Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 69 (2015) 207–219

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Comparison of 1D linear, equivalent-linear, and nonlinear site response

models at six KiK-net validation sites
James Kaklamanos n, Laurie G. Baise, Eric M. Thompson 1, Luis Dorfmann
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tufts University, 113 Anderson Hall, Medford, MA 02155, USA

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Vertical seismometer arrays represent a unique interaction between observed and predicted ground
Received 30 September 2013 motions, and they are especially helpful for validating and comparing site response models. In this study,
Received in revised form we perform comprehensive linear, equivalent-linear, and nonlinear site response analyses of 191 ground
22 September 2014
motions recorded at six validation sites in the Kiban–Kyoshin network (KiK-net) of vertical seismometer
Accepted 19 October 2014
arrays in Japan. These sites, which span a range of geologic conditions, are selected because they meet
the basic assumptions of one-dimensional (1D) wave propagation, and are therefore ideal for validating
Keywords: and calibrating 1D nonlinear soil models. We employ the equivalent-linear site response program
Earthquake ground motion SHAKE, the nonlinear site response program DEEPSOIL, and a nonlinear site response overlay model
Seismic analysis
within the general finite element program Abaqus/Explicit. Using the results from this broad range of
Seismic effects
ground motions, we quantify the uncertainties of the alternative site response models, measure the
Nonlinear soil behavior
Numerical modeling strain levels at which the models break down, and provide general recommendations for performing site
response analyses. Specifically, we find that at peak shear strains from 0.01% to 0.1%, linear site response
models fail to accurately predict short-period ground motions; equivalent-linear and nonlinear models
offer a significant improvement at strains beyond this level, with nonlinear models exhibiting a slight
improvement over equivalent-linear models at strains greater than approximately 0.05%.
& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction linear approximation becomes inadequate, and fully nonlinear site

A fundamental step in any seismic hazard analysis is the
quantification of the expected levels of ground motions for
potential earthquakes. Analytical site response analyses are per-
formed by propagating an input motion through the soil profile in
order to predict the ground motion at the surface of a site. Site
response analyses can also be performed empirically by using
seismic site coefficients such as those in the National Earthquake
Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) seismic provisions [1]. For
analytical site response analyses (the focus of this paper), the state
of the practice in earthquake engineering is to approximate non-
linear soil behavior using equivalent-linear (EQL) site response
models, such as SHAKE [2–4] or STRATA [5]. However, once the
shear strains in the soil exceed some critical level, the equivalent-
n the Kiban–Kyoshin (KiK-net) strong-motion network of vertical
Correspondence to: Department of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, Merri-
mack College, 315 Turnpike Street, North Andover, MA 01845, USA.
Tel.: þ 1 978 837 3401; fax: þ 1 978 837 5029.
E-mail addresses: KaklamanosJ@merrrimack.edu (J. Kaklamanos),
Laurie.Baise@tufts.edu (L.G. Baise), ethompson@mail.sdsu.edu (E.M. Thompson),
Luis.Dorfmann@tufts.edu (L. Dorfmann).
1
Present affiliation: Department of Geological Sciences, San Diego State
University, 5500 Campanile Dr, 237 Geology Mathematics and Computer Science
Building, San Diego, CA 92182.
response analyses are needed to accurately predict surface ground
motions [5–13]. Fully nonlinear site response analyses are per-
formed in the time-domain by integrating the equation of motion
in small time steps. Numerous nonlinear site response programs
have been developed, although compared to equivalent-linear
models, their usage in standard engineering practice is relatively
limited. Examples include D-MOD2000 [14], DEEPSOIL [15], TESS
[16], SUMDES [17], OpenSees [18], and NOAHW [7].
Given a range of model complexities (linear, equivalent-linear,
and nonlinear) and specific site response codes, engineers would
benefit from increased insight to (a) the ranges of ground motions
over which each type of model is accurate, and (b) which site
response codes offer the strongest goodness-of-fit between pre-
dicted and observed ground motions. Vertical seismometer arrays,
which have both surface and downhole recordings are an excellent
opportunity for validating site response models. This study uses
seismic arrays in Japan [19,20]. This data-rich network provides
numerous surface–downhole station pairs that have recorded
many earthquakes with varying levels of ground motion. A
number of studies have used downhole arrays such as KiK-net to
quantify nonlinear soil behavior and site response model uncer-
tainty. Assimaki et al. [9] developed a framework for quantifying
the susceptibility of nonlinear behavior using data from three

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.10.016
0267-7261/& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
208 J. Kaklamanos et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 69 (2015) 207–219
Table 1
Information on KiK-net stations used in this study.
Station name FKSH11 FKSH14
Latitude (deg) 37.1976 37.0233
Longitude (deg) 140.3420 140.9736
Avg. shear-wave velocity, VS30 (m/s) 240 237
NEHRP site class D D
Depth to bedrock, Zrock (m) 35 61
Install depth of downhole seismometer, Zmax (m) 115 147
Frequency of fundamental mode, fo (Hz) 1.20 1.20
Damping ratio for linear site response, ξ (%) 2.86 2.50
Number of recorded events, nev 39 52
downhole array sites in southern California, and concluded that
fully nonlinear analyses are necessary when the rock-outcrop
(input) peak ground acceleration (PGA) exceeds 0.2 g for soft
(NEHRP class E) sites. Kwok et al. [10] performed a blind site
response prediction test at the Turkey Flat downhole array using
data from the 2004 Mw 6.0 Parkfield, California, earthquake. They
tested five nonlinear site response models, and found that the
models underestimated the site response amplifications at high
frequencies, and overestimated the site response amplifications at
frequencies near the fundamental mode of the site [10]. Kim and
Hashash [12] assessed KiK-net downhole array data from the 2011
Mw 9.0 Tohoku earthquake, and also found that equivalent-linear
and nonlinear site response models underpredicted the site response
amplifications at high frequencies, especially at soft sites. They found
that the accuracies of equivalent-linear and nonlinear models were
generally similar, but the predictions deviate when maximum shear
strains exceed  0.3%. Yee et al. [13] studied surface–downhole
ground motions from the 2007 Mw 6.6 Niigata-ken Chuetsu-oki
earthquake, and found that equivalent-linear and nonlinear models
offered similar predictions for maximum shear strains up to  0.2%,
but that predictions deviated at greater strains.
In prior work [11], we used the KiK-net database to analyze the
accuracy (bias) and variability (precision) resulting from common site
response modeling assumptions, and we identified critical parameters
that significantly contribute to the uncertainty in site response
analyses. We performed linear and equivalent-linear site response
analyses at 100 KiK-net sites using 3720 ground motions ranging from
weak to strong in amplitude, in particular, with 204 records having
PGA40.3 g at the ground surface. The present work builds upon the
study of Kaklamanos et al. [11] by adding nonlinear analyses and
additional equivalent-linear analyses at a subset of 6 of the 100 KiK-
net sites originally studied. The six sites were selected using the
methodology of Thompson et al. [21], which developed a classification
scheme for downhole arrays that identifies stations where the one-
dimensional (1D) wave propagation assumption is valid. A station's
classification is a function of (a) its inter-event variability and (b) the
similarity between the empirical and 1D theoretical transfer functions
(amplification spectra). Of the 100 KiK-net sites used by Thompson
et al. [21] and Kaklamanos et al. [11], 16 sites fall into the LG category,
having Low inter-event variability and Good fit between the empirical
and theoretical transfer functions, and therefore are ideal for calibra-
tion and validation of 1D site response models. By selecting appro-
priate validation sites, confounding errors can be avoided, such as
calibrating a 1D site response model at locations significantly affected
by three-dimensional (3D) effects [21].
In the present study, we perform linear, equivalent-linear, and
nonlinear site response analyses of 191 ground motions recorded at
six selected LG sites. This study focuses on 1D total stress site
response models, which are the most commonly used site response
models in engineering practice. We employ the equivalent-linear site
IWTH08 IWTH27 NMRH04 TKCH08
40.2658 39.0278 43.3953 42.4847
141.7867 141.5356 145.1264 143.1564
305 670 168 353
D C E D
20 4 185 78
100 100 216 100
2.80 6.23 0.40 1.80
2.00 5.00 1.67 2.50
18 25 23 34
response program SHAKE, the nonlinear site response program
DEEPSOIL, and a nonlinear site response overlay model within the
general finite element program Abaqus/Explicit, introduced by Kak-
lamanos et al. [22]. Using the results from this broad range of ground
motions, we quantify the prediction accuracies of the alternative site
response models, and provide recommendations for modeling site
response in engineering practice.
2. Data
This study focuses on the six KiK-net sites detailed in Table 1. The
raw site data available from the KiK-net website [23] are the seismic
velocity profiles and geologic profiles with soil/rock descriptions.
Table 1 includes basic information on the stations: the time-averaged
shear-wave velocity over the top 30 m of the subsurface VS30, NEHRP
site class [1], depth to first rock layer Zrock, installed depth of the
downhole seismometer Zmax, frequency of the fundamental peak of
the 1D theoretical surface–downhole transfer function fo, damping
ratio used in the linear site response analysis ξ [21], and number of
recorded events used in the analyses nev. Because we do not have
site-specific estimates of ξ, we choose a value of ξ that provides the
best fit for the weak motions recorded at each site, as explained by
Thompson et al. [21]; at a given site, we assume a constant value of ξ
for all layers in the profile. The shear-wave velocity (VS) profiles for
the six sites are provided in Fig. 1; the profiles were obtained from
surface–downhole logging and are posted on the KiK-net website
[23]. Fig. 2 displays the 1D theoretical amplification spectra H ðf Þ
computed using the Thomson–Haskell matrix method [24,25], which
is coded in the program Nrattle included in the Boore [26] suite of
ground motion simulation programs. Also shown are the 1D empiri-
cal amplification spectra computed from the surface-to-downhole
ratios of the recorded weak motions at each site (having PGAo0.1 g).
The six selected KiK-net sites span a range of geologic conditions
and site classes. Stations FKSH11 and FKSH14 both have similar
values of VS30 (240 m/s and 237 m/s, respectively), and therefore both
fall into the NEHRP-D site category. Both stations are located in
Fukushima prefecture (on east-central Honshu island) and recorded
strong ground motions from the 2011/3/11 Mw 9.0 Tohoku earth-
quake. Station FKSH11 consists of 35 m of gravel over tuffaceous rock,
and includes a velocity inversion due to a layer of welded tuff at 35–
57 m depth. The shear-wave velocity profile at FKSH14 is slightly less
complex, consisting of 61 m of sand (mixed with gravel below 21 m),
overlying siltstone and sandstone. Stations IWTH08 and IWTH27 are
both located in Iwate prefecture (on northeastern Honshu island).
Station IWTH08, a NEHRP class D site, consists of 83 m of weathered
granite over competent granite, and was also studied by Kaklamanos
et al. [27] and Kaklamanos [28]. Due to the low VS values in the upper
20 m (VS r280 m/s), we assume that the upper 20 m is composed of
residual soil. Station IWTH27 (site class C) is the stiffest site explored
 J. Kaklamanos et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 69 (2015) 207–219 209

in this study, and consists of 4 m of granular fill overlying tuffaceous PGA–VS30 distribution of the ground-motion records; individual
rock. IWTH27 is an interesting site because of its close proximity to histograms of these variables are shown in the margins of the
several major earthquakes, including the 2011 Tohoku event. Of the plots. More details on the set of 191 ground motions are available
191 ground motions used in this study (described in the following in Table S1 in the electronic supplement (Appendix) to this article.
paragraph), the three strongest ground motions in the dataset
occurred at IWTH27. Each of these three records have PGA40.75 g;
therefore, the shallow fill layer at IWTH27 may exhibit significant 3. Methods
nonlinear response. Station NMRH04 (site class E), located in Nemuro
subprefecture on eastern Hokkaido island, is the softest and deepest 3.1. Linear and equivalent-linear site response models
site considered in this study. The site consists of a deep 185 m layer
of Quaternary soil (sand interbedded with sandy gravel) over The simplest linear and equivalent-linear site response models
interbedded layers of sandstone and siltstone. Station TKCH08 (site involve calculations in the frequency-domain; in this study, the
class D; near the C–D boundary) is located in Tokachi subprefecture program SHAKE was used for all frequency-domain calculations.
on southern Hokkaido island, and consists of 78 m of Quaternary These models use the properties of the soil profile (density ρ,
sandy gravel over Cretaceous sandstone. shear-wave velocity VS, and damping ratio ξ) and the input motion
The ground motions used in this study represent the catalog of
recordings at the six stations from 2000 (when the first of these
stations went online) through mid-2011. Fig. 3 illustrates a map of
the six stations and 154 earthquake epicenters used in this study,
which represent a wide range of sources and paths. Fig. 4 gives the

Fig. 1. Shear-wave velocity profiles at the six KiK-net stations, arranged in order of Fig. 3. Map of the six KiK-net stations and 154 earthquake epicenters used in
increasing VS30. this study.

