See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260436691

Comparative study of seismic ground responses

using DEEPSOIL, SHAKE and D-MOD for soils of
Goa, India

Conference Paper in Geotechnical Special Publication · February 2014

DOI: 10.1061/9780784413272.107

CITATIONS READS

5 322

2 authors:

Nisha Naik Deepankar Choudhury

Goa College of Engineering Farmagudi Indian Institute of Technology Bombay
6 PUBLICATIONS 20 CITATIONS 217 PUBLICATIONS 1,858 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Expert advise on water ingress and settlement observed during construction of sea water intake pit at
LNG terminal at Mundra port, Gujarat View project

Seismic Design and Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction (DSSI) Analysis for Pile Foundations for Oil Tanks
in Iraq View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nisha Naik on 01 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers, GSP 234 © ASCE 2014 1101
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 04/16/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Comparative Study of Seismic Ground Responses Using DEEPSOIL, SHAKE

and D-MOD for Soils of Goa, India

Nisha P. Naik1 and Deepankar Choudhury2, M.ASCE

1
Ph.D Research Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay,
Powai, Mumbai - 400076, INDIA. Email: nisha_naik@iitb.ac.in
2
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, IIT Bombay,
Powai, Mumbai - 400076, INDIA. Also, Adjunct Professor, Academy of Scientific and Innovative
Research (AcSIR), New Delhi, INDIA. Email: dc@civil.iitb.ac.in

ABSTRACT: Seismic Ground Response Analysis (GRA) is carried out to quantify

the effects of the local soil strata overlying the bedrock on the characteristics of the
bedrock motion. In the present study, the variability in the seismic ground response is
studied for various input parameters such as soil geometry, use of different shear
modulus and damping curves and methods of analysis by using three software, viz.
DEEPSOIL, SHAKE and D-MOD. The study is carried out for typical soil site
located at Goa, India. Considerable differences are found in the output parameters,
such as, amplification ratio, surface acceleration, peak spectral acceleration and the
frequency content of the response spectrum using various input parameters. It is
found that the soil model defined with more number of layers gives a better estimate
of the ground response. The mean spectral values obtained by equivalent linear
analysis are found to be higher than that of the non linear analysis. Non-linear ground
response analysis is recommended as it represents the actual non-linear soil behavior
and the software considered allow for its easy adoption.

INTRODUCTION

The “local soil” affects the rock level earthquake motions which are modified to
different surface motions. The local soil effects are determined by carrying out
dynamic analysis of a soil column subjected to a base excitation. The pre-requisites
for the dynamic analysis are the geometry of the soil column and the dynamic
properties of the soil material within the column. The analysis is based on the
propagation of the seismic wave from the bed-rock through the overlying soil layers.
The ground response analysis (GRA) yields output parameters, such as, surface
acceleration-time histories, surface acceleration response spectra, amplification
factors which are of practical interest for seismic design and also for estimating
induced shear stresses and shear strains within the soil profile. The geometry of the
soil column can be reasonably defined based on the bore-log data obtained from the

Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers

 Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers, GSP 234 © ASCE 2014 1102

site. The dynamic properties of the soils at the site can be measured in the field or
determined in the laboratory. However, such tests in practice are commonly carried
out in seismically active regions or for important public structures and rarely done for
other regions or routine structures. The available data of dynamic properties is very
scanty and null in low seismicity areas, such as, the one considered in this study.
Considering these facts, dynamics properties are commonly estimated using available
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 04/16/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

