): 487–511
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2017.1326422
18 J Boaga, S Renzi, R Deiana, G Cassiani. Soil damping influence on seismic ground response: A parametric analysis for weak to moderate ground motion. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2015, 79: 71–79
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2015.09.002
19 S Hamidpour, M Soltani. Probabilistic assessment of ground motions intensity considering soil properties uncertainty. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2016, 90: 158–168
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.06.010
20 H H Tsang, A M Chandler, N T Lam. Simple models for estimating period-shift and damping in soil. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2006, 35(15): 1925–1947
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.614
21 B Fatahi, S H R Tabatabaiefar. Effects of soil plasticity on seismic performance of mid-rise building frames resting on soft soils. Advances in Structural Engineering, 2014, 17(10): 1387–1402
https://doi.org/10.1260/1369-4332.17.10.1387
22 Z T Bieniawski. Geomechanics classification of rock masses and its application in tunneling. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Congress on Rock Mechanics. Denver: ISRM, 1974, 2(2): 27–32
23 R S Carmichael. Practical Handbook of Physical Properties of Rocks and Minerals. Boca Raton, FL: CRC press, 1989
24 J C Jaeger, N G Cook, R Zimmerman. Fundamentals of Rock Mechanics. 4th ed. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2007
25 Y S Touloukian, W R Judd, R F Roy. Physical Properties of Rocks and Minerals. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1989
26 J L Serafim, J P Pereira. Considerations of the Geomechanics classification of Bieniawski. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium of Engineering Geology and Underground Construction. Lisbon: Portuguese Geotechnical Society, 1983, 1133–1144
27 L A Wald, J Mori. Evaluation of methods for estimating linear site-response amplifications in the Los Angeles region. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 2000, 90(6B): S32–S42
https://doi.org/10.1785/0119970170
28 D M Boore. Can site response be predicted? Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2004, 8(sup001 SI1): 1–41
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460409350520
29 J C Santamarina, K A Klein, M A Fam. Soils and Waves. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 2001
30 M Corigliano, C G Lai, M Rota, A Penna. Automatic definition of hazard-compatible accelerograms at non-rocky sites. In: Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Lisbon: Portuguese Society for Earthquake Engineering, 2012
31 R E Gibson. Some results concerning displacements and stresses in a non-homogeneous elastic half-space. Geotechnique, 1967, 17(1): 58–67
https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1967.17.1.58
32 A O Awojobi. The settlement of a foundation of Gibson soil of the second kind. Geotechnique, 1975, 25(2): 221–228
https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1975.25.2.221
33 J Douglas, P Gehl, L F Bonilla, O Scotti, J Régnier, A M Duval, E Bertrand. Making the most of available site information for empirical ground-motion prediction. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 2009, 99(3): 1502–1520
https://doi.org/10.1785/0120080075
34 G R Toro. Probabilistic Models of Site Velocity Profiles for Generic and Site-Specific Ground-Motion Amplification Studies. New York: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, 1995
35 M T A Chaudhary. Implication of Soil and Seismic Ground Motion Variability on Dynamic Pile Group Impedance for Bridges. Research Project Report # EV01/15. Kuwait University Research Sector, 2016
36 P Guerreiro, S Kontoe, D Taborda. Comparative study of stiffness reduction and damping curves. In: The 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Lisbon: Portuguese Society for Earthquake Engineering, 2012
37 M Vucetic, R Dobry. Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1991, 117(1): 89–107
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1991)117:1(89)
38 M B Darendeli. Development of a new family of normalized modulus reduction and material damping curves. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Austin: University of Texas, Austin, 2001
39 I Ishibashi, X Zhang. Unified dynamic shear moduli and damping ratios of sand and clay. Soil and Foundation, 1993, 33(1): 182–191
https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf1972.33.182
40 H B Seed, I M Idriss. Soil Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic Response Analyses. Technical Report EERRC-70–10. University of California, Berkeley, 1970
41 P Bazzurro, C A Cornell. Ground-motion amplification in nonlinear soil sites with uncertain properties. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 2004, 94(6): 2090–2109
https://doi.org/10.1785/0120030215
42 M Bahrampouri, A Rodriguez-Marek, J J Bommer. Mapping the uncertainty in modulus reduction and damping curves onto the uncertainty of site amplification functions. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2019, 126: 105091
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.02.022
43 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). ATC-63: Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors, ATC-63 project report prepared by the Applied Technology Council for FEMA. Washington, D.C.: FEMA, 2008
44 E Yenier, M A Sandikkaya, S Akkar. Fundamental Features of the Extended Strong-Motion Databank prepared for the SHARE Project, Deliverable D4.1. Ankara: Middle East Technical University, 2010
45 K Pitilakis, E Riga, A Anastasiadis, S Fotopoulou, S Karafagka. Towards the revision of EC8: Proposal for an alternative site classification scheme and associated intensity dependent spectral amplification factors. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2019, 126: 105137
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.03.030
46 PEER NGA-West2. PEER ground Motion Database. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, 2019
47 Y M A Hashash, M I Musgrove, J A Harmon, D R Groholski, C A Phillips, D Park. DEEPSOIL 6.1, User Manual. Urbana, IL: Board of Trustees of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2016