Fig. 2. Theoretical and empirical 1D linear amplification spectra (surface–downhole transfer functions) for the six KiK-net stations, arranged in order of increasing VS30. The
median and 95% confidence intervals of the empirical transfer functions are shown, as determined from the recorded weak (PGA o 0.1 g) motions at each site.
210 J. Kaklamanos et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 69 (2015) 207–219
Fig. 4. Distributions of the geometric mean PGA versus VS30 for the 191 ground-
motion records used in this study. Histograms of the individual variables are shown
in the margins of the plots.
applied at the base of the profile (obtained from the downhole
recording at the KiK-net site) to predict the ground motion at the
surface. Linear site response analyses assume a strain-constant
shear modulus Gmax ¼ ρV 2S based on assumed small-strain soil
properties, and constant damping ratio ξ. Linear site response
analyses can also be performed in the time domain; we performed
linear time-domain site response analyses using DEEPSOIL and
Abaqus to serve as the baseline for the fully nonlinear site
response analyses performed using these programs (described in
the next section). In the equivalent-linear formulation, the values
of G and ξ are iteratively adjusted to be consistent with the
effective level of shear strain in each soil layer; the converged
values are then used in the site response calculation. A number of
modulus-reduction and damping relationships are available for
use in engineering practice; in this study, we apply the Zhang et al.
[29] and Darendeli [30] models to compare the effect of the
modulus-reduction and damping relationship on the performance
of an equivalent-linear method. In [11], we also used the Zhang
et al. [29] modulus-reduction and damping relationships, which
require the mean effective confining pressure σ m , plasticity index
PI, and geologic age (Quaternary, Tertiary, etc.) as input para-
meters. The Darendeli [30] relationships require σ m , PI, over-
consolidation ratio, loading frequency, and number of loading
cycles. As an example, comparisons of the two models are
illustrated in Fig. 5 for the bottom of the 4-meter-thick surficial
layer at NMRH04. Details on the selection of the input parameters
for the Zhang et al. [29] and Darendeli [30] models are available in
the Appendix to this article.
3.2. Nonlinear site response models
When performing fully nonlinear analyses in the time domain,
G and ξ vary throughout the duration of loading. In this study, we
compare the linear and equivalent-linear model predictions with
two nonlinear 1D site response models: (1) the program DEEPSOIL
[15]; and (2) a nonlinear overlay model introduced by Kaklamanos
et al. [22] within the finite element program Abaqus/Explicit [31].
In this study, the Zhang et al. [29] modulus-reduction and damp-
ing curves are used as the target curves for the two nonlinear
programs. In both programs, a rigid boundary condition is
employed at the base of the model because the input motion is
obtained from a downhole recording [8,28].
The constitutive model in DEEPSOIL is an extended version of
the MKZ model developed by Matasović and Vucetic [32], which
modified the original KZ model developed by Kondner and Zelasko
Fig. 5. Examples of equivalent-linear (a) modulus-reduction and (b) damping
curves from Zhang et al. [29] and Darendeli [30] for the bottom of the 4-meter-
thick surficial layer at site NMRH04, having VS ¼ 100 m/s and mean effective
confining pressure (σ m ) ¼ 76 kPa, The curves representing a linear site response
analysis are also shown (ξ ¼1.67% for NMRH04).
[33]. In DEEPSOIL, the MRDF pressure-dependent hyperbolic
model procedure [15] is used to obtain the fitted nonlinear curves
from the Zhang et al. [29] modulus-reduction and damping curves.
This procedure includes a reduction factor developed by Phillips
and Hashash [34] that modifies the extended Masing hysteretic
behavior to match modulus-reduction and damping curves simul-
taneously over a wide range of shear strains.
The overlay model of Kaklamanos et al. [22] is a simple
methodology for modeling earthquake site response within a
general finite element model (here, Abaqus/Explicit), and allows
for a representation of any backbone stress–strain curve, along
with hysteretic unloading–reloading (extended Masing) behavior
[35]. To represent overlay elements in a finite element model, the
user defines a number of elements and assigns each of them
identical node numbers and different shear moduli and yield
stresses [22,36]. In this study, the backbone curves corresponding
to the Zhang et al. [29] modulus reduction curves are used to
derive the shear moduli and yield stresses, using the equations of
Kaklamanos et al. [22]. For each node, we use N ¼20 overlay
elements. The associated constitutive model is that of Iwan [37]
and Mroz [38], which represents stress–strain behavior with a set
of elastoplastic springs connected in parallel. The overlay model
for site response requires basic geotechnical data, can be imple-
mented in nearly any existing finite element code, and can be
easily adapted to model more complex behavior (such as cyclic
hardening and softening, and 3D site response [39]), without the
specification of any complicated constitutive models.
3.3. Model validation methods
To quantify the goodness-of-fit of the site response models, we
compare the observed surface response spectra, PSAobs ðTÞ, to the
predicted surface response spectra from the site response mod-
el, PSApred ðTÞ, where PSA is the 5%-damped pseudo-acceleration
 J. Kaklamanos et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 69 (2015) 207–219
response spectra as a function of spectral period T. We compute
the residual between the observed and predicted PSA values in
natural logarithmic space as


PSAresid ðT Þ ¼ ln½PSAobs ðT Þ  ln PSApred ðT Þ ; ð1Þ
where the geometric mean is used to combine the two orthogonal
horizontal components of recorded ground motion. Positive resi-
duals indicate underpredictions, and negative residuals indicate
overpredictions.
In order to obtain statistically significant inferences about site
response, we must account for the dependence between multiple
recordings at a single site (i.e. repeatable site effects). Mixed-
effects regression [40] is a statistical procedure that allows for the
estimation of the repeatable biases and variances when the data
are grouped according to one or more classification factors; here,
the data are grouped by site. The mixed-effects regression model
incorporates both fixed effects (parameters associated with an
entire population or with certain repeatable levels of classification
factors, e.g., sites), and random effects (parameters associated with
individual units drawn at random from the population). At a given
spectral period T, the residuals are modeled by the mixed-effects
regression equation
PSAresid ðT Þi;j ¼ a þ ηSi þ ϵi;j ; ð2Þ
where a is the population mean of PSAresid ðT Þ (i.e., the fixed effect),
which represents the average bias in the site response model
across all sites and ground motions; ηSi is the inter-site residual
(i.e. the between-site residual), which gives the deviation from the
population mean of the mean residual for the ith site; and ϵi;j is the
intra-site residual (i.e. the within-site residual), which represents
the deviation for ground-motion observation j at site i from the
mean residual at site i. In other words, the intra-site residual ϵi;j is
the residual after accounting for all repeatable effects: The inter-
and intra-site residuals are normally distributed zero-mean ran-
dom variables with standard deviations τS and σ 0 , respectively, to
be determined by the regression. The three unknown parameters
of the linear mixed-effects regression model in Eq. (2) are the fixed
effect a, inter-site standard deviation τS , and intra-site standard
deviation σ 0 (which represents the inherent ground-motion varia-
bility; i.e. the variability after all repeatable effects have been
removed). The site response model residuals Y ¼ PSAresid ðT Þ have a
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
total standard deviation given by σ Y ¼ σ 20 þ τ2S . The mixed-effects
regression parameters may be used to examine the bias and
precision of site response models [11,41].
4. Results
4.1. Bias and variability as a function of spectral period
The period dependence of the bias and variability of the site
response models is analyzed in this section. In Fig. 6, we plot the
parameters of the linear mixed-effects regression model versus
spectral period (T), following Eq. (2) and the notation of Kaklamanos
et al. [11]: (a) fixed effect a, (b) total standard deviation σ Y , (c) intra-
site standard deviation σ 0 , and (d) inter-site standard deviation τS . In
addition to the results from the site response models tested at the six
sites in this study, the equivalent-linear results from the 100-site
Kaklamanos et al. [11] study are also plotted for comparison.
The fixed effects plotted in Fig. 6(a) allow us to characterize the
model biases at different spectral periods. Fig. 6(a) indicates that
all site response models generally have positive bias (underpredic-
tion of ground motions) at spectral periods less than 0.2 s.
However, the nonlinear site response model in Abaqus shows less
bias than the other models, and this model notably has little to no
211
bias at the shortest periods. At periods greater than 0.1 s, the fixed
effect becomes more erratic, especially at the periods correspond-
ing to the fundamental peaks of the individual sites' 1D theoretical
transfer functions. These periods are marked by vertical lines in
Fig. 6, and they are usually characterized by troughs in the plot of
model bias, indicating that the models are overpredicting the
response at the fundamental modes (also observed by Kwok et al.
[10]). In general, the 6-site results for the fixed effect are similar to
those of the Zhang et al. [29] equivalent-linear model tested in
Kaklamanos et al. [11] at 100 sites. The largest difference is that
the Kaklamanos et al. [11] results have smoother trends; the
individual site influences (at specific periods) tend to cancel each
other out when such a large number of sites are considered. In the
aggregate, as observed in Fig. 6(a), most site response models tend
to underpredict short-period ground motions, perhaps due to
breakdowns of the model assumptions, such as the assumed soil
parameters, viscous damping, boundary conditions, and limita-
tions of the 1D model [11]. Similar results were observed by Kwok
et al. [10] and Kim and Hashash [12], particularly for soft sites.
Fig. 6(b–d) characterize the variability of the model residuals.
The differences in the standard deviations between the linear,
equivalent-linear, and nonlinear site response models are not
significant. All models exhibit increased variability at the spectral
periods corresponding to the fundamental peaks of the 1D theo-
retical transfer functions at the six sites. Again, the Kaklamanos
et al. [11] 100-site trends are smoother than the 6-site trends of
this study. The intra-site standard deviations σ 0 are generally
within the range of 0.2–0.3 natural log units, and are less erratic
than the inter-site standard deviations τS . The intra-site standard
deviations for the 6-site results are not significantly different than
the intra-site standard deviations for the 100-site results of
Kaklamanos et al. [11]. Given that σ 0 represents the inherent
ground-motion variability once all repeatable effects are removed,
we would not expect a significant difference between the two
datasets. However, the inter-site standard deviations and the total
standard deviations are noticeably smaller for the 6-site dataset.
Recall that the six selected sites in this study are classified as LG by
Thompson et al. [21], and therefore it is not surprising that values
of τS (and thus σ Y ) in this study are smaller than those in the
broader dataset. Although only six sites have been considered in
this analysis, there are many recordings per site (Table 1), and so
the usage of the inter-site residuals is reasonable. The limited
number of sites might, however, be an issue if we were making
conclusions about trends with VS30, because there are a small
number of sites for a given range of VS30 values. Therefore, we
avoid drawing conclusions about trends in model residuals versus
VS30.
4.2. Analysis of intra-site model residuals: all sites
Kaklamanos et al. [11] found that the maximum shear strain in
the soil profile (γmax) is the best indicator of model accuracy, and
that the observed peak ground acceleration at the ground surface
could be used as a proxy for strain. Therefore, we plot the model
residuals against γmax, which was found to have the strongest
residual trends. In Fig. 7, we display plots of the 191 intra-site
residuals (ϵi;j ) for PSA at a spectral period of T ¼0.1 s, versus γmax
calculated from the site response analyses. The results are shown
for each of the 191 ground motions using seven different site
response models: linear analyses in (a) SHAKE, (b) DEEPSOIL, and
(c) Abaqus; equivalent-linear analyses in SHAKE using the
modulus-reduction and damping curves of (d) Zhang et al. [29]
and (e) Darendeli [30]; and nonlinear analyses in (f) DEEPSOIL and
(g) Abaqus/Explicit.
As in Kaklamanos et al. [11], the linear site response models
(Fig. 7(a–c)) are strongly biased at large strains: the residuals
212 J. Kaklamanos et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 69 (2015) 207–219

Fig. 6. Period dependence of the parameters of the linear mixed effects regression model of Eq. (2): (a) fixed effect a, (b) total standard deviation σ Y , (c) intra-site standard
deviation σ 0 , and (d) inter-site standard deviation τS . In addition to the results from the different site response models tested at the six sites in this study, the equivalent-
linear results from the 100-site Kaklamanos et al. [11] study is also plotted for comparison. A vertical line is drawn at the period corresponding to the fundamental peak of
the 1D theoretical transfer function for each site (from left to right: IWTH27, IWTH08, TKCH08, FKSH11/FKSH14 [fundamental periods are equal], and NMRH04).

display a strong downward slope. Because linear models do not
account for the deamplifications associated with nonlinear beha-
vior, they characteristically overpredict large-strain motions. The
linear site response residuals begin to deviate from zero at
approximately γmax ¼0.01%, consistent with the prior results for
short periods.
Fig. 7(d–g) illustrate that the equivalent-linear and nonlinear
site response models generally offer more accurate predictions of
large-strain ground motions. The equivalent-linear and nonlinear
site response residuals do not have a systematic bias, with the
exception of the Darendeli [30] modulus-reduction and damping
curves. The Darendeli [30] model residuals display an upward
slope for strains greater than 0.05%, meaning that the model is
underpredicting the large-strain ground motions. The plots of the
damping curves in Fig. 5 provide some insight into the Darendeli
[30] model: for a given level of shear strain40.01%, the Darendeli
damping ratio is generally larger than the Zhang et al. [29] model
(except at very large strains not encountered in this study). When
compared to the observed ground motions in this study, the
Darendeli [30] model seems to overdamp—and hence underpre-
dict—ground motions for this level of shear strain. On the other
hand, at least for the levels of shear strain experienced in this
study (up to 0.3%), the Zhang et al. [29] modulus-reduction and
damping curves do not seem to be associated with any systematic
bias. Therefore, the Zhang et al. [29] modulus reduction curves
were used to derive the backbone curves and material parameters
for the nonlinear site response analyses in this study. In panels (d),
(f), and (g) of Fig. 7, no significant differences between the
equivalent-linear [29] residuals and the nonlinear residuals are
noticed. Additional site- and record-specific plots (to be presented
shortly) are necessary in order to decipher the differences
between equivalent-linear and nonlinear site response models.
Although these residuals generally trend near zero, there is a slight
increase in the variability of the residuals for values of γmax greater
than approximately 0.05%. The increased variability in the resi-
duals represents a greater uncertainty associated with predicting
large-strain ground motions.
In addition to T ¼0.1 s, which is represented in Fig. 7, analogous
plots for PSA at additional spectral periods are displayed as Figs.
S1–S8 in the electronic supplement to this article. These plots
show that the Darendeli [30] equivalent-linear model is extremely
biased at large strains for spectral periods between 0.1 and 0.3 s.
However, at larger spectral periods (beginning at 0.5–1.0 s), the
linear, equivalent-linear, and nonlinear site response models do
not display significant biases at large strains. This finding is
consistent with Kaklamanos et al. [11], in which we found that
site response residuals at spectral periods greater than 0.5 s do not
systematically display noticeable effects of nonlinear soil behavior.
4.3. Analysis of intra-site model residuals: separation by site
We now develop more site-specific conclusions by studying the
residual trends at each of the six sites individually. Fig. 8 displays
the intra-site residuals (ϵi;j ) versus γmax for PSA at T¼ 0.1 s for
the six sites, ordered by increasing VS30. Each panel displays the
residuals for the linear site response model (from SHAKE),
the equivalent-linear site response model (from SHAKE, using
the Zhang et al. [29] model), and the nonlinear site response
model (from Abaqus).
In general, the differences between the equivalent-linear and
nonlinear site response models are small with respect to the
differences between these models and the linear model. However,
for the softest site (NMRH04) and stiffest site (IWTH27) explored
in this study, the equivalent-linear and nonlinear residuals slope
upward for large-strain events, indicating an underprediction of
ground motion. As summarized in the VS profile in Fig. 1 and
 J. Kaklamanos et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 69 (2015) 207–219 213

Fig. 7. Plots of the intra-site residuals (ϵi;j ) for PSA at a spectral period of T ¼ 0.1 s, versus the maximum calculated shear strain in the soil profile (γmax). The results are shown
for each of the 191 ground motions using seven different site response models: linear analyses in (a) SHAKE, (b) DEEPSOIL, and (c) Abaqus; equivalent-linear analyses in
SHAKE using the modulus-reduction and damping curves of (d) Zhang et al. [29] and (e) Darendeli [30]; and nonlinear analyses in (f) DEEPSOIL and (g) Abaqus using
backbone curves derived from the Zhang et al. [29] model. Comparable plots for additional spectral periods (besides T ¼ 0.1 s) are presented as Figs. S1–S8 in the electronic
supplement to this article.

explained in the Section 2, site IWTH27 consists of 4 m of granular
fill (VS ¼ 150 m/s) overlying tuffaceous rock (VS Z1100 m/s). Given
the sharp impedance contrast, therefore virtually all of the non-
linear soil behavior must occur in the top 4 m. The effects of the
resonances of trapped seismic waves within this shallow layer
may also be difficult to predict; similar results were observed for
the KiK-net shallow soil site MYGH11 studied in Baise et al. [42].
Large amounts of nonlinearity in the soft surficial layers overlying
KiK-net rock sites have been also been documented by Assimaki
et al. [43], Ghofrani et al. [44], and Régnier et al. [45].
To extend the site-specific results beyond T ¼0.1 s (as shown in
Fig. 8), analogous plots for additional spectral periods are dis-
played as Figs. S9–S16 in the electronic supplement to this article.
The trends for PGA (Fig. S9) are similar to those for PSA at T¼ 0.1 s
(Figs. 8 and S10). For PSA at T ¼0.2 s (Fig. S12), the linear residuals
do not display as strong of a negative trend as they do for shorter
spectral periods, but the equivalent-linear and nonlinear residuals
display positive trends for the largest-strain events at intermediate
sites FKSH11 and TKCH08, in addition to NMRH04 (as noted
previously). At T¼ 0.2 s, the various model residuals at IWTH08
and IWTH27 have leveled off, although the linear, equivalent-
linear, and nonlinear model residuals at FKSH14 still display a
strong downward trend. For longer spectral periods (up to 0.5 s),
the model residuals for all sites are more or less constant with
γmax, although there is a slight downward trend remaining at
FKSH14. The residual patterns at FKSH14 suggest that a greater-
than-expected amount of nonlinearity is occurring at this site,
perhaps due to cyclic mobility in the loose saturated sand layer
near the ground surface.
4.4. Detailed study of nonlinear ground motions
Further site-specific results are available in Figs. S17–S31 in the
electronic supplement to this article, where detailed ground-motion
214 J. Kaklamanos et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 69 (2015) 207–219

Fig. 8. Plots of the intra-site residuals (ϵi;j ) for PSA at a spectral period of T ¼0.1 s, versus the maximum calculated shear strain in the soil profile (γmax). The residuals for the
six sites are displayed in panels (a)–(f), respectively (ordered by increasing VS30). Each panel displays the residuals for the linear site response model (SHAKE), the equivalent-
linear site response model (SHAKE, using the Zhang et al. [29] modulus-reduction and damping curves), and the nonlinear site response model (Abaqus/Explicit).
Comparable plots for additional spectral periods (besides T ¼ 0.1 s) are presented as Figs. S9–S16 in the electronic supplement to this article.

plots are presented for the 15 strongest ground motions consid-
ered in this study, as ranked by γmax in Table S1. The figures
include acceleration time series, stress–strain curves, response
spectra, and amplification spectra from the various models. All six
sites are represented in this set of 15 figures, and each record has
γ max Z 0:05% for both nonlinear models. Due to space limitations,
we discuss only one strong ground motion in detail here (Fig. 9):
the strongest event at station FKSH11, which is the 2011/3/11 Mw
9.0 Tohoku earthquake (event no. 15 in Table S1; PGA ¼0.502 g,
γmax ¼0.294%). In Fig. 9, we present the (a) surface acceleration
time series, (b) stress–strain curves at the depth of maximum
shear strain, (c) surface/downhole amplification ratios, (d) surface
response spectra, and (e) surface response spectra residuals.
The different panels of Fig. 9 allow us to compare the model
predictions for the Tohoku recording at station FKSH11. First, as
seen in panels (c)–(e), the linear site response model most greatly
overpredicts the amplification at the fundamental mode near
1.2 Hz (or 0.83 s). The equivalent-linear and nonlinear site
response analyses move the predicted peak downward closer to
the observation, although these models are still overpredicting the
amplification. This overprediction could suggest interference with
the downgoing wave (such as scattering due to subsurface
heterogeneities), or perhaps an error in the KiK-net VS profile
(such as the inversion of the velocity profile for depths 35–57 m).
Nevertheless, the plots indicate that the equivalent-linear and
nonlinear models generally offer similar predictions. At high
frequencies, however, as seen in panel (c), the equivalent-linear
model notably underpredicts the ground motions for frequencies
greater than 8 Hz; the overdamping (underprediction) of high-
frequency components of ground motion is a well-known problem
with equivalent-linear models that were also apparent in the
results of Kaklamanos et al. [11]. This set of figures illustrates the
importance of considering multiple factors when analyzing site
response models (e.g., response spectra, amplification spectra),
 J. Kaklamanos et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 69 (2015) 207–219 215

Fig. 9. Detailed results figure for the 2011/3/11 Mw 9.0 Tohoku event recorded at station FKSH11. Results are displayed for the linear site response model (SHAKE), the
equivalent-linear site response model (SHAKE, using the Zhang et al. [29] modulus-reduction and damping curves), and the nonlinear site response model (Abaqus/Explicit):
(a) observed and predicted surface acceleration time series centered in a 5 s window around the time of the absolute maximum acceleration (north–south component);
(b) predicted stress–strain loops at 31.5 m, the depth corresponding to the maximum shear strain in the profile (north–south component); (c) observed and predicted
surface/downhole amplification ratios; (d) observed and predicted surface response spectra (PSA); and (e) the corresponding PSA residuals (PSAresid). Panels (c)–(e) use the
geometric mean to combine the two orthogonal horizontal components of recorded ground motion. Comparable plots for additional strong-motion events are presented as
Figs. S17–S31 in the electronic supplement to this article.

and also the importance of considering the period dependence of
the models' accuracies.
4.5. Prediction accuracies of site response models
In this section, we quantify the prediction accuracies of the
linear, equivalent-linear, and nonlinear site response models
across all ground motions and sites. First, similar to Thompson
et al. [21], Pearson's correlation coefficient r is used to compare the
observed and predicted surface/downhole amplification spectra.
For each site, r is calculated using the pooled amplification spectra
from all events, for n ¼200 logarithmically spaced frequencies
between the first and fourth peak of the site's theoretical linear 1D
transfer function (Fig. 2), which is the range of frequencies that
will likely dominate the seismic response at each site. Frequencies
above 20 Hz are not included in the calculation of r, even if the
fourth peak is at a greater frequency (this occurs at station
IWTH27). The frequencies used in the calculations at each site
are shown in Table 2, ordered by VS30. Also shown are the total
number of records ntotal, and the number of records at each site
surpassing various thresholds of γmax ( Z0.01%, Z0.02%, Z0.05%,
and Z0.1%).
In Table 3, we present the correlation coefficients between the
observed and predicted amplification spectra for the site response
models, computed by pooling the amplification spectra across all
6 sites and 191 ground motions to arrive at a single value of r for
each model. The correlation coefficients are also computed using
subsets of the pooled amplification spectra corresponding to
records with γmax exceeding 0.01%, 0.02%, 0.05%, and 0.1%. The
trends in Table 3 are graphically displayed in Fig. 10. When all 191
ground motions are considered, all seven models have values of r
in the 0.5–0.6 range. At first, it may seem surprising that the
benefits of the equivalent-linear and nonlinear models are not
apparent, but this is because goodness-of-fit calculations in this
table are performed for all ground motions at each site, including
small-strain motions. In time-domain analyses, one issue is that
small-strain damping is often poorly constrained (for example,
when Rayleigh damping is used), although the novel frequency-
independent small-strain damping formulation in DEEPSOIL elim-
inates the need to select Rayleigh damping coefficients [34].
Nonlinear analyses are also affected by the fitting procedure of
the nonlinear curves from the target modulus-reduction and
damping curves.
The true benefit of equivalent-linear and nonlinear site
response models is observed when the correlation coefficients
are computed using only the large-strain ground motions; clear
increases in r are observed when the model type is advanced from
linear, to equivalent-linear, and to nonlinear. Table 3 and Fig. 10
216 J. Kaklamanos et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 69 (2015) 207–219

Table 2
Details of goodness-of-fit calculations at each station.

Station name

NMRH04 FKSH14 FKSH11 IWTH08 TKCH08 IWTH27

Frequencies used in the goodness-of-fit calculations:

Minimum frequency, fmin (Hz) 0.40 1.20 1.20 2.80 1.80 6.23
Maximum frequency, fmax (Hz) 2.34 6.19 6.07 11.59 9.77 20.00
Numbers of ground motions: Total
Total number of records, ntotal 23 52 39 18 34 25 191
Records with γ max Z 0:01% 21 20 15 5 10 9 80
Records with γ max Z 0:02% 10 11 7 2 5 7 42
Records with γ max Z 0:05% 3 4 2 1 1 4 15
Records with γ max Z 0:1% 1 1 2 1 1 3 9

Table 3
Correlation coefficients between observed and predicted amplification spectra: All sites combined.

Model Correlation coefficient, r

All records Records with γ max Z 0:01% Records with γ max Z 0:02% Records with γ max Z 0:05% Records with γ max Z 0:1%

Linear: Abaqus 0.544 0.533 0.534 0.524 0.519

Linear: DEEPSOIL 0.584 0.587 0.576 0.558 0.558
Linear: SHAKE 0.587 0.589 0.575 0.558 0.555
Equivalent-Linear (SHAKE):Darendeli [30] 0.571 0.553 0.521 0.575 0.599
Equivalent-Linear (SHAKE):Zhang et al. [29] 0.583 0.633 0.665 0.771 0.767
Nonlinear: DEEPSOIL 0.585 0.650 0.702 0.817 0.821
Nonlinear: Abaqus 0.545 0.631 0.699 0.831 0.818

For large-strain ground motions, the values of r for the linear

Fig. 10. Goodness-of-fit between observed and predicted amplification spectra for
the site response models, computed by pooling the amplification spectra across all
sites and 191 ground motions, as well as by pooling the records meeting specific
thresholds of γmax. The numbers in the legend correspond to the numbers of ground
motions in each category.
analyses remain in the 0.5–0.6 range, along with the value of r for
the equivalent-linear analyses using the Darendeli [30] curves. For
the two nonlinear models, as well as the equivalent-linear ana-
lyses performed using the Zhang et al. [29] curves, noticeable
improvements in the goodness-of-fit are clear for the γmax Z0.01%
and γmax 40.02% thresholds. However, the most significant bene-
fits of the more advanced models are manifested when γmax
exceeds 0.05%. For records with γmax Z 0.05%, the correlation
coefficient advances to 0.771 for the Zhang et al. [29] equivalent-
linear analyses, and further advances to 0.817 and 0.831 for the
nonlinear site response analyses in DEEPSOIL and Abaqus, respec-
tively. At these large-strain levels, the nonlinear models have a
slightly stronger predictive edge over the equivalent-linear
models.
5. Discussion
5.1. Accuracy as a function of maximum shear strain

In Kaklamanos et al. [11], we concluded that in terms of γmax,

display a large difference between the Darendeli [30] and Zhang
et al. [29] models in terms of the equivalent-linear goodness-of-fit.
These results underscore the extreme influence of the modulus-
reduction and damping relationship on the accuracy of equivalent-
linear analyses. One possible reason for the underperformance of
the Darendeli [30] model is the larger number of input parameters
that are not well-constrained (such as overconsolidation ratio,
loading frequency, and equivalent number of cycles). Alternatively,
the Zhang et al. [29] model may have a greater accuracy because
the model requires one input parameter that the Darendeli [30]
model does not contain: geologic age. The Zhang et al. [29] model
specifically accounts for Quaternary soil, which often comprises
loose geologic material in which strong nonlinear behavior occurs.
the linear site response model begins to become inaccurate at
strains in the range of 0.01–0.1%. At shear strains greater than
these values, and less than γmax E0.1–0.4%, the equivalent-linear
site response formulation improves the accuracy of site response
predictions. In the present study, these conclusions are supported
using the results from additional linear and equivalent-linear site
response models, although the Darendeli [30] modulus-reduction
and damping curves have noticeably lower goodness-of-fit than
the Zhang et al. [29] curves. Equivalent-linear and nonlinear site
response models perform similarly across most levels of ground
motion (as noted, for example, by Kim and Hashash [12] and Yee
et al. [13]), but Table 3 and Fig. 10 illustrate that the nonlinear site
response models offer slight improvements over equivalent-linear
analyses for shear strains beyond 0.05%. The maximum shear
 J. Kaklamanos et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 69 (2015) 207–219
strain encountered in the present study is 0.3%; we therefore are
precluded from drawing conclusions about larger strain levels.
5.2. Damping in nonlinear site response analyses
Nonlinear site response models have two types of damping:
(a) hysteretic damping, which is associated with energy dissipa-
tion within hysteresis loops, and (b) viscous (velocity-propor-
tional) damping, which is associated with dashpots embedded
within the material elements. In a nonlinear analysis, there will be
nearly zero damping at small strains, because the backbone curve
is nearly linear and there is very little width to the hysteresis loop.
Many nonlinear site response codes (e.g., D-MOD2000 [14],
DEEPSOIL [15], SUMDES [17], and OpenSees [19]) include viscous
damping in order to maintain some level of damping at small
strains. Although the true nature of soil damping at small strains is
not truly viscous, the assumption of viscous damping is a con-
venient representation for simulation purposes [8]. The programs
NONLI3 [46,47], NERA [48], NOAHW [7], and the overlay finite
element model of Kaklamanos et al. [22], which are all based the
Iwan [37] and Mroz [38] material model, include only hysteretic
damping. The results of this paper show that the exclusion of
viscous damping may mitigate the issue of overdamping at large
strains. Fig. 6 indicates that the overlay model (which includes
only hysteretic damping) is less biased than DEEPSOIL (which
includes both hysteretic and viscous damping) for short-period
ground motions; Table 3 and Fig. 10 show that this improvement is
largely manifested at strains greater than 0.05%. Relative to
DEEPSOIL, the increased accuracy of the overlay model at large
strains comes at a slight cost: decreased accuracy at small strains
(Table 3, Fig. 10), where viscous damping has the strongest benefit.
5.3. Limitations of 1D total stress site response models
The site response models considered in this study all share a
common trait: they are 1D total stress analyses. Compounding
factors such as basin waves, path effects, soil heterogeneity,
nonvertical incidence, pore-pressure generation, and poorly con-
strained soil properties can greatly reduce the accuracies of 1D
total-stress site response models [41,49]. Accounting for these
compounding factors can help improve predictions of site
response, although the complexity of the site response model is
increased in doing so. First, there is significant uncertainty
associated with the assumed 1D velocity profiles at the KiK-net
sites. Previous researchers, e.g., Assimaki et al. [50], have chosen to
vary the soil profiles from the measured values to improve the fit.
Second, more complicated nonlinear constitutive models could be
employed, but given the lack of nonlinear material data and pore-
pressure data at the KiK-net sites (and many sites in engineering
practice), we would induce additional uncertainty by using a more
complicated constitutive model.
6. Conclusions
In this study, we performed linear, equivalent-linear, and non-
linear site response analyses of 191 ground motions recorded at six
selected sites. Because we focused on sites that are well-modeled
by 1D wave propagation, the observed misfit for strong motions
can mostly be attributed to uncertainties in soil properties and the
constitutive model. Across all sites, ground motions, and intensity
levels, all models generally displayed positive bias (underpredic-
tion of ground motions) at short spectral periods (o 0.2 s),
although the nonlinear site response analysis in Abaqus displayed
lesser bias than the other models over this range of periods. From
the analysis of the model residuals, one of the most consistent
217
findings is that the differences in accuracy are largest between the
linear model and the other models, and that there are relatively
small differences in accuracy between equivalent-linear and non-
linear site response models. The critical level of maximum shear
strain (γmax) at which the linear site response model breaks down
is 0.01–0.1% (generally corresponding to PGA E0.1–0.3 g), consis-
tent with the results of Kaklamanos et al. [11]; similar trends were
observed in linear frequency-domain and linear time-domain site
response models. Beyond shear strains of approximately 0.01% (to
maximum strains of 0.3% considered in this study), equivalent-
linear and nonlinear site response models both offer significant
improvements over linear site response models, and nonlinear site
response models are shown to exhibit a slight improvement over
equivalent-linear site response models for shear strains greater
than approximately 0.05%. It is important to note, however, that
the performance of the equivalent-linear model is heavily depen-
dent on the assumed modulus-reduction and damping relation-
ship, as are nonlinear models, which also depend on the assumed
target curves. Although fully nonlinear site response models
represent an improvement over linear and equivalent-linear
models, capturing nonlinear soil behavior is just one step towards
improving predictions of complex site response behavior.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported under National Science Foundation
(NSF) Grant no. 1000210; we gratefully acknowledge this support.
We are appreciative of two anonymous reviewers for their insightful
feedback that improved the quality of this manuscript. We also thank
the following individuals for providing helpful feedback on an earlier
version of this manuscript: Dr. David M. Boore (U.S. Geological
Survey); and Drs. David M. Garman and Richard M. Vogel of Tufts
University. In addition, we would like to acknowledge the National
Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention (NIED)
for making the KiK-net strong-motion data and velocity profiles
freely available.
Appendix A. Determination of site response model parameters
In this appendix, we describe how the input parameters for the
Zhang et al. [29] and Darendeli [30] models were selected. The
Zhang et al. [29] modulus-reduction and damping relationships
require the mean effective confining pressure σ m , plasticity index
PI, and geologic age (Quaternary, Tertiary and older, or residual/
saprolite soil) as input parameters. The Darendeli [30] relation-
ships require σ m , PI, overconsolidation ratio, loading frequency,
and number of loading cycles. In the equivalent-linear analyses,
the models of Zhang et al. [29] or Darendeli [30] were used to
represent the stress–strain response of the soil at depths above the
soil-bedrock interface (Zrock, given in Table 1). For the bedrock
layers below Zrock, and down to the maximum depth Zmax where
the downhole ground motion is applied, we assumed linear
stress–strain behavior for all analyses (G/Gmax ¼1, with strain-
independent damping).
The layer density ρ required for all site response analyses was
determined from the P-wave velocity (VP) using the procedure of
Boore [51]. In order to compute the mean effective confining
pressure σ m , we assumed the groundwater table is located where
VP first surpasses 1500 m/s; numerous studies [52-54] have found
that P-wave velocities of 1000–2000 m/s are characteristic of
saturated soil. The coefficient of at-rest lateral earth pressure
(Ko) is required for the computation of the horizontal effective
stresses from the vertical effective stresses. We computed Ko from
Poisson's ratio (ν) using the theoretical relationship K o ¼ ν=ð1  νÞ,
218 J. Kaklamanos et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 69 (2015) 207–219
where ν ¼ ðV 2P  2V 2S Þ=ð2V 2P  2V 2S Þ. The plasticity index (PI)
required for the modulus-reduction and damping relationships
was assumed to be 0 for sand or gravel, 15 for silt, and 30 for clay
(generic values based on soil type). The selection of geologic age
for the Zhang et al. [29] model was inferred from the geologic
profile provided on the KiK-net website [23]. For the Darendeli
[30] model, the overconsolidation ratio was reasonably assumed to
be unity, and the loading frequency and number of loading cycles
were assumed to be 10 and 1 Hz, respectively, using the default
values recommended by Darendeli [30] for site response analyses.
Appendix B. Supplementary material
The electronic supplement to this manuscript contains one
table and 31 figures that contain additional metadata and results
at the six KiK-net stations used in this study. Supplementary data
associated with this article can be found in the online version at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.10.016.
References
[1] Building Seismic Safety Council [BSSC]. NEHRP recommended provisions for
seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures. (FEMA P-750
report). 2009 edition. Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management
Agency; 2009.
[2] Schnabel PB, Lysmer J, Seed HB. SHAKE: a computer program for earthquake
response analysis of horizontally layered sites. (Report No. UCB/EERC-72/12).
Berkeley, California: Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California Berkeley; 1972 (102 pp).
[3] Idriss IM, Sun JI. SHAKE91: a computer program for conducting equivalent
linear seismic response analyses of horizontally layered soil deposits (User's
Manual). Davis, California: University of California Davis; 1992 (37 pp).
[4] Ordóñez GA. SHAKE2000: a computer program for the 1-D analysis of
geotechnical earthquake engineering problems (User's Manual). Lacey,
Washington: GeoMotions, LLC; 2010 (262 pp).
[5] Kottke AR, Rathje EM. Technical manual for Strata. (PEER report 2008/10).
Berkeley, California: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univer-
sity of California, Berkeley; 2008 (100 pp).
[6] Hashash YMA, Park D. Non-linear one-dimensional seismic ground motion
propagation in the Mississippi embayment. Eng Geol 2001;62:185–206.
[7] Hartzell S, Bonilla LF, Williams RA. Prediction of nonlinear soil effects. Bull
Seismol Soc Am 2004;94:1609–29.
[8] Kwok AOL, Stewart JP, Hashash YMA, Matasovic N, Pyke R, Wang Z, Yang Z. Use
of exact solutions of wave propagation problems to guide implementation of
nonlinear, time-domain ground response analysis routines. J Geotech Geoen-
viron Eng 2007;133:1385–98.
[9] Assimaki D, Li W, Steidl J, Schmedes J. Quantifying nonlinearity susceptibility
via site response modeling uncertainty at three sites in the Los Angeles basin.
Bull Seismol Soc Am 2008;98:2364–90.
[10] Kwok AOL, Stewart JP, Hashash YMA. Nonlinear ground-response analysis of
Turkey Flat shallow stiff soil site to strong ground motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am
2008;98:331–43.
[11] Kaklamanos J, Bradley BA, Thompson EM, Baise LG. Critical parameters
affecting bias and variability in site response analyses using KiK-net downhole
array data. Bull Seismol Soc Am 2013;103:1733–49.
[12] Kim B, Hashash YMA. Site response analysis using downhole array recordings
during the March 2011 Tohoku-Oki earthquake and the effect of long-duration
ground motions. Earthq Spectra 2013;29:S37–54.
[13] Yee E, Stewart JP, Tokimatsu K. Elastic and large-strain nonlinear seismic site
response from analysis of vertical array recordings. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
2013;139:1789–801.
[14] Matasović N, Ordóñez GA. D-MOD2000: a computer program for seismic
response analysis of horizontally layered soil deposits, earthfill dams, and
solid waste landfills (User's Manual). Lacey, Washington: GeoMotions, LLC;
2010 (182 pp).
[15] Hashash YMA, Groholski DR, Phillips CA, Park D, Musgrove M. DEEPSOIL 5.0,
user manual and tutorial. Champaign, Illinois: University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign; 2011 (107 pp).
[16] Pyke RM. TESS: a computer program for nonlinear ground response analyses.
Lafayette, California: TAGA Engineering Systems and Software; 2000.
[17] Li XS, Wang ZL, Shen CK. SUMDES: a nonlinear procedure for response analysis
of horizontally-layered sites subjected to multidirectional earthquake loading.
Davis, California: Department of Civil Engineering, University of California
Davis; 1992.
[18] McKenna F, Fenves GL. The OpenSees command language manual. (Version
1.2). Berkeley, California: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
University of California Berkeley; 2001 ([accessed May 2014]).
[19] Aoi S, Obara K, Hori S, Kasahara K, Okada Y. New Japanese uphole-downhole
strong-motion observation network: KiK-net. Seismological Research Letters
2000;72:239.
[20] Okada Y, Kasahara K, Hori S, Obara K, Sekiguchi S, Fujiwara H, Yamamoto A.
Recent progress of seismic observation networks in Japan – Hi-net, F-net, K-
net and KiK-net. Earth Planets Space 2004;56:xv–xviii.
[21] Thompson EM, Baise LG, Tanaka Y, Kayen RE. A taxonomy of site response
complexity. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2012;41:32–43.
[22] Kaklamanos J, Dorfmann L, Baise L.G. Modeling dynamic site response
using the overlay concept. In: Abu-Farsakh M, Yu X, Hoyos LR. (editors).
Proceedings of Geo-Congress 2014: geo-characterization and modeling
for sustainability. Atlanta, Georgia: American Society of Civil Engineers
(ASCE); 23–26 February 2014. p. 1167–1176, Geotechnical special publication
no. 234, available at /http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?315410S.
[23] National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention [NIED].
In: Strong-motion seismograph networks (KiK-net), available at 〈http://www.
kyoshin.bosai.go.jp/〉; 2012 [accessed May 2014].
[24] Haskell NA. The dispersion of surface waves on multilayered media. Bull
Seismol Soc Am 1953;72:17–34.
[25] Thomson WT. Transmission of elastic waves through a stratified solid. J Appl
Phys 1950;21:89–93.
[26] Boore DM. SMSIM – Fortran programs for simulating ground motions from
earthquakes, version 2.3 – a revision of OFR 96-80-A. (Open-file report 2008–
1128). Reston, Virginia: US Geological Survey; 2008 (55 pp).
[27] Kaklamanos J, Baise LG. Dorfmann L. Quantification of uncertainty in non-
linear soil models at a representative seismic array. In: Deodatis G, Ellingwood
BR, Frangopol DM (editors). Proceedings of the 11th international conference
on structural safety and reliability (ICOSSAR 2013). New York City, New York;
16-20 June 2013. p. 4189-4196.
[28] Kaklamanos J. Quantifying uncertainty in earthquake site response models
using the KiK-net database. ([Ph.D. dissertation]). Medford, Massachusetts:
Tufts University; 2012 (301 pp).
[29] Zhang J, Andrus RD, Juang CH. Normalized shear modulus and material
damping ratio relationships. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2005;131:453–64.
[30] Darendeli MB. Development of a new family of normalized modulus reduction
and material damping curves. ([Ph.D. thesis]). Austin, Texas: University of
Texas at Austin; 2001 (396 pp).
[31] Dassault Systèmes. Abaqus analysis user's manual. (Version 6.9-2). Dassault
Systèmes, 2009, Providence, Rhode Island.
[32] Matasović N, Vucetic M. Cyclic characterization of liquefiable sands. J Geotech
Eng 1993;119:1805–22.
[33] Kondner RL, Zelasko JS. A hyperbolic stress-strain formulation of sands. In:
Proceedings of the 2nd pan American conference on soil mechanics and
foundation engineering. São Paulo, Brazil: Brazilian Association of Soil
Mechanics; 1963. p. 289–324.
[34] Phillips C, Hashash YMA. Damping formulation for nonlinear 1D site response
analyses. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2009;29:1143–58.
[35] Masing G. Eigenspannungen and verfertigung beim messing. In: Proceedings
of the 2nd international congress on applied mechanics. Zurich, Switzerland;
1926.
[36] Nelson RB, Dorfmann A. Parallel elasto-plastic models of inelastic material
behavior. J Eng Mech 1995;121:1089–97.
[37] Iwan WD. On a class of models for the yielding behavior of continuous and
composite systems. J Appl Mech 1967;34:612–7.
[38] Mroz Z. On the description of anisotropic workhardening. J Mech Phys Solid
1967;15:163–75.
[39] Kaklamanos J, Dorfmann L, Baise LG. A simple approach to site response
modeling: the overlay concept. Seismol Res Lett 2015 (in press).
[40] Pinheiro JC, Bates DM. Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-PLUS. New York:
Springer-Verlag; 2000 (528 pp).
[41] Bradley BA. A framework for validation of seismic response analyses using
seismometer array recordings. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2011;31:512–20.
[42] Baise LG, Thompson EM, Kaklamanos J, Dorfmann L. Complex site response:
does one-dimensional site response work? In: Proceedings of the interna-
tional symposium on the effects of surface geology on seismic motion (ESG4)
on 4th international association of seismology and physics of the Earth's
interior (IASPEI)/ international association of earthquake engineering (IAEE).
Santa Barbara, California, 23-26 August 2011 (12 pp).
[43] Assimaki D, Li W, Steidl J, Tsuda K. Site amplification and attenuation via
downhole array seismogram inversion: a comparative study of the 2003
Miyagi-Oki aftershock sequence. Bull Seismol Soc Am 2008;98:301–30.
[44] Ghofrani H, Atkinson GM, Goda K. Implications of the 2011 M9.0 Tohoku Japan
earthquake for the treatment of site effects in large earthquakes. Bull Earthq
Eng 2013;11:171–203.
[45] Régnier J, Cadet H, Bonilla LF, Bertrand E, Semblat J-F. Assessing nonlinear
behavior of soils in seismic site response: statistical analysis on KiK-net
strong-motion data. Bull Seismol Soc Am 2013;103:1750–70.
[46] Joyner WB, Chen ATF. Calculation of nonlinear ground response in earth-
quakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 1975;65:1315–36.
[47] Joyner WB. A FORTRAN program for calculating nonlinear seismic ground
response. (Open-file report No. 77-671). Reston, Virginia: US Geological
Survey; 1977 (50 pp).
[48] Bardet JP, Tobita T. NERA: a computer program for nonlinear earthquake
site response analysis of layered soil deposits. Los Angeles, California:
Deptartment of Civil Engineering, University of Southern California; 2001
(44 pp).
 J. Kaklamanos et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 69 (2015) 207–219 219

[49] Thompson EM, Baise LG, Kayen RE, Guzina BB. Impediments to predicting site
response: seismic property estimation and modeling simplifications. Bull
Seismol Soc Am 2009;99:2927–49.
[50] Assimaki D, Steidl J, Liu PC. Attenuation and velocity structure for site
response analyses via downhole seismogram inversion. Pure Appl Geophys
2006;163:81–118.
[51] Boore DM. Some thoughts on relating density to velocity, available at 〈http://
daveboore.com/daves_notes.php〉; 2007 [accessed May 2014], 12 pp.
[52] Hasselstroem B. Water prospecting and rock-investigation by the seismic
refraction method. Geoexploration 1969;7:213.
[53] Haeni FP. Application of seismic refraction methods in groundwater modelling
studies in New England. Geophysics 1986;51:236–49.
[54] Grelle G, Guadagno FM. Seismic refraction methodology for groundwater level
determination: water seismic index. J Appl Geophys 2009;68:301–20.