correlations with known or available field measured properties such as Standard

Penetration Test (SPT) ‘N’ value or the cone penetration resistance. Choosing the
most appropriate correlation which is suitable for the type of soil at the site is a
challenge and it has high degree of inherent and obvious uncertainty. The degradation
and attenuation of the shear modulus and damping with shear strain are unique
characteristic of the type of soil and may be established by cyclic tests. In absence of
such data, published modulus degradation or damping curves applicable for specific
type of soils can be used. Here again, the choice of the appropriate curves will govern
the results. Uncertainties also exist in defining the characteristics of the seismic
waves which are likely to be generated in the bed-rock at the location of the site. The
method of analysis also influences the GRA output results and a fair linking of the
output results with the method of analysis adopted is essential to adopt practical
design values of the output parameters. It is necessary to quantify these uncertainties
in terms of their influence on the output parameters (Rathje et al. 2010).
Chiu et al. (2008) carried out one-dimensional seismic ground response analyses for
the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit project. The response was tested for the variation of
the shear wave velocity profile, use of different input motions and two methods of
analysis namely equivalent-linear and non-linear methods of ground response
analysis. Variability in the ground response was studied extensively by Kwok et al.
(2008) using six different ground response codes. The sensitivity of the ground
response was tested to the variations in the soil model, site velocity profile and non-
linear soil properties. A total stress analysis was adopted. Extensive studies on non-
linear GRA were carried out by Kwok et al. (2007) and Stewart and Kwok (2008).
Sun et al. (2005), Rathje et al. (2010), Phillips et al. (2012), Raghunandan (2012) and
Arslan and Siyahi (2006) had carried out sensitivity studies on the output of ground
response analysis to the various input parameters such as input motion, dynamic
properties and method of analysis. In India, ground response studies were carried out
by Phanikanth et al. (2011) for Peninsular India regions of Mumbai city and by
Shukla and Choudhury (2012) for Gujarat. But no such GRA is available for an
important and most touristic place in western India i.e. Goa State of Peninsular India,
though this area if prone to seismic hazards (Mhaske and Choudhury 2010).

Soil profile considered for present study

A typical soil profile of a site (latitude 15°29’16.5”N and longitude 73°48’58.1”E)

located in the capital city of Panjim in Goa State, India is considered for the present
study. This site is located in an area called Patto Plaza, which is a commercial hub in
the city of Panjim. The available soil data comprises of the Standard Penetration Test
(SPT) ‘N’ values at various depths and the soil properties such as density, grain size
distribution, Atterberg limits and undrained shear strength parameters. No data about

Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers

 Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers, GSP 234 © ASCE 2014 1103

field measured dynamic properties was available. The overburden soil above the
Engineering bedrock (strata with SPT N > 50) is 21 m thick. Hard Metagraywacke
rock is met with at a depth of 27.5 m. The rock is found to be jointed with a poor core
recovery. The water table is located at a depth of 1.65 m.

Software used for the present study

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 04/16/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

A number of software are currently being used worldwide to carry out seismic
ground response analysis (GRA), for example, DEEPSOIL, SHAKE, NERA,
STRATA and SUMDES. In the present study, three worldwide widely used software,
namely, DEEPSOIL 5.1 [Hashash et al. (2012)], SHAKE 2000 [Ordonez (2012)] and
D-MOD [Matasovic and Ordonez (2012)] are considered. The
comparative/distinguishing features and capabilities of the software are listed in
Table 1.
Table 1. Comparative / distinguishing features of various software used in the
present study

Feature DEEPSOIL SHAKE D-MOD

2000
Method of One-dimensional One- One-dimensional
Analysis dimensional
Type of Linear, Equivalent- Equivalent- Non-linear
Analysis linear and non-linear linear
- Frequency domain for Frequency Time-domain
Time/ linear and equivalent domain
Frequency linear analysis
Domain - Time domain for
linear and non-linear
analysis
(i) Pressure dependent (i) MKZ - Hyperbolic
Type of soil Hyperbolic Model Model
model for (Hashash and Park ____ (Metasovic 1993, Konder
non-linear 2001) with and without and Zelasko 1963)
analysis Masing Criteria.

Soil geometry models considered for the present study

Two soil models shown in Fig. 1 are used to define the geometry of the soil column
in the present analysis. The difference between the models being in the number of
layers, SPT ‘N’ value and shear wave velocity profile. In the first model denoted as
Model ‘A’, SPT ‘N’ value as-obtained in the field is assumed constant for the
respective layer and used to estimate shear wave velocity ‘Vs’. Model A consists of
15 layers above engineering bedrock. In the second model, denoted as Model ‘B’, the
average-SPT ‘N’ value is found for each type of soil layer and this average value is
used to estimate ‘Vs’. Model B consists of 6 layers above bedrock. The shear wave
velocity ‘Vs’ is estimated by using available correlations with SPT N values

Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers

 Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers, GSP 234 © ASCE 2014 1104

developed by Fujiwara (1972), Imai et al. (1975), Imai and Tonouchi (1982), Mhaske
and Choudhury (2011), Chatterjee and Choudhury (2013). The two models differ in
the shear wave velocity profile. The values of the shear wave velocity are shown in
the last column alongside the soil profile in Fig. 1.