48 N M Newmark. A method of computation for structural dynamics. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, 1959, 85(3): 67–94
49 R L Kondner, J S A Zelasko. A hyperbolic stress–strain formulation for sands. In: Proceedings of 2nd Pan-American conference on soil mechanics and foundations engineering. São Paulo: Brazilian Association of Soil Mechanics, 1963, 289–324
50 N Matasović, M Vucetic. Cyclic characterization of liquefiable sands. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1993, 119(11): 1805–1822
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1993)119:11(1805)
51 G Masing. Eigenspannumyen und Verfeshungung beim Messing (Self-stretching and hardening for brass). In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Congress for Applied Mechanics. Zurich: O. Füssli, 1926, 332–335 (in German)
52 R M Pyke. Nonlinear soil models for irregular cyclic loadings. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1979, 105(GT6): 715–726
53 Z L Wang, Q Y Han, G S Zhou. Wave propagation method of site seismic response by visco-elastoplastic model. In: Proceedings of the Seventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Istanbul: Turkish National Committee on Earthquake Engineering, 1980, 379–386
54 C Phillips, Y M Hashash. Damping formulation for nonlinear 1D site response analyses. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2009, 29(7): 1143–1158
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2009.01.004
55 K Ishihara. Evaluation of soil properties for use in earthquake response analysis. In: Dungar R, Studer J A, eds, Geomechanical Modeling in Engineering Practice. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema, 1986, 241–275
56 J W S Rayleigh, R B Lindsay. The Theory of Sound. New York: Dover Publications, 1945
57 S L Kramer. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. 1st ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 1996
58 M D Morris. Factorial sampling plans for preliminary computational experiments. Technometrics, 1991, 33(2): 161–174
https://doi.org/10.1080/00401706.1991.10484804
59 A Saltelli, S Tarantola, F Campolongo, M Ratto. Sensitivity Analysis in Practice: A Guide to Assessing Scientific Models. Chichester: Wiley, 2004
60 K M Hamdia, H Ghasemi, X Zhuang, N Alajlan, T Rabczuk. Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis for flexoelectric nanostructures. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2018, 337: 95–109
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2018.03.016
61 S Mohanty, R Codell. Sensitivity analysis methods for identifying influential parameters in a problem with a large number of random variables. WIT Transactions on Modelling and Simulation, 2002, 31: 363–374
https://doi.org/10.2495/RISK020361
62 E Şafak. Local site effects and dynamic soil behavior. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2001, 21(5): 453–458
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0267-7261(01)00021-5
63 N T Kottegoda, R Rosso. Applied Statistics for Civil and Environmental Engineers. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2008
[1] Fangyu LIU, Wenqi DING, Yafei QIAO, Linbing WANG. An artificial neural network model on tensile behavior of hybrid steel-PVA fiber reinforced concrete containing fly ash and slag power[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(6): 1299-1315.
[2] Reza KHADEMI-ZAHEDI, Pouyan ALIMOURI. Finite element model updating of a large structure using multi-setup stochastic subspace identification method and bees optimization algorithm[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(4): 965-980.
[3] Mohammad Reza GHASEMI, Charles V. CAMP, Babak DIZANGIAN. Novel decoupled framework for reliability-based design optimization of structures using a robust shifting technique[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(4): 800-820.
[4] M. Houshmand KHANEGHAHI, M. ALEMBAGHERI, N. SOLTANI. Reliability and variance-based sensitivity analysis of arch dams during construction and reservoir impoundment[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(3): 526-541.
[5] Babak DIZANGIAN, Mohammad Reza GHASEMI. Border-search and jump reduction method for size optimization of spatial truss structures[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(1): 123-134.
[6] Lingyun YOU, Zhanping YOU, Kezhen YAN. Effect of anisotropic characteristics on the mechanical behavior of asphalt concrete overlay[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(1): 110-122.
[7] Sergio A. MARTÍNEZ-GALVÁN, Miguel P. ROMO. Assessment of an alternative to deep foundations in compressible clays: the structural cell foundation[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2018, 12(1): 67-80.
[8] Faezehossadat KHADEMI,Mahmoud AKBARI,Sayed Mohammadmehdi JAMAL,Mehdi NIKOO. Multiple linear regression, artificial neural network, and fuzzy logic prediction of 28 days compressive strength of concrete[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2017, 11(1): 90-99.
[9] Jiu-jiang WU,Yan LI,Qian-gong CHENG,Hua WEN,Xin LIANG. A simplified method for the determination of vertically loaded pile-soil interface parameters in layered soil based on FLAC3D[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2016, 10(1): 103-111.
[10] Prishati RAYCHOWDHURY,Sumit JINDAL. Shallow foundation response variability due to soil and model parameter uncertainty[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2014, 8(3): 237-251.
[11] Amoroso SARA. Prediction of the shear wave velocity VS from CPT and DMT at research sites[J]. Front Struc Civil Eng, 2014, 8(1): 83-92.
[12] Xi CHEN, Wei XU. Parametric sensitivity analysis of cellular diaphragm wall[J]. Front Struc Civil Eng, 2012, 6(4): 358-364.
[13] Hossein ASADI KALAMEH, Arash KARAMALI, Cosmin ANITESCU, Timon RABCZUK. High velocity impact of metal sphere on thin metallic plate using smooth particle hydrodynamics (SPH) method[J]. Front Struc Civil Eng, 2012, 6(2): 101-110.
[14] Maria Luísa Braga FARINHA, José Vieira de LEMOS, Emanuel MARANHA DAS NEVES. Analysis of foundation sliding of an arch dam considering the hydromechanical behavior[J]. Front Struc Civil Eng, 2012, 6(1): 35-43.
[15] Lianyang ZHANG, . A simple method for evaluating liquefaction potential from shear wave velocity[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2010, 4(2): 178-195.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed