Influence of Input Motion and Site Property Variabilities

on Seismic Site Response Analysis

Ellen M. Rathje, Ph.D., M.ASCE1; Albert R. Kottke2; and Whitney L. Trent3

Abstract: Seismic site response analysis evaluates the influence of local soil conditions on earthquake ground shaking. There are
multiple sources of potential uncertainty in this analysis; the most significant pertaining to the specification of the input motions and to the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Dammam on 01/24/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

characterization of the soil properties. The influence of the selection of input ground motions on equivalent-linear site response analysis
is evaluated through analyses performed with multiple suites of input motions selected to fit the same target acceleration response
spectrum. The results indicate that a stable median surface response spectrum 共i.e., within ⫾20% of any other suite兲 can be obtained with
as few as five motions, if the motions fit the input target spectrum well. The stability of the median is improved to ⫾5 to 10% when 10
or 20 input motions are used. If the standard deviation of the surface response spectra is required, at least 10 motions 共and preferably 20兲
are required to adequately model the standard deviation. The influence of soil characterization uncertainty is assessed through Monte
Carlo simulations, where variations in the shear-wave velocity profile and nonlinear soil properties are considered. Modeling shear-wave
velocity variability generally reduces the predicted median surface motions and amplification factors, most significantly at periods less
than the site period. Modeling the variability in nonlinear properties has a similar, although slightly smaller, effect. Finally, including the
variability in soil properties significantly increases the standard deviation of the amplification factors but has a lesser effect on the standard
deviation of the surface motions.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲GT.1943-5606.0000255
CE Database subject headings: Soil properties; Uncertainty principles; Seismic effects; Earthquakes.
Author keywords: Site response analysis; Input motions; Soil properties; Uncertainty.

Introduction method of analysis 共Idriss 2004兲. Each of these sources of uncer-

Predicting the influence of local soil conditions on expected earth-
quake ground motions is a critical aspect of the seismic design
process. In many situations, the effects of soils conditions on
ground shaking are assessed through dynamic simulations of
wave propagation called seismic site response analysis. This
analysis propagates rock acceleration-time histories through the
local soil profile to compute acceleration-time histories at the
ground surface. The site response analysis provides an assessment
of surface acceleration-time histories, surface acceleration re-
sponse spectra, and amplification factors 共AFs兲, as well as an
evaluation of the induced shear stresses and shear strains within
the soil profile. There are four basic sources of uncertainty in this
analysis 共Fig. 1兲: 共1兲 specification of the input rock motions; 共2兲
characterization of the shear-wave velocity profile; 共3兲 character-
ization of the nonlinear soil properties; and 共4兲 selection of the
1
J. Neils Thompson Professor, Dept. of Civil, Architectural, and
Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX 78712 共corre-
sponding author兲. E-mail: e.rathje@mail.utexas.edu
2
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil, Architectural, and
Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX 78712. E-mail:
albert@mail.utexas.edu
3
Staff Engineer, GeoEngineers, Inc., Seattle, WA 98101. E-mail:
whitney.trent@gmail.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on September 16, 2008; ap-
proved on September 24, 2009; published online on March 15, 2010.
Discussion period open until September 1, 2010; separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 136, No. 4,
April 1, 2010. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/2010/4-607–619/$25.00.
tainty is discussed below.
Specification of the input rock motions for site response analy-
sis is commonly based on developing a target acceleration re-
sponse spectrum and selecting previously recorded acceleration-
time histories that, on average, fit the target spectrum. The
practice of selecting input rock motions varies widely, as no strict
standards exist. It is well known that multiple input rock motions
are required in an effort to model the uncertainty in ground mo-
tion prediction and because no one motion fits the target spectrum
at all periods. However, diverse practices are applied to the other
aspects of input motion selection: specification of the target spec-
trum, selection of the required number of records, and quantifica-
tion of the goodness of fit between a selected suite of motions and
the target spectrum. To circumvent some of these issues, it has
become customary to modify acceleration-time histories through
spectral matching 共Hancock et al. 2006兲 such that they match the
target spectrum at each period. However, the resulting motions
have response spectra that are not representative of real earth-
quake motions and using these motions only provides an estimate
of the median response.
Characterizing the site conditions for site response analysis
involves the measurement of shear-wave velocity as a function of
depth and the assessment of the nonlinear soil properties. The
shear-wave velocity profile is generally measured at multiple lo-
cations across a site using in situ seismic test methods, such as
downhole testing, spectral analysis of surface waves, or suspen-
sion logging. The nonlinear soil properties are commonly quanti-
fied via shear modulus reduction 共G / Gmax versus shear strain兲 and
damping ratio 共D versus shear strain兲 curves that describe the
variation of normalized shear modulus and D with shear strain.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2010 / 607

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2010, 136(4): 607-619

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Dammam on 01/24/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Sources of uncertainty in seismic site response analysis
Appropriate nonlinear properties can be evaluated via laboratory
testing on “undisturbed ” specimens or through empirical corre-
lations that relate these curves to soil type, stress conditions, etc.
Various methods of analysis are available for simulating the
seismic response of a soil deposit. These methods encompass dif-
ferent models for the stress strain constitutive response of the soil
共i.e., equivalent linear or nonlinear兲 and may simulate one-, two-,
or three-dimensional wave propagation. In practice, one-
dimensional analysis of vertically propagating horizontal shear
waves is most often performed, and the nonlinear response of the
soil is most commonly modeled through the equivalent-linear
共EQL兲 approximation, which uses an iterative technique to select
strain-compatible soil properties for a linear-elastic analysis. The
EQL approach has several shortcomings related to overdamping
of high frequencies and overamplification at the site period par-
ticularly during strong shaking 共Kramer 1996兲. Nonetheless, this
technique is computationally efficient and has yielded acceptable
site response results over a range of applications.
Much of the previous work on site response uncertainties has
focused on the influence of site property uncertainty. Field and
Jacob 共1993兲 performed Monte Carlo simulations of the linear
elastic response of the Turkey Flat, California site subjected to
weak motions. Their results indicated that uncertainties in the
shear-wave velocity profile and small strain damping ratio signifi-
cantly affected the amplification predictions. Kwok et al. 共2008兲
and Stewart and Kwok 共2008兲 investigated the contributions of
shear-wave velocity and nonlinear curve variability on nonlinear
site response results for Turkey Flat, Calif. and three other sites.
These studies indicated that, depending on the site and the spec-
tral period, shear-wave velocity variability or nonlinear curve
variability may be the dominant contributor to the variability in
the computed response.
Roblee et al. 共1996兲 performed Monte Carlo simulations of
EQL site response analysis to evaluate the influence of various
uncertainties on computed surface response spectra. Input mo-
tions were prescribed using the stochastic finite-fault model,
which uses a seismological model of the earthquake source and
path to predict the input Fourier amplitude spectrum 共FAS兲. Sur-
face response spectra were computed using the input FAS, EQL
608 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2010
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2010, 136(4): 607-619
transfer functions, and random vibration theory 共Schneider et al.
1991兲. The study considered the relative influence of uncertainties
in the model parameters for the earthquake source, source-to-site
path, and site properties. The results showed that site property
variability caused a decrease in the median surface response spec-
tra, as compared with analyses incorporating source and path un-
certainties. Site property variability also caused an increase in the
standard deviation of the surface motions.
Bazzurro and Cornell 共2004a兲 performed Monte Carlo simula-
tions of nonlinear site response analysis to evaluate the amplifi-
cation factors for sites with uncertain soil properties. The input
parameters for the nonlinear models were varied statistically, and
a large suite of 78 input motions was used. These input motions
were selected from a large range of earthquakes and represented a
significant source of variability with peak ground accelerations
ranging from 0.01 to 1.0 g. Bazzurro and Cornell 共2004a兲 dem-
onstrated that including soil property variability slightly de-
creased the median amplification factor and slightly increased its
standard deviation; but they concluded that the variability intro-
duced by the input motions was more important than the variabil-
ity introduced by soil property uncertainties.
Andrade and Borja 共2006兲 performed Monte Carlo simulations
of EQL and nonlinear site response analyses to evaluate the sen-
sitivity of these analytical procedures to their input parameters.
The study focused on the ground motion parameters Arias inten-
sity and acceleration spectrum intensity and compared the cumu-
lative distribution functions of these parameters for single
earthquake motions. In this way, the variability introduced by
differences in input motions was not included in the analysis. The
cumulative distribution functions showed similar slopes for the
nonlinear and EQL analyses, and for each type of analysis the
median value was similar to the value computed for the best-
estimate soil properties. Andrade and Borja 共2006兲 concluded that
nonlinear and EQL analyses demonstrate similar sensitivities to
their input parameters. However, it should be noted that the EQL
assumption breaks down for conditions, in which large strains are
generated 共i.e., large intensity and/or soft soil conditions兲, and in
these cases nonlinear analysis should be performed.
 This paper focuses on the influence of input motion selection
and soil property variability on the results from site response
analysis. The numerical simulations of site response are per-
formed using one-dimensional EQL analysis because this method
of analysis is most common in practice. All analyses are per-
formed for a deep alluvium site based on the characterization of
the Sylmar County Hospital 共SCH兲 in Southern California 共Chang
1996兲. The influence of the selection of input ground motions on
EQL site response analysis is evaluated through analyses per-
formed with multiple suites of input motions selected to fit the
same target acceleration response spectrum. In this effort, we in-
vestigate how the number of motions and their goodness of fit
influence the computed response. The influence of soil property
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Dammam on 01/24/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

uncertainty is assessed through Monte Carlo simulations, where

variations in the shear-wave velocity profile and nonlinear soil
properties are considered. While the previous studies on soil prop-
erty uncertainty demonstrated that this source of uncertainty is
important, in this study we quantify how modeling soil property
variability influences both the median site response and its stan-
dard deviation.

Input Motion Selection

The main goal of a seismic site response analysis is to develop a

statistically stable estimate of the surface motion or site amplifi-
cation factors given the expected rock motion. Because soil is
nonlinear, the computed site response will be influenced by the
characteristics of the input acceleration-time histories. Statisti-
cally stable estimates of the median and standard deviation of the
site response will be obtained only if enough input motions are
specified and these motions provide an adequate fit to the input
target spectrum. In this context, statistically stable means that the
computed response is not significantly affected by different
choices in the input motions.
Input acceleration-time histories for seismic site response
analysis are selected to fit a target acceleration response spectrum
evaluated for rock site conditions. A suite of rock motions is used
for the analysis to account for the uncertainty in ground motion
prediction and because an acceleration response spectrum does
not fully describe the characteristics of an acceleration-time his-
tory. The target spectrum may be specified in different ways: from
a deterministic seismic hazard analysis, from a probabilistic seis-
mic hazard analysis 共PSHA兲, or from building code provisions
共e.g., International Code Council 2006兲. Recent work 共Baker and
Cornell 2006兲 has also proposed the use of a conditional mean
spectrum as a target spectrum for seismic analysis. After specifi-
cation of the target spectrum, a catalog of previously recorded
motions is selected that is representative of the design seismic
event or events. The suite of input motions for analysis is selected
from this catalog and the motions scaled so that the suite best fits
the target response spectrum.
There are no standard methods for selecting acceleration-time
histories to fit a target response spectrum. Rules of thumb estab-
lished in engineering practice 共e.g., Bommer and Acevedo 2004兲
typically involve selection and scaling of 5–7 motions, some of
which may be spectrally matched to the target spectrum, such that
the resulting suite of motions “suitably ” matches the target spec-
trum. There are no rigorous standards for “suitable ” fit. If
spectrally matched motions are used alone, the number of re-
quired motions is typically reduced to about three because there is
less variability between each of the spectrally matched motions.
These motions have an excellent goodness of fit because each
Fig. 2. Example of input motions selected to fit a target spectrum and
its standard deviation 共adapted from Kottke and Rathje 2008兲
matches the target spectrum at all periods; although none of them
has a response spectrum that is representative of a real earthquake
motion.
Recently, some work has evolved to develop quantifiable mea-
sures for goodness of fit 共Naeim et al. 2004; Powers 2004; Kottke
and Rathje 2008兲. Kottke and Rathje 共2008兲 developed a proce-
dure that selects and scales motions to minimize the root-mean-
square error 共RMSE兲 in log space between the target spectrum
and the median response spectrum of the scaled suite of motions.
This procedure includes a scaling method that not only minimizes
RMSE but also controls the standard deviation of the suite of
input motions.
Fig. 2 presents an example of seven input motions selected and
scaled by Kottke and Rathje 共2008兲 to match a deterministic tar-
get spectrum that represents a magnitude 7.0 earthquake at a dis-
tance of 20 km. Seven motions were selected from a larger
catalog of over 40 motions, and scale factors were evaluated to
minimize the RMSE with respect to the target spectrum and to
provide the best fit with the standard deviation 共␴ln兲 from a
ground motion prediction equation. Fig. 2 demonstrates an excel-
lent fit between the median of the scaled motions and the target
spectrum 共RMSE= 0.066兲, and an adequate fit between the ␴ln of
the scaled suite and the target ␴ln over the period range from 0.01
to 2 s. For PSHA-derived target spectra, the uncertainty in ground
motion prediction in already taken into account and the appropri-
ate target ␴ln is 0.0 共Kottke and Rathje 2008兲. While a suite of
scaled motions will never achieve ␴ln = 0.0, the standard deviation
of a suite can be minimized using appropriate scale factors
共Kottke and Rathje 2008兲.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2010 / 609

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2010, 136(4): 607-619

 Soil Property Variability Table 1. Parameters for Toro 共1995兲 Model for Shear-Wave Velocity
Randomization
The most critical soil property data used in seismic site response Vs30
analysis are the shear-wave velocity profile and the nonlinear
modulus reduction and damping curves. There are multiple rea-
sons to incorporate soil property variability in seismic site re- Parameter ⬎750 m/s 360–750 m/s 180–360 m/s ⬍180 m/s
sponse analysis. Soil properties vary spatially across the footprint ␴ln Vs 0.36 0.27 0.31 0.37
of a site due to natural variability induced by geologic processes. ␳200 0.42 1.00 0.98 0.50
This aleatory variability is random in nature and cannot be con- do 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
trolled or reduced, although the level of aleatory variability will b 0.063 0.293 0.344 0.744
vary from site to site. The level of aleatory variability at a site can ␳0 0.95 0.97 0.99 0.00
be quantified by measuring multiple shear-wave velocity profiles ⌬ 3.4 3.8 3.9 5.0
across a site and is often related to the type of depositional envi-
ronment 共e.g., less variability at sites within deep alluvial basins,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Dammam on 01/24/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

more variability at sites within active river valleys兲.
Another reason to incorporate soil property variability is
epistemic uncertainty in the measurement of the soil properties.
Uncertainties in the soil properties are caused by measurement
errors, sample disturbance, or the use of generic soil type/site
class data. As opposed to aleatory variability, epistemic uncer-
tainty can be reduced through the collection of more and/or better
data. In practice, it is difficult to differentiate between aleatory
variability and epistemic uncertainty as they pertain to soil char-
acterization, and we will not attempt to do so in this study. Thus,
these sources of uncertainty/variability will be combined and sim-
ply considered total soil property variability.
The variability in soil properties can be incorporated in site
response analysis through a Monte Carlo simulation. A Monte
Carlo simulation estimates the statistical response of a system by
computing the system response for different values of the input
parameters. These input parameters are generated from specified
probability distributions, and the simulation results for each set of
input parameters are used to estimate the mean, standard devia-
tion, or full probability distribution of the response. For the site
response problem, the relevant input parameters are the shear-
wave velocity profile and nonlinear soil property curves, and the
ditions 共i.e., perfect correlation versus statistical independence兲.
Toro 共1995兲 developed a model of the interlayer correlation of Zi
based on an analysis of over 500 shear-wave velocity profiles.
The standard normal variable for the surface layer 共Z1 , i = 1兲 is
independent of all other layers and defined as
Z1 = ␧1 共2兲
where ␧1 = random normal variable with zero mean and unit stan-
dard deviation. Zi is correlated with the layer above it using 共Toro
1995兲
Zi = ␳IL · Zi−1 + ␧i · 冑1 − ␳IL
2
共3兲
where Zi−1 = standard normal variable of the previous layer; ␧i
= new normal random variable with zero mean and unit standard
deviation; and ␳IL = interlayer correlation coefficient. Toro 共1995兲
modeled the interlayer correlation as depth 共d兲 and layer thickness
共t兲 dependent
␳IL共d,t兲 = 关1 − ␳d共d兲兴␳t共t兲 + ␳d共d兲 共4兲
where ␳d共d兲 = depth dependent correlation coefficient and ␳t共t兲
= thickness dependent correlation coefficient. These correlation
coefficients are defined as 共Toro 1995兲

冋 册
relevant response parameters are surface response spectral values

冦 冧
b
and spectral amplification factors. d + do
␳200 d 艋 200m
␳d共d兲 = 200 + do 共5兲
Shear-Wave Velocity Profile ␳200 d ⬎ 200m
Randomized shear-wave velocity profiles generated for Monte
Carlo simulations are based on a baseline shear-wave velocity
profile, a measure of variability, and an interlayer correlation. The
␳t共t兲 = ␳o exp 冉 冊 −t
⌬
共6兲

profiles generated in this study are based on the statistical models
of Toro 共1995兲 and assume that shear-wave velocity is lognor-
mally distributed at any given depth. Based on this assumption,
the shear-wave velocity of layer i 关Vs共i兲兴 can be derived from the
baseline value for that layer 关Vs,o共i兲, assumed to represent the
mean in logarithmic space兴, the standard deviation of the natural
logarithm of Vs 共␴ln Vs兲, and a random standard normal variable
for layer i 共Zi兲 using 共Toro 1995兲
Vs共i兲 = exp兵ln关Vs,o共i兲兴 + Zi · ␴ln Vs其
where Zi represents the number of standard deviations from the
mean value of ln关Vs,o共i兲兴 in log space.
Various assumptions have been applied to assign the layer val-
ues of Zi. McGuire et al. 共1989兲 and Toro et al. 共1992兲 assumed
that the Zi values were perfectly correlated and, thus, a single
value of Z was assigned to all layers in the profile. Costantino et
al. 共1991兲 assumed that the Zi values were independent and as-
signed independent random values to each layer. Neither of these
assumptions is rigorously correct and they represent extreme con-
where ␳200, do, b, ␳o, and ⌬ are model parameters. Generally, this
model incorporates a larger interlayer correlation for deeper lay-
ers and thinner layers. If one wants to model constant interlayer
correlation, the Toro 共1995兲 model parameters can be judiciously
selected to achieve this goal 共i.e., ␳200 = ␳IL; b = ␳o = 0.0兲.
The parameters required to develop randomized shear-wave
velocity profiles from the Toro 共1995兲 models are the baseline
shear-wave velocity profile, the standard deviation of the natural
共1兲 log of the shear-wave velocity 共␴ln Vs兲, and the interlayer correla-
tion parameters 共␳200, do, b, ␳o, and ⌬兲. Toro 共1995兲 developed
these model parameters 共Table 1兲, including baseline shear-wave
velocity profiles, for different generalized site classes 共i.e. average
30 m shear-wave velocity Vs30兲 using a total of 557 shear-wave
velocity profiles. For site-specific applications, the baseline shear-
wave velocity profile is generally evaluated from site-specific in
situ testing, while the other parameters can be estimated based on
site class and Table 1. However, the ␴ln Vs values in Table 1 rep-
resent variability between velocity profiles across an entire site
class and thus would typically be too large for most site-specific

610 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2010

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2010, 136(4): 607-619

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Dammam on 01/24/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Examples of randomized 共a兲 shear-wave velocity profiles; 共b兲 nonlinear property curves
studies. In these cases, ␴ln Vs should be estimated from multiple
measured profiles across the site or from knowledge of the
geology/variability across the site. Toro 共1995兲 also developed a
model for randomizing layer thicknesses, but that model was not
used in this study.
Fig. 3共a兲 displays examples of randomized shear-wave veloc-
ity profiles for the deep alluvium SCH site used in this study. The
profiles were developed using the baseline shear-wave velocity
profile from Chang 共1996兲 and values of ␴ln Vs equal to 0.1 and
0.3. To visually demonstrate the relative ranges of velocity pro-
files generated for ␴ln Vs = 0.1 and 0.3, also shown are the ⫾2␴ln
profiles 共note that these profiles do not represent the limits of the
randomization兲. The one realization shown for ␴ln Vs = 0.1 was
generated for ␳IL = 1.0, and thus the velocity profile simply repre-
sents a shift of the baseline profile. The one realization shown for
␴ln Vs = 0.3 was generated for ␳IL = 0.5. For ␳IL ⬍ 1.0, the character
of the baseline profile is not maintained. For the realization
shown, some layers are above the baseline curve, while others are
below. A velocity inversion, in which the velocity decreases with
depth, is observed between 20 and 40 m. While not all of the
␳IL = 0.5 realizations displayed velocity inversions, they are more
common as ␳IL is reduced. Fig. 3共a兲 demonstrates that while ␴ln Vs
affects the velocity profiles generated by the Monte Carlo simu-
lation, ␳IL also has a profound effect.
Nonlinear Soil Properties
The majority of studies investigating nonlinear soil property
curves 共i.e., modulus reduction G / Gmax and damping D curves兲
have focused on predicting baseline curves based on soil type,
stress conditions, etc., without any rigorous assessment of vari-
ability. The empirical model of Darendeli and Stokoe 共2001兲 rep-
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2010 / 611
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2010, 136(4): 607-619
resents the most comprehensive investigation regarding the
variability of nonlinear property curves. This model predicts base-
line modulus reduction and damping curves based on plasticity
index, confining pressure, overconsolidation ratio, loading fre-
quency, and number of loading cycles and also provides an esti-
mate of the standard deviation associated with these curves for a
given set of generic soil conditions. The standard deviation de-
rived from laboratory tests on site-specific specimens would gen-
erally be smaller.
The Darendeli and Stokoe 共2001兲 model assumes that the pa-
rameters G / Gmax and D are normally distributed at a given strain
level and that the standard deviation for each is a function of the
magnitude of G / Gmax and D, respectively. The standard deviation
of the normalized shear modulus 共␴NG兲 is given as
␴NG = 0.015 + 0.16冑0.25 − 共G/Gmax − 0.5兲2 共7兲
This function produces the smallest standard deviation 共␴NG
⬃ 0.015兲 when G / Gmax is close to 0.0 or 1.0, and the largest
standard deviation 共␴NG = 0.095兲 when G / Gmax is equal to 0.5.
The standard deviation of the damping ratio 共␴D共%兲兲 is given as
␴D共%兲 = 0.0067 + 0.78冑D共%兲 共8兲
This function produces a standard deviation that increases with
increasing damping ratio 共␴D共%兲 ⬃ 0.75 at D = 1% and ␴D共%兲
⬃ 3.0 at D = 15%兲.
G / Gmax and D curves are not independent of each other be-
cause a modulus curve that is more linear 共i.e., shifted up兲 is
associated with a damping curve that is shifted down to smaller
damping ratios. Thus, the generation of G / Gmax and D curves
should include negative correlation between the curves 共␳D,NG
⬍ 0.0兲. To generate correlated G / Gmax and D curves from base-
 line 共mean兲 curves, the standard deviations from Eqs. 共7兲 and 共8兲,
and ␳D,NG, the following expressions are used for each shear
strain value 共␥兲 in the curves:
G/Gmax共␥兲 = 关G/Gmax共␥兲兴mean + ␧1 · ␴NG 共9兲
D共␥兲 = 关D共␥兲兴mean + ␳D,NG · ␧1 · ␴D + 冑1 − ␳D,NG
2
· ␧2 · ␴D
共10兲
where ␧1 and ␧2 = uncorrelated random variables with zero mean
and unit standard deviation; 关G / Gmax共␥兲兴mean and 关D共␥兲兴mean
= baseline values evaluated at strain level ␥; ␴NG and ␴D
= standard deviations computed from Eqs. 共7兲 and 共8兲 at the base-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Dammam on 01/24/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
line values of 关G / Gmax共␥兲兴mean and 关D共␥兲兴mean, respectively; and
␳D,NG = correlation coefficient between G / Gmax and D. Eqs. 共9兲
and 共10兲 are applied at different strain levels, but the same values
of ␧1 and ␧2 are used at each strain level 共i.e., perfect correlation
between strain levels兲. Because the standard deviation model as-
sumes a normal distribution, cutoffs must be applied to avoid
unrealistic values 共i.e., G / Gmax ⬎ 1.0; G / Gmax ⬍ 0.0; and D ⬍ 0%
are not allowed兲.
Fig. 3共b兲 displays an example of a modulus reduction and
damping curve pair generated using Eqs. 共7兲–共10兲 and ␳D,NG equal
to ⫺0.5. Because of the negative correlation, the modulus reduc-
tion curve that is below the baseline curve is associated with a
damping curve that is above the baseline. However, the relative
shifts of the curves are not the same because ␳D,NG is not equal to
⫺1.0.
Influence of Input Motion Selection on Computed
Response
Site response analyses were performed for the alluvial SCH
site using the baseline shear-wave velocity profile shown in
Fig. 3共a兲 and four sets of baseline nonlinear soil properties de-
rived from Darendeli and Stokoe 共2001兲 for a plasticity index of
0, an overconsolidation ratio of 1.0, and mean effective confining
pressures of 50, 250, 550, and 750 kPa 共corresponding depths of
4, 19, 45, and 75 m兲. The Vs30 of the site is 315 m/s, which
classifies it as a stiff soil site, and the initial site period based on
the linear elastic transfer function for the site is 0.55 s. The site
response simulations were performed using the program Strata
共Kottke and Rathje 2009兲. Strata performs EQL site response
analysis using time domain input motions or random vibration
theory 共Rathje and Ozbey 2006兲 and can perform Monte Carlo
simulations on the shear-wave velocity profile, nonlinear soil
properties, and depth to bedrock.
Suites of input motions were selected to fit a deterministic
target acceleration response spectrum representing a M w = 6.5 and
R = 20 km event from Ambrahamson and Silva 共1997兲. This re-
sponse spectrum has a peak ground acceleration of 0.17 g, and the
target standard deviation ranges from 0.5 to 0.75 in natural log
units. This moderate intensity target spectrum allowed for a sig-
nificant number of potential motions to be identified such that
input suites of different sizes could be selected. A response spec-
trum from a deterministic event was used rather than a uniform
hazard spectrum so that the target spectrum was representative of
a single earthquake event. As the goal of this investigation was to
address input motion selection for a given target spectrum, the use
of a target spectrum from a deterministic event rather than from
PSHA should not influence the conclusions.
612 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2010
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2010, 136(4): 607-619
Input motion suites of five, 10, and 20 motions were selected
using the Kottke and Rathje 共2008兲 procedure and scaled to fit
the target spectrum and its standard deviation. Motions were
selected from a larger catalog of 105 motions that came from
earthquake magnitudes between 6.2 and 6.9 and distances be-
tween 5 and 40 km 共Kottke 2006兲. Five suites of each size were
selected and scaled, and the number of motions common to the
suites was limited to about one-half of the suite size. Fig. 4 com-
pares two selected suites: one five-motion suite and one 20-
motion suite. Both the five-motion suite and 20-motion suite
provide an acceptable fit with the target spectrum, but the 20-
motion suite provides a better fit to the standard deviation across
the periods considered. The standard deviation for the five-motion
suite varies considerably with period because of the difficultly in
controlling the standard deviation with only five motions. Be-
cause of the additional motions in the 20-motion suite, it can
better model a smooth variation of standard deviation with period.
Fig. 4 also shows the standard deviations for the other five-
motion and 20-motion suites. For the five-motion suites, the stan-
dard deviations not only vary significantly with period but they
also vary considerably between suites because of the difficulty in
controlling the standard deviation with only five motions. The
20-motion suites show less variability in the standard deviation
between suites and across periods.
The statistical fit for each suite is summarized in Table 2 in
terms of the RMSE for the target spectrum, the ␴ln RMSE for
the standard deviation, and the maximum error of the suite rela-
tive to the target spectrum and target standard deviation. The
RMSE represents the average percent difference between the tar-
get spectrum and the suite, while ␴ln RMSE represents the aver-
age difference in standard deviation between the target and suite
共Kottke and Rathje 2008兲. Generally, as the number of motions in
the suite increases, all of the statistical fit parameters improve.
For the fit to the target spectrum, RMSE decreases by a factor of
2 and the maximum error is reduced below 10% as the suites
increase from five to 20 motions. However, even the RMSE val-
ues for the five-motion suites 共⬃0.06–0.07兲 represent an average
fit within 5–10% of the target. The statistical fit parameters for ␴ln
are significantly improved by the addition of more motions,
although the maximum error is still often above 20%.
Each of the input motion suites was propagated through the
baseline SCH soil profile to compute the surface response spectra.
The median surface response spectrum and the standard deviation
of the surface response spectra 共␴ln Sa兲 at each period were com-
puted for each suite of motions. Essentially, each suite represents
a reasonable realization of the input motions, such that comparing
the results from different suites provides an evaluation of the
statistical stability of the computed response. Fig. 5 shows the
median surface response spectra for each of the five suites gener-
ated for each size 共i.e., five, 10, and 20 motions兲, along with
the median input response spectra. There is some suite-to-suite
variability in the median response spectra from the five-motion
suites 关Fig. 5共a兲兴, with differences between suites as large as 15–
20% at a single period. This variability between suites is reduced
to 5–10% as the number of motions in a suite is increased to
20 关Fig. 5共c兲兴. Fig. 5共d兲 displays the standard deviation 共in natural
log units兲 of the median surface spectra for each set of five
suites 共i.e., five suites of five, 10, and 20 motions兲. The standard
deviation reduces by approximately 50% when the number of
motions is increased from five to 10, with no significant improve-
ment when the number of motions is increased to 20. These
results indicate that a stable median surface spectra, within ⫾15
to 20% of any other suite, can be obtained with suites of five
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Dammam on 01/24/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Suites of five and 20 motions selected to fit the target spectrum

motions, but more stable estimates are obtained with suites of 10

motions.
Fig. 6 displays the standard deviation for the computed surface
motions 共␴ln Sa兲 for each suite. The standard deviation of the sur-
face motions is significantly affected by the standard deviation of
Table 2. Statistical Fit of Different Input Motion Suites the input motions, as noted by the similarities in Figs. 4 and 6. As
noted earlier, there is a significant improvement in the fit to the
Max ␴ln max
target ␴ln when larger suites of motions are used 共Fig. 4兲. Five
Number Set error ␴ln error
of motions number RMSE 共%兲 RMSE 共%兲 motions do not adequately capture ␴ln as a function of period, and
␴ln from one five-motion suite is significantly different than ␴ln
5 1 0.06 16 0.11 57
from another. Therefore, ␴ln Sa of the surface motions for the five-
2 0.06 15 0.23 72
motion suites varies considerably between different suites 关Fig.
3 0.06 21 0.10 45
6共a兲兴. Suites with 10 and 20 motions provide a more accurate
4 0.07 19 0.14 65
representation of the target ␴ln across all periods, and the differ-
5 0.07 17 0.12 49
ences between suites are reduced. As a result, the standard devia-
10 1 0.04 8 0.08 42
tion of the surface motions for different suites of 10 and 20
2 0.04 12 0.08 40
motions 关Figs. 6共b and c兲兴 is more similar 共within ⫾10 to 20%兲.
3 0.04 15 0.08 42
Fig. 6共d兲 displays the standard deviation of ␴ln Sa for each set of
4 0.04 11 0.08 42
five suites 共i.e., five suites of five, 10, and 20 motions兲. Here, an
5 0.04 12 0.08 38
increase from five to 10 motions results in a significant reduction
20 1 0.03 6 0.06 32
in the standard deviation between suites, and 20 motions produces
2 0.03 7 0.04 26
a further reduction. Based on these results, to obtain a stable
3 0.03 9 0.04 19
estimate of the standard deviation of the surface response spectra
4 0.03 9 0.05 25
from site response analysis at least 10 input motions should be
5 0.03 8 0.09 32
used, although 20 motions would be preferred.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2010 / 613

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2010, 136(4): 607-619

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Dammam on 01/24/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 5. Median surface and input motion response spectra for suites of 共a兲 five; 共b兲 10; 共c兲 20 motions; and 共d兲 standard deviation of the median
surface response spectra
If one wants to consider the median plus one standard devia-
tion site response, an accurate assessment of the surface ␴ln Sa is
required. These results demonstrate that at least 10 motions, and
preferably 20, are needed to obtain a statistically stable estimate
of ␴ln Sa. Additionally, while site response affects ␴ln Sa, the main
character of ␴ln Sa is controlled by ␴ln of the input suite 共Figs. 4
and 6兲. Therefore, the input motions should be scaled to fit a
target input ␴ln because the surface ␴ln Sa is influenced most by the
␴ln of the input motions.
Influence of Site Property Variability on Computed
Response
Monte Carlo simulations of the EQL site response of the SCH site
共Fig. 3兲 were performed using a suite of 10 input motions 共Suite
10–1 from Table 2兲 and varying the shear-wave velocity profile
and nonlinear soil properties. The original scale factors for the
input motions were doubled such that the median peak ground
acceleration of the input motions was 0.35 g. This increase in
intensity was used to induce more nonlinearity in the site. The
shear-wave velocity profiles were developed from the baseline
profile in Fig. 3共a兲 and the Toro 共1995兲 randomization model. The
Toro 共1995兲 correlation parameters were modified to model a con-
stant ␳IL equal to 0.8, and the variability in the shear-wave veloc-
614 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2010
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2010, 136(4): 607-619
ity 共␴ln Vs兲 was varied between 0.1 and 0.4. The nonlinear
modulus reduction and damping curves were generated from
baseline curves and standard deviation values derived from
Darendeli and Stokoe 共2001兲, as described previously. Four sets
of nonlinear curves were generated for each site realization, one
for each confining pressure 共50, 250, 550, and 750 kPa兲. No in-
terlayer correlation was modeled for the nonlinear curves. 60
property randomizations, in which each realization included a ve-
locity profile and four sets of nonlinear property curves, were
coupled with the 10 input motions for all analyses to ensure stable
estimates of the surface motion were obtained 共Trent 2008兲. Thus,
all results represent the median and standard deviation computed
from a total of 600 analyses.
Fig. 7 displays the site response results for the SCH site with
the baseline site characterization. The 10 scaled input motions are
shown in Fig. 7共a兲, while the surface response spectra and ampli-
fication factors 共AF= Sa,surface / Sa,rock兲 are shown in Figs. 7共b and
c兲, respectively. The variability about the median values due to
record-to-record variability is quantified by the standard deviation
in natural log units, which is shown for the input rock motions
共␴ln Sa兲, the surface motions 共␴ln Sa兲, and the amplification factors
共␴ln AF兲 in Fig. 7共d兲. Figs. 7共b and c兲 demonstrate that the dy-
namic response of the site causes amplification of the motion at
almost all periods, with the largest amplification occurring around
the degraded natural period of the site 共0.7–0.9 s兲. The average
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Dammam on 01/24/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Standard deviation of surface response spectra for suites of 共a兲 five; 共b兲 10; 共c兲 20 motions; and 共d兲 ␴ of standard deviations of the surface
response spectra

strain level induced in the surface layer 共i.e., the softest layer兲
over these 10 motions is 0.20%, while the maximum strain over
the 10 motions is about 1.5%.
Fig. 7共d兲 demonstrates how site response affects the standard
deviation of a suite of motions. The surface motions, on average,
have smaller ␴ln Sa than the rock motions at shorter periods
and larger ␴ln Sa than the rock motions at longer periods 共i.e.,
periods greater than about 0.8 s兲. The change in ␴ln Sa is caused by
nonlinear soil amplification, where amplification is a function of
the intensity of the input motion. At shorter periods, nonlinear soil
amplification means that less amplification occurs for larger input
intensities because of increased levels of induced strain and
damping. At longer periods, nonlinear soil amplification means
that more amplification occurs for larger input intensities because
of increased levels of induced strain and more period lengthening.
Considering the effect on ␴ln Sa, at shorter periods a larger inten-
sity motion within a suite will be amplified less than a lower
intensity motion, resulting in less variability between the motions
at the ground surface. At longer periods 共i.e., longer than the
initial site period兲, a larger intensity motion will be amplified
more than a lower intensity motion, resulting in more variability
in the surface motions than in the input motions. The transition
from smaller surface ␴ln Sa to larger surface ␴ln Sa generally occurs
around the natural period of the site. Note that while site response
changes ␴ln Sa on the order of ⫾20%, the main character of ␴ln Sa
is controlled by the input motion suite. The standard deviation for
the amplification factors 共␴ln AF兲 is generally smaller than for the
surface response spectra because the amplification factors are nor-
malized by the rock spectral acceleration, which reduces the in-
fluence of record-to-record variability 关Fig. 7共d兲兴.
Fig. 8 displays the median and standard deviation of the sur-
face response spectra computed from Monte Carlo simulations
with different levels of shear-wave velocity randomization
共␴ln Vs兲. Increasing levels of shear-wave velocity randomization
causes a decrease in the median spectral acceleration, with the
reduction occurring predominantly at periods less than 2.0 s. The
reduction ranges from about 5% for ␴ln Vs = 0.1 to about 25% for
␴ln Vs = 0.4. This reduction could be as large as 50% for softer sites
共Trent 2008兲. The decrease in the median surface response spec-
trum is caused by site realizations that include soft layers and/or
large velocity contrasts, which accumulate more strain and expe-
rience more damping and less amplification during seismic load-
ing. Realizations that include stiffer layers may result in larger
amplification; but these larger values are not large enough to
counteract the significant reduction in amplification caused by the
softer realizations. For ␴ln Vs = 0.2, the mean strain is about the
same as for the baseline properties, but the maximum strain over
all realizations is 8%. Obviously, these very large strain levels

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2010 / 615

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2010, 136(4): 607-619

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Dammam on 01/24/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 7. 共a兲 Input rock motions; 共b兲 surface response spectra; 共c兲 amplification factors; and 共d兲 standard deviations for site response calculated with
the baseline soil properties
render the EQL approximation invalid, identifying a drawback of
modeling large shear-wave velocity variability in EQL analysis.
The values of ␴ln Sa for the surface motions indicate that
increasing levels of shear-wave velocity randomization cause
a slight increase in ␴ln Sa at periods less than about 1.0 s and
cause a decrease in ␴ln Sa at periods greater than 1.0 s 关Fig. 8共b兲兴.
These changes are in the opposite direction of the changes in
␴ln Sa caused by the site response when using only the baseline
properties 关i.e., reduction in ␴ln Sa at short periods, and an increase
in ␴ln Sa at long periods; Fig. 7共d兲兴. The most pronounced increase
in standard deviation occurs at periods around 0.1 s, with in-
creases of 0 to 20% for ␴ln Vs 艋 0.2 and more than 40% for
␴ln Vs 艌 0.3. The decrease in ␴ln Sa at longer periods ranges from
5% to 20%.
Fig. 9 displays the median amplification factors and the stan-
dard deviation for the amplification factors 共␴ln AF兲 for different
levels of shear-wave velocity randomization. The reductions in
median AF are exactly the same as those for surface response
spectra, although the changes in the long period range are more
apparent in this representation of the results 共note the increase in
AF at periods greater than 1.5 s for ␴ln Vs = 0.4兲. Shear-wave ve-
locity randomization causes a consistent increase in ␴ln AF at all
periods, which is different than the effect on ␴ln Sa. The difference
is a manifestation of ␴ln Sa at the surface being influenced by ␴ln Sa
of rock motions, while ␴ln AF is less influenced by ␴ln Sa of the
rock motions. The change in ␴ln AF can be significant, with ␴ln AF
616 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2010
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2010, 136(4): 607-619
increasing by more than a factor of 2.0 in some cases.
It is commonly believed that it is conservative to consider
uncertainties in soil properties when performing site response
analyses. However, Figs. 8 and 9 indicate that including shear-
wave velocity uncertainty in EQL site response analysis through
Monte Carlo simulations consistently produces median surface
response spectra and amplification factors that are smaller than
those computed from the baseline shear-wave velocity profile.
Therefore, it is unconservative to blindly apply shear-wave veloc-
ity randomization to site response analyses without considering
this change in median response.
The model of interlayer correlation for the shear-wave velocity
randomization can profoundly influence the Monte Carlo simula-
tion results of site response. Fig. 10 compares the median and
standard deviation of the surface response spectra for shear-wave
velocity profiles generated with ␴ln Vs = 0.2 and different levels of
interlayer correlation. Constant values of ␳IL between 0.5 and 1.0
were used, as well as the values from the Toro 共1995兲 model
for sites with Vs30 = 180– 360 m / s 共Table 1兲. For the SCH layer
thicknesses and depths shown in Fig. 3, ␳IL from the Toro 共1995兲
model ranged from 0.3 at the surface to a maximum of 0.7 at
depth. Results for ␳IL = 0.0 共not shown兲 were similar to those
for ␳IL = 0.5. Fig. 10 demonstrates that decreasing ␳IL causes a
more significant reduction in the median surface response spec-
trum, although there is little impact on the standard deviation.
The reduction in the median surface spectrum reaches a maxi-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Dammam on 01/24/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 8. Influence of shear-wave velocity randomization on the
共a兲 median; 共b兲 standard deviation of the surface response spectra
mum of about 20–25% for ␳IL 艋 0.5. This reduction appears to be
caused by the velocity inversions that are generated within the
velocity profiles as ␳IL is reduced. Thus, it is important to con-
sider the value of ␳IL used in generating the shear-wave velocity
profiles.
Fig. 11 displays the median and standard deviation of the am-
plification factors computed from Monte Carlo simulations,
where the modulus reduction and damping curves were varied
共␳D,NG = −0.5兲. Although significant variability was modeled in the
nonlinear property curves 关Fig. 3共b兲兴, including this variability
only caused a reduction of about 5–15% in the amplification fac-
tor at periods less than 1.0 s. Again, modeling the variability
results in less amplification because softer realizations, in this
case softer G / Gmax curves and D curves with higher damping,
affect amplification more than the stiffer realizations. Also shown
in Fig. 11 are the results for different values of ␳D,NG, but the
differences are minor. For ␴ln AF, including the variability of the
G / Gmax and D curves results in an increase of 50–100% at peri-
ods less than 1.0 s. The influence of the variability of the G / Gmax
and D curves would be less pronounced for smaller intensity
input motions 共Kottke 2006兲.
Fig. 12 compares the effect of modeling the variability of
共1兲 the shear-wave velocity 共␴ln Vs = 0.2; ␳IL = 0.8兲; 共2兲 the G / Gmax
and D curves 共␳D,NG = −0.5兲; and 共3兲 all of these parameters.
Generally, the effect of modeling shear-wave velocity variability
with ␴ln Vs = 0.2 is similar to that observed when modeling the
variability in G / Gmax and D curves, except close to the site pe-
riod, where varying the shear-wave velocity has a greater effect.
These observations are specific to this site and this input motion
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2010 / 617
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2010, 136(4): 607-619
Fig. 9. Influence of shear-wave velocity randomization on the
共a兲 median; 共b兲 standard deviation of the amplification factors
intensity, as the degree of induced nonlinearity will affect the
comparison. When both the shear-wave velocity profile and the
nonlinear property curves are varied, the median amplification
factor continues to decrease 共about 20% less than the baseline兲
and the standard deviation continues to increase. These results
reveal the additive nature of including different sources of site
property variability.
Conclusions
Accounting for uncertainties is becoming an important compo-
nent of seismic risk assessment. Quantifying uncertainty and
propagating that uncertainty through numerical simulations pro-
vide for more robust estimates of seismic performance. For site
response analysis, the main sources of uncertainty are the in-
put motion characterization, the shear-wave velocity and nonlin-
ear property characterization of the soil, and the selection of the
method of analysis. This paper focused on the effect of input
motion selection and soil property uncertainty on EQL site re-
sponse simulations.
The characteristics of the input rock motions for site response
analysis influence site response simulations because of the dif-
ferences in the induced nonlinearity. Using the methodology of
Kottke and Rathje 共2008兲, input motion suites of five, 10, and 20
motions were selected and scaled to fit the same target input re-
sponse spectrum. Including more motions in the input suite re-
sulted in a slightly better fit to the target spectrum and a
significantly better fit to the target standard deviation. The differ-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Dammam on 01/24/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 10. Influence of interlayer correlation coefficient 共␳IL兲 on the Fig. 11. Influence of modulus reduction and damping curve random-
共a兲 median; 共b兲 standard deviation of the surface response spectra ization on the 共a兲 median; 共b兲 standard deviation of the amplification
factors

ent suites of five motions showed differences of ⫾15 to 20% in

predominantly by the standard deviation of the suite of input
the median computed response spectra, while these differences
motions.
were reduced to ⫾5 to 10% when 10 and 20 motions were used.
As noted, modeling site property variability in site response
The standard deviation of the computed response spectra was
analysis significantly influences the median and standard devia-
significantly different between suites of five motions because the
tion of the computed response. Blind implementation of current
target standard deviation is difficult to capture with only five mo-
models of shear-wave velocity profile generation for Monte Carlo
tions. At least 10 motions, and preferably 20, should be used
simulations can result in reductions as large as 25–40% in the
when considering the standard deviation of the surface response
median surface response spectrum 共and associated amplification
spectra. The standard deviation of the response spectra is impor-
factors兲 when large amounts of variability are incorporated. Al-
tant when one is incorporating site response into PSHA 共e.g.,
though the standard deviation of the amplification factors in-
Bazzurro and Cornell 2004b兲 and when estimating the +1␴ln sur-
creases, it is generally not enough to overcome the decrease in the
face motion for a given target input rock spectrum.
median value. This result is troubling because uncertainty should
Monte Carlo simulations of site response were performed to
penalize one ’s simulations 共i.e., increase the computed response兲
assess the influence of soil property variability on the computed
such that there is a motivation to reduce uncertainty. The proce-
surface motions. Including shear-wave velocity and nonlinear
dures used to account for soil property uncertainty in site re-
property uncertainties consistently resulted in smaller estimates of
sponse analysis should be modified to address this issue. One
the median surface motion and site amplification. The smaller
potential approach includes the use of logic trees to assign prop-
response is a manifestation of the softer site realizations accumu-
erties and associated weights to the different velocity realizations.
lating larger strains and experiencing more damping. As the soil
This approach will allow the engineer to use their judgment to
property uncertainty is increased and the interlayer correlation is
generate the velocity profiles, and the weights will preclude the
decreased, the median estimates are reduced even further. Thus, it
softest realizations from excessively reducing the computed re-
is clear that the engineer must put thought into the selection of the
sponse. Nonetheless, more research is required before an
interlayer correlation coefficient and the standard deviation of the
approach can be definitively recommended.
shear-wave velocity. While soil property variability decreases the
median surface response spectrum and median amplification fac-
tors, it significantly increases the standard deviation of the ampli- Acknowledgments
fication factors; at times increasing it by more than a factor of 2.0.
The standard deviation of the surface response spectra is not This work benefited from interactions with Dr. Norman
similarly increased because this standard deviation is controlled Abrahamson of Pacific Gas and Electric, Co., and Professor

618 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2010

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2010, 136(4): 607-619


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Dammam on 01/24/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 12. Influence of randomization of different parameters on the 共a兲
median; 共b兲 standard deviation of the amplification factors
Julian Bommer at Imperial College, London. Financial support
was provided by the Lifelines Program of the Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research 共PEER兲 Center under Grant No. SA5405-
15811 and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under Grant No.
NRC-04-07-122. This support is gratefully acknowledged.
References
Ambrahamson, N. A., and Silva, W. J. 共1997兲. “Empirical response spec-
tral attenuation relations for shallow crustal earthquakes.” Seismol.
Res. Lett., 68共1兲, 94–127.
Andrade, J. E., and Borja, R. I. 共2006兲. “Quantifying sensitivity of local
site response models to statistical variations in soil properties.” Acta
Geotech., 1共1兲, 3–14.
Baker, J. W., and Cornell, C. A. 共2006兲. “Spectral shape, epsilon, and
record selection.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 35, 1077–1095.
Bazzurro, P., and Cornell, A. 共2004a兲. “Ground-motion amplification in
nonlinear soil sites with uncertain properties.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.,
94共6兲, 2090–2109.
Bazzurro, P., and Cornell, A. 共2004b兲. “Nonlinear soil-site effects in
probabilistic seismic-hazard analysis.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 94共6兲,
2110–2123.
Bommer, J. J., and Acevedo, A. B. 共2004兲. “The use of real earthquake
accelerograms as input to dynamic analysis.” J. Earthquake Eng.,
8共1兲, 43–91.
Chang, S. W.-Y. 共1996兲. “Seismic response of deep stiff soil deposits.”
Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif.
Costantino, C., Heymsfield, E., and Gu, Y. 共1991兲. “Site specific esti-
mates of surface ground motions for the K-reactor site, Savannah
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2010 / 619
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2010, 136(4): 607-619
River plant.” Rep. No. CEERC-91-003, Structural Analysis Div.,
Nuclear Energy Dept., Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, N.Y.
Darendeli, M. B., and Stokoe, K. H., II. 共2001兲. “Development of a new
family of normalized modulus reduction and material damping
curves.” Rep. No. GD01-1, Univ. of Texas, Austin, Tex.
Field, E. H., and Jacob, K. H. 共1993兲. “Monte Carlo simulation of the
theoretical site response variability at Turkey Flat, California, given
the uncertainty in the geotechnically derived input parameters.”
Earthquake Spectra, 9共4兲, 669–701.
Hancock, J., Watson-Lamprey, J., Abrahamson, N., Bommer, J.,
Markatis, A., McCoy, E., and Mendis, R., 共2006兲. “An improved
method of matching response spectra of recorded earthquake ground
motion using wavelets.” J. Earthquake Eng., 10共1兲, 67–89.
Idriss, I. M. 共2004兲 “Evolution of the state of practice.” Int. Workshop on
the Uncertainties in Nonlinear Soil Properties and Their Impact on
Modeling Dynamic Soil Response, Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, Richmond, Calif.
Kottke, A., and Rathje, E. M. 共2008兲. “A semi-automated procedure for
selection and scaling of recorded earthquake motions for dynamic
analysis.” Earthquake Spectra, 24共4兲, 911–932.
Kottke, A., and Rathje, E. M. 共2009兲. “Technical Manual for Strata.” Rep.
No. 2008/10, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berke-
ley, Calif.
Kottke, A. R. 共2006兲. “Impact of input ground motions and site variability
on seismic site response.” MS thesis, Dept. of Civil, Architectural,
and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Texas, Austin, Tex.
Kramer, S. L. 共1996兲. Geotechnical earthquake engineering, Prentice-
Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J.
Kwok, A. O., Stewart, J. P., and Hashash, Y. M. A. 共2008兲. “Nonlinear
ground response analysis of Turkey Flat shallow stiff soil site to
strong ground motion.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 98共1兲, 331–343.
McGuire, R., Toro, G., O ’Hara, T., Jacobson, J., and Silva, W. 共1989兲.
“Probabilistic seismic hazard evaluations at nuclear plant sites in the
central and eastern United States: Resolution of the Charleston earth-
quake issue.” Technical Rep. No. NP-6395-D, Electric Power Re-
search Institute, Palo Alto, Calif.
Naeim, F., Alimoradi, A., and Pezeshk, S. 共2004兲. “Selection and scaling
of ground motions time histories for structural design using genetic
algorithms.” Earthquake Spectra, 20共2兲, 413–426.
Powers, M. 共2004兲. “Design ground motion library.” Geotechnical Engi-
neering for Transportation Projects, Proc., Geo-Trans 2004, Geotech-
nical Special Publication, ASCE, Reston, Va., Vol. 126, 778–786.
Rathje, E. M., and Ozbey, M. C. 共2006兲. “Site specific validation of
random vibration theory-based site response analysis.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 132共7兲, 911–922.
Roblee, C., Silva, W., Toro, G., and Abrahamson, N. 共1996兲. “Variability
in site-specific seismic ground-motion design predictions.” Geotech.
Spec. Publ., 58共2兲, 1113–1133.
Schneider, J. F., Silva, W. J., Chiou, S. J., and Stepp, J. C. 共1991兲. “Es-
timation of ground motion at close distances using the band-limited-
white-noise model.” Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on Seismic Zonation, EERI,
Stanford, Calif., Vol. 4, 187–194.
Stewart, J. P. and Kwok, A. O. L. 共2008兲. “Nonlinear seismic ground
response analysis: code usage protocols and verification against ver-
tical array data.” Geotechnical Engineering & Soil Dynamics IV, D.
Zeng, M. T. Manzari, and D. R. Hiltunen 共eds兲, ASCE Geotechnical
Special Publication No. 181, 1–24.
Toro, G., Silva, W., McGuire, R., and Hermann, R. 共1992兲. “Probabilistic
seismic hazard mapping of the Mississippi embayment.” Seismol. Res.
Lett., 63共3兲, 449–475.
Toro, G. R. 共1995兲 “Probabilistic models of site velocity profiles for
generic and site-specific ground-motion amplification studies.” Tech-
nical Rep. No. 779574, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, N.Y.
Trent, W. L. 共2008兲 “The influence of soil property variability on
equivalent-linear seismic site response analysis.” MS thesis, Univ. of
Texas, Austin, Tex.