Layer Depth Soil SPT Vs Layer Depth Soil AVG. Vs

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 04/16/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

No. (m) Type 'N ' (m/sec) No. (m) Type SPT (m/sec)
1 1.65 50 340 1 1.65 50 340
2 2.50 19 234 2 2.50 19 234
3 3.50 5 143 3 3.50 5 143
4 4.50 19 234
5.00 4 5.00 21 243
5 23 252
6 6.50 16 220
7 8.00 14 209
8 9.50 21 243 5 17 225
9 11.00 17 225
10 13.50 18 229 13.50
11 15.00 22 248
12 16.50 23 252
13 18.00 21 243 6 33 284
14 19.50 49 338
15 21.00 50 340 21.00
16 27.50 >50 7 27.50 >50
17 >50 8 >50

(a) Model A (b) Model B

LEGEND FOR SOIL TYPE

Fill - stiff lateritic clayey silt
Alluvial deposits - Loose fine sand with silt
Soft marine clayey silt
Medium dense quartzitic silty sand
Insitu strata-very stiff lateritic clayey silt with gravels
Very stiff clayey silt (considered as BEDROCK)
Hard Rock

FIG.1. Soil Geometry Models considered for the present study.

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

The ground response analysis is carried out by using two soil Models A and B. One
dimensional equivalent-linear analysis is carried out by using DEEPSOIL and
SHAKE 2000 software and non-linear analysis is carried out by using DEEPSOIL
and D-MOD software. A database of a large number of curves can be found in
Ordonez (2012). In this comparative study, Vucetic and Dobry (1991) and Darendeli
(2001) shear modulus and damping curves are adopted for silts and sands which are
shown in Fig 2. The acceleration time history of 2001 Bhuj earthquake (see
Choudhury and Savoikar 2009) is applied at the Engineering bedrock for all the cases
considered. By combining different input parameters, 16 different ways of carrying
out one dimensional ground response analysis of the same site are identified. The
output parameters, such as, surface level acceleration, amplification and response
spectrum are obtained for each of these cases and compared. The influence of the
inherent differences in the method of analysis is also studied. The following

Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers

 Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers, GSP 234 © ASCE 2014 1105

abbreviations are used to denote the input parameters and the software used for the
analysis –
(i) A - Soil Model ‘A’ (ii) B - Soil Model ‘B’ (iii) Vuc - Vucetic and Dobry (1991)
(iv) Dar - Darendeli (2001) (v) EQ - Equivalent Linear analysis (vi) NL - Non linear
analysis (vii) DP - DEEPSOIL (viii) SK - SHAKE (ix) DM - D-MOD
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 04/16/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Shear Modulus G/Gmax degradation Curves Damping Curves

1 25
Darendeli 2001 curves for Darendeli 2001 curves
Silts with PI = 15 for Silts with PI = 15
0.8 20
Darendeli 2001 curves for Darendeli 2001 curves
for Sands

Damping %
Sands 15
G / Gmax

0.6
Vucetic and Dobry 1991 Vucetic and Dobry 1991
0.4 curves for Silts with PI = 10 curves for Silts with PI =
15 15
Vucetic and Dobry 1991 Vucetic and Dobry 1991
0.2 5 curves for PI=0 adopted
curves for PI=0 adopted
for sands for Sands
0 0
0.0001 0.01 1 0.0001 0.01 1
Strain (%) Strain (%)

FIG. 2. Non-dimensional shear modulus G/Gmax and damping curves adopted in

the present study.

Influence of shear wave velocity ‘Vs’

The difference in soil Model A and B is in the characterization of shear wave

velocity characterization along the depth. The outputs of GRA using Model A and
Model B and various software, keeping other input parameters constant are
compared. Some typical results of response spectrum and amplification ratio are
shown in Fig.3 (a-d). It is observed that the peak spectral accelerations obtained by
using Model B is higher compared to that by using Model A for all the cases.
Difference in the frequency content of the spectrum is observed. With Model B,
comparatively, higher spectral values are obtained in the low period range and
reverse for the high period range. The amplification spectra are shown in Fig. 3c, d.
Models A and B give an amplification of about 4.5 by using DEEPSOIL software.
However by using SHAKE 2000, Model B gives higher amplification at a higher
frequency compared to Model A. There is no significant influence of the soil model
chosen on the surface acceleration.

Influence of non-linear property

The analysis is carried out separately for soil models A and B by using Vucetic and
Dobry (1991) and Darendeli (2001) curves. Typical results are shown in Fig 4 (a,b).
For soil model A, it is observed that when Darendeli (2001) curves are used, 7%
higher values of spectral acceleration are obtained when compared with that obtained
using Vucetic and Dobry (1991) curves. For Model B, it is exactly the opposite.
However, the frequency content is not affected by the use of these different non-
linear property curves. The amplification spectrum is shown in Fig 4b. It is observed
that the maximum amplification is insensitive to the dynamic property attenuation
curves. Snap-shots of typical output of surface acceleration vs. time history obtained
from all three software are shown in Fig. 5.

Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers

 Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers, GSP 234 © ASCE 2014 1106

Influence of the method of analysis

The response spectrum obtained by equivalent-linear analysis by considering all

possible combinations of the input parameters using DEEPSOIL and SHAKE 2000
software is shown in Fig 6a.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 04/16/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1.2 1.2
A-Vuc-EQ-DP
Spectral Acceleration (g)

A-Dar-EQ-DP

Spectral Acceleration (g)

1 B-Vuc-EQ-DP 1 B-Dar-EQ-DP
A-Vuc-EQ-SK A-Dar-EQ-SK
0.8 B-Vuc-EQ-SK 0.8 B-Dar-EQ-SK
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Period (sec) Period (sec)
(a) (b)
7 7
A-Vuc-EQ-DP A-Dar-EQ-DP
6 B-Vuc-EQ-DP 6 B-Dar-EQ-DP
Amplification ratio
Amplification ratio

A-Vuc-EQ-SK A-Dar-EQ-SK
5 5
B-Vuc-EQ-SK B-Dar-EQ-SK
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)
(c) (d)
FIG.3. Influence of shear wave characterization on ground response (a)
Response spectrum for Model A and B using Vucetic & Dobry (1991) curves (b)
Amplification Spectrum for Model A and B using Vucetic & Dobry (1991)
curves (c) Response Spectrum for Model A and B using Darendeli (2001) curves
(d) Amplification Spectrum for Model A and B using Darendeli (2001) curves.

Results obtained by non-linear analysis by using DEEPSOIL and D-MOD software

are shown in Fig 6b. A large variation in both the peak spectral acceleration values
and the frequency content is observed. A statistical analysis of the results yields mean
peak spectral acceleration value of 0.77g with a standard deviation of 0.25g for the
equivalent linear analysis. Comparing the spectra in Fig 6a and Fig 6b, it is found that
the non-linear analysis yields lower spectral acceleration. In the non - linear analysis,
D-MOD software predicts higher values of mean spectral acceleration compared to
that obtained from DEEPSOIL software, whereas DEEPSOIL predicts higher values
for equivalent linear analysis compared to SHAKE 2000 software. The Indian seismic
code IS 1893-PartI (2002) spectrum is also shown in Fig 6 (a,b) for comparison. The

Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers

 Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers, GSP 234 © ASCE 2014 1107

mean spectra obtained using both the methods were compared with the IS code
spectrum. It was found, that in the low period range, the spectral values are higher
than the codal recommendations in both the cases. A study of the amplification
spectrum shows that lower amplification ratios are obtained in non-linear analysis
compared to equivalent linear analysis.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 04/16/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1.2 6
Spectral Acceleration (g)

A-Vuc-EQ-DP A-Vuc-EQ-DP

Amplification ratio
1 A-Dar-EQ-DP 5 A-Dar-EQ-DP
B-Vuc-EQ-DP B-Vuc-EQ-DP
0.8 B-Dar-EQ-DP 4
B-Dar-EQ-DP
0.6 3
0.4 2
0.2 1
0 0
0 2 4 6 0 5 10 15
Period (Sec) Frequency (Hz)
(a) (b)

FIG. 4. Influence of non-linear property on (a) Response Spectrum considering

Vucetic and Dobry (1991) and Darendeli (2001) curves and (b) Amplification
Spectrum by considering Vucetic and Dobry (1991) and Darendeli (2001) curves.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, 16 different ways of carrying out seismic ground response analysis for
a typical soil site in Goa, India are shown. The input parameters for GRA considered
in this study covers a wide spectrum of choices that can be made in the absence of
field measured / site specific data.
Some of the major conclusions drawn from this study are:
1. The frequency content of the response spectra and the peak spectral acceleration
values are influenced by the input soil geometry models defined. The input soil
Model B with less number of layers using DEEPSOIL software and Vucetic and
Dobry (1991) shear modulus and damping curves is found to give higher i.e.
critical values of PGA and the peak spectral acceleration compared to that
obtained using soil Model A, SHAKE software and Darendeli (2001) shear
modulus and damping curves.
2. The two shear modulus/ damping curves of Vucetic and Dobry (1991) and
Darendeli (2001) considered in this study do not exhibit significant difference in
the output of seismic ground response. However, a suite of shear modulus and
damping curves can be found in literature, which can be considered for carrying
out a sensitivity analysis before adopting any in the analysis.
3. The method of analysis highly influences the response parameters. Non-linear
analysis yields 21% lower values of mean spectral acceleration than the
equivalent linear analysis. For the site considered, spectral values obtained both
by equivalent-linear and non-linear method are higher than the IS 1893-Part I
(2002) Indian code recommendations.
7

Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers

 Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers, GSP 234 © ASCE 2014 1108

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

Acceleration (g)
Acceleration (g)
0.1 0.1
0 0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 04/16/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
-0.1 -0.1
-0.2 -0.2
-0.3 -0.3
Time (sec) Time (sec)

(a) (b)

(c)
FIG. 5. Snap-shots of typical results of surface acceleration vs. time history
obtained from (a) DEEPSOIL 5.1 (b) SHAKE 2000 and (c) D-MOD 2000.

4. Both DEEPSOIL and SHAKE 2000 software yields similar results for equivalent-
linear GRA.
5. For the non-linear GRA, D-MOD software yields higher peak spectral
acceleration values in the low period range compared to that using DEEPSOIL
software. Whereas, DEEPSOIL yields a realistic spectrum covering a greater
range of period of structure. For low periods, D-MOD software is recommended
for non-linear analysis.
6. For the present site considered, non-linear GRA is recommended as it better
represents the non-linear behavior of the soil. The choice of the software can be
made after validation with field measured values which are presently not
available.
7. This study draws attention to the wide variation in the output of the ground
response analysis depending on the choice/assumption of the input parameters
particularly when seismic design is based on blind predictions of seismic ground
response. This is particularly true when field measured data is unavailable.

Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers

 Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers, GSP 234 © ASCE 2014 1109

1.2 1.2
A-Dar-EQ-DP A-Dar-NL-DM
A-Vuc-EQ-DP A-Vuc-NL-DM
Spectral Acceleration (g)
1 1 B-Dar-NL-DM

Spectral Acceleration (g)

B-Dar-EQ-DP
B-Vuc-EQ-DP B-Vuc-NL-DM
0.8 A-Dar-EQ-SK 0.8 A-Dar-NL-DP
A-Vuc-EQ-SK A-Vuc-NL-DP
B-Dar-EQ-SK B-Dar-NL-DP
0.6 0.6 B-Vuc-NL-DP
B-Vuc-EQ-SK
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 04/16/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Mean Spectrum Mean Spectrum

0.4 IS1893-2002-zone III 0.4 IS1893-2002-zone III

0.2 0.2

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Period (sec) Period (sec)
(a) (b)

FIG. 6. Comparison of response spectra with Indian code IS 1893-Part I (2002)

spectra and present results showing influence of method of analysis on response
spectra obtained by (a) equivalent linear analysis (b) non-linear analysis.

REFERENCES

Arslan, H. and Siyahi, B. (2006). “A comparative study on linear and nonlinear site
response analysis.” Environmental Geology, 50: 1193–1200.
Chatterjee, K. and Choudhury, D. (2013). “Variations in shear wave velocity and soil
site class in Kolkata city using regression and sensitivity analysis.” Natural
Hazards, available online since July 23, 2013, doi: 10.1007/s11069-013-0795-7
Chiu, P., Pradel, D.E., Kwok, A.O.L. and Stewart, J. P. (2008). “Seismic response
analyses for the Silicon valley rapid transit project.” Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV, GSP 181, ASCE.
Choudhury, D. and Savoikar, P. (2009). “Equivalent-linear seismic analyses of MSW
landfills using DEEPSOIL.” Engineering Geology, 107(3-4): 98-108.
Darendeli, M. B. (2001). “Development of a new family of normalized modulus
reduction and material damping curves.” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas
Austin, USA.
Fujiwara, T. (1972). “Estimation of ground movements in actual destructive
earthquakes.” Proceedings of the Fourth European Symposium on Earthquake
Engineering, London, 125-132.
Hashash, Y.M.A, Groholski, D.R., Phillips, C. A., Park, D. and Musgrove, M. (2012).
“DEEPSOIL 5.1, User Manual and Tutorial.” 107 p.
Imai, T. (1977). “P-and S-wave velocities of the ground in Japan.” Proceedings of the
IX International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 2:
127-132.
Imai, T. and Tonouchi, K. (1982). “Correlation of N-value with S-wave velocity and
shear modulus.” Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium of Penetration
Testing, Amsterdam, 57-72.
Kwok, A.O.L., Stewart, J. P., Hashash, Y. M. A., Matasovic, N., Pyke R., Wang, Z.,
and Yang, Z. (2007). “Use of exact solutions of wave propagation problems to
guide implementation of nonlinear seismic ground response analysis procedures.”

Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers

 Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers, GSP 234 © ASCE 2014 1110

Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 133: 1385-

1398.
Kwok, A. O. L., Stewart, J. P., and Hashash, Y. M. A. (2008). “Nonlinear ground-
response analysis of Turkey flat shallow stiff-soil site to strong ground motion.”
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 98(1): 331-343.
Matasovic, N. (1993). “Seismic response of composite horizontally-layered soil
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 04/16/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

deposits.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Civil Engineering Department, University of

California, Los Angeles, USA, 483 p.
Matasovic, N. and Vucetic, M. (1995). “Generalized cyclic degradation-pore pressure
generation model for clays.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE,
121(1): 33-42.
Matasovic, N. and Ordonez, G. A. (2012). “D-MOD2000 – A computer program for
seismic site response analysis of horizontally layered soil deposits, earthfill dams
and solid waste landfills.” GeoMotions, LLC; Lacey, Washington, USA.
Mhaske, S. Y. and Choudhury, D. (2011). “Geospatial contour mapping of shear
wave velocity for Mumbai city.” Natural Hazards, 59: 317-327. DOI:
10.1007/s11069-011-9758-z
Mhaske, S. Y. and Choudhury, D. (2010). “GIS-based soil liquefaction susceptibility
map of Mumbai city for earthquake events.” Journal of Applied Geophysics,
70(3): 216-225.
Ordonez, G. A. (2012). “SHAKE2000 – A computer program for the 1-D analysis of
geotechnical earthquake engineering problems.” GeoMotions, LLC; Lacey,
Washington, USA.
Phanikanth, V. S., Choudhury, D. and Reddy, G. R. (2011). “Equivalent-linear
seismic ground response analysis of some typical sites in Mumbai.” Geotechnical
and Geological Engineering, 29: 1109-1126. DOI: 10.1007/s10706-011-9443-8
Phillips, C., Kottke, A., Hashash, Y.M.A. and Rathje, E. M. (2012). “Significance of
ground motion time step in one dimensional site response analysis.” Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 43: 202-217.
Raghunandan, M. E. (2012). “Effect of soil layering on the ground response
parameters: a parametric study.” Natural Hazards, 63: 1115-1128.
Rathje, E. M., Kottke, A. R. and Trent, W. L. (2010). “Influence of input motion and
site property variabilities on seismic site response analysis.” Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 136 (4): 607-619.
Shukla, J. and Choudhury, D. (2012). “Seismic hazard and site-specific ground
motion for typical ports of Gujarat.” Natural Hazards, 60: 541-565.
Stewart, J. P. and Kwok, A.O.L. (2008). “Nonlinear seismic ground response
analysis: Code usage protocols and verification against vertical array data.”
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV, GSP 181, ASCE.
Sun, G. C., Kim, D.S., Chung, C. K. (2005). “Geologic site conditions and site
coefficients for estimating earthquake ground motions in the inland areas of
Korea.” Engineering Geology, 81: 446– 469.
Vucetic, M. and Dobry, R. (1991). “Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response.”
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 117(1): 89-107.

10

View publication stats Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers