Geotech Geol Eng
DOI 10.1007/s10706-017-0246-4
ORIGINAL PAPER
Newly Developed MATLAB Based Code for Equivalent
Linear Site Response Analysis
Abhishek Kumar . Joy K. Mondal
Received: 15 December 2016 / Accepted: 27 April 2017
 Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017
Abstract Characteristics of ground motions gener-
ated during an earthquake (EQ) alter between bedrock
and the surface depending upon subsoil properties.
Such modifications in the ground motion characteris-
tics are termed as local site effects. Building response
as well as induced effects of EQs are thus controlled by
these modified ground motions at the surface. Hence,
addressing the local site effect known as site response
analysis is of considerable importance for any region.
Numerically, site response analysis can be performed
using linear, equivalent linear and nonlinear method-
ologies. Amongst these three methodologies, equiva-
lent linear method of site response analysis is widely
followed because of its simplicity and reasonable
accuracy. At present, there are numerous softwares
and codes which can perform site response analysis
following equivalent linear methodology. Some of
these softwares are; SHAKE2000, EERA and DEEP-
SOIL. In this work, a new MATLAB code is
developed which can perform equivalent linear site
response analysis in the frequency domain. New code
is developed in such a way that the response in user
specified layers can be shown together for better
A. Kumar (&)
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology Guwahati, Guwahati, India
e-mail: abhiak@iitg.ernet.in
J. K. Mondal
Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. Sudhir Chandra Sur
Degree Engineering College, Kolkata, India
comparison and understanding. All the response
parameters (Fourier spectrum, strain time history,
amplification spectra, acceleration time history etc.)
are shown in a single window so that the user can
compare amongst them. Further, the numerical values
of these response parameters can be obtained easily. In
addition, limitation of underestimating high frequency
ground motion by available equivalent linear analysis
tool is overcome in the newly developed code. In order
to validate the newly developed code, site response
analyses carried out for a typical borehole using
SHAKE2000 and newly developed code are compared
and found closely matching.
Keywords Local site effect  Equivalent linear
analysis  High frequency motion  Response
parameters  MATLAB code
1 Introduction
Induced effects such as landslides, liquefaction and
amplified ground shaking are the outcomes of mod-
ified ground motions. This modification occurs due to
the presence of local soil at that site. The local site
effect is responsible for a majority of damages that
occur due to an EQ (Anbazhgan et al. 2010). There are
quite a few classical examples where the role of local
soil played a major role in site specific damages.
Starting from the 2001 Bhuj EQ (Mw = 7.7) in India
where many geotechnical failures due to thick soil
123

deposit were reported during the EQ. Another example
is the 1999 Chamoli EQ (Mw = 6.8) where the
epicenter was located between the lesser and higher
Himalayas. Even though the size of the EQ was
moderate, ground shakings were felt up to Nepal in the
east, Pune in the south-west, Himachal Pradesh and
Haryana in the north and Uttar Pradesh and Bihar in
the east (Jain et al. 1999; Mahajan and Virdi 2001 and
Sarkar et al. 2001). Similarly, 2011 Sendai EQ
(Mw = 9.0) in Japan was an active tectonic EQ which
resulted in far field damages due to local site effects.
The Sendai EQ was originated in the Pacific Ocean
130 km off the eastern coast of Sendai but had caused
massive ground failures such as liquefaction and
differential settlements at many places such as Mai-
hama, Tokai Mura which are located more than
150 km away from the epicenter (Nihon 2011). The
2011 Sikkim EQ (Mw = 6.9) was of moderate size,
however the induced ground shaking had caused
collapse of many buildings in Singtam, Gangtok,
Lower Zongue, Mangam and Jorethang areas as far as
150 km from the epicenter. Understanding the surface
seismic scenario experienced during different EQs
since pre-instrumental times for Nepal, Kumar et al.
(2017) attempted to understand nonlinear response of
soil and proposed correlations to arrive at surface
response spectra for Nepal region. Above discussed
case studies clearly highlight the role of local soil in
enhancing EQ induced damages and how these effects
can be quantified accurately for better preparedness
for probable future EQs.
Numerous numerical tools for seismic response
analysis have been developed in the structural engi-
neering field. However, use of these tools in order to
quantify the response of local soil during an EQ has very
limited application. Soil is a complex material and can
show nonlinearity even at very small level of strain.
Thus, knowledge about cyclic stressstrain behavior of
soil is very much needed for any ground response
analysis. Seed and Idriss (1970) explained cyclic stress
strain behavior of the soil for the first time over a wide
range of strain by combining the observations made
from different tests by various researchers such as
Hardin and Drnevich (1970), Weissmann and Hart
(1961) etc. As per Seed and Idriss (1970), the soil
behavior are the functions of various parameters such as
confining pressure, plasticity index (PI), level of strain
(c), over consolidation ratio (OCR), void ratio (e),
relative density (Dr) etc. Soil data used by Seed and
123
Geotech Geol Eng
Idriss (1970) were based on soil samples from different
parts of Unites States such as Washington and Califor-
nia. During the same time when Seed and Idriss (1970)
came up with above observations, a computer program
SHAKE was developed by Schnabel et al. (1972).
SHAKE was the first program developed to solve local
soil effect problem in the frequency domain. Inherent
soil nonlinearity was taken into account by employing
the concept of complex secant shear modulus (explain in
the later section). This method was typically termed as
equivalent linear method. Since then, varieties of
computer programs on different platforms have been
developed to perform equivalent linear site response
analysis by various researchers. In addition, many
modifications were made to the original program of
SHAKE mainly by considering frequency dependent
shear modulus (G) or damping ratio (b). Sugito et al.
(1994) developed FDEL, which improved one limita-
tion of SHAKE by considering frequency dependent
soil properties. Similarly, Yoshida et al. (2002) devel-
oped DYNEQ considering frequency dependent mod-
ulus and damping. According to Yoshida et al. (2002),
DYNEQ improved both the limitations of SHAKE such
as overestimation of Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA)
reported by Finn et al. (1978) and underestimation of
ground motion amplification at higher frequencies
(Masuda et al. 2001). Other researchers such as Satoh
et al. (1997), Kausel and Assimaki (2002), Assimakia
and Kausel (2002), Nakamura and Yoshida (2002) etc.
also considered frequency dependent nature of soil
properties in order to improve SHAKE. Further, Berdet
et al. (2000) developed EERA (Equivalent-linear
Earthquake Response Analysis) software which could
perform site response analysis following equivalent
linear method on FORTRAN platform. All the outputs
from EERA were expressed in excel spreadsheet
making the analyses results easily accessible. Tools
which can perform nonlinear site response analysis were
developed later as compared to SHAKE (Schnabel et al.
1972). In nonlinear method of analysis, instantaneous or
tangential shear modulus is used in the analysis and the
equation of motion is solved iteratively satisfying the
boundary conditions. Unlike the equivalent linear
method, the entire analysis following nonlinear method-
ology can be done in time domain using step by step
integration scheme. Further, in nonlinear method of site
response analysis, cyclic nonlinear model or advanced
constitutive models are required to express stressstrain
soil behavior. CHARSOIL (Streeter et al. 1974) and
Geotech Geol Eng

DESRA (Finn et al. 1976) are the nonlinear site response damping, soil layer is modeled as KelvinVoigt solid.
analysis tools developed initially. While CHARSOIL A KelvinVoigt solid is a material whose resistance to
used RambergOsgood model, DESRA used a hyper- shearing deformation is summation of elastic part and
bolic model to take soil nonlinearity into account. viscous part. The stressstrain relationship for Kelvin
YUSAYUSA (Ishihara and Towhata 1982) was one of Voigt solid can be represented as (Meyers and Chawla
the early developed nonlinear site response analysis tool 1999);
which is still widely used platform in Japan. Apart from
oc
total stress analysis, effective stress analysis is also s Gc g 1
ot
possible in DESRA and YUSAYUSA. Similarly,
Hashash and Park 2001 developed DEEPSOIL which where, s is the shear stress, G is the shear modulus, c is
can perform both total stress and effective stress analysis the shear strain and g is the viscous damping
following linear, equivalent and nonlinear ways of parameter. One dimensional equation of motion for
analyses. Methodology used in SHAKE was also SH wave propagating through an infinite medium can
included in DEEPSOIL to be able to perform equivalent be written as (Kramer 2011);
linear analysis. All of the analysis tools discussed above
o2 u os
however can only perform one dimensional site q 2
response analysis. Tools for performing two dimen- ot2 oz
sional site response analyses were also developed where, q is the mass density, z is the medium thickness
simultaneously. Lysmer et al. (1975) developed FLUSH and u is the displacement of the medium. Substituting
which could perform two dimensional site response Eq. 1 into Eq. 2 becomes;
analysis following equivalent linear methodology.
Similarly, TARA-3 was developed by Finn et al. o2 u o2 u o3 u
q G g : 3
(1984) to perform two dimensional site response ot2 oz2 oz2 ot
analysis in actual nonlinear manner. Thus, based on For harmonic waves, the displacements can be
the above discussion it can be clearly observed that written as;
numerous researchers have tools to perform equivalent
and nonlinear site response analysis. Similar to above uz; t Uzeixt 4
studies, present work focuses on developing conven- By substituting Eq. (4) in Eq. 3 yields the ordinary
tional equivalent linear site response analysis tool differential equation as;
similar to SHAKE2000. Unlike SHAKE2000 where
by default, the one outcome of each layer is presented at d2 U d2 U
G ixg 2
qx2 U or G 2 qx2 U
a time, developed code can show all response param- dz dz
eters from multiple layers simultaneously. Thus, devel- 5
oped code provides an ease in comparison among each
where, G G ixg is known as complex shear
parameter as motion passes from one layer to adjacent
modulus. To eliminate the frequency dependency, the
layer. Such observation can be very helpful in under-
complex shear modulus can be expressed as;
standing the effect of any specific subsoil layer in
G G1 2ib, where b is the damping ratio. In
altering the transfer function or frequency content from
such a case, solution to Eq. 5 becomes (Kramer 2011);
its base to its top. The basic methodology governing
 
equivalent linear ground response analysis is elabo- uz; t Aeixtk z Beixtk z 6
rately discussed in the next section.
where, A and B are the amplitude of SH wave
travelling negative z direction and positive z direction
p
2 Site Response Analysis in Frequency Domain respectively and k x q=G is known as complex
wave number.
One dimensional site response analysis is associated Consider an elastic soil layer having uniform
with vertically propagating shear wave (SH) through thickness H, resting on an elastic halfspace (bedrock)
horizontal layered media. To account for material as shown in Fig. 1. The displacements in soil layer and
rock layer can be written as (Eq. 6);

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 1 Elastic layer resting

on elastic halfspace.
Modified after Kramer
(2011)

us z; t As eixtks zs Bs eixtks zs
 
7 1       
B2 A1 1  a1 eik1 H1 B1 1 a1 eik1 H1 :
2
ur z; t Ar eixtkr zr Br eixtkr zr
 
8 15

Values of c and s in both soil and rock can be Similarly,

obtained by the following relationships; 1       
h i A3 A2 1 a2 eik2 H2 B2 1  a2 eik2 H2
ou   2
s G c G iG k Aeixtk z  Beixtk z
oz 16
9
1       
At free surface, value of s should be zero. Hence, B3 A2 1  a2 eik2 H2 B2 1 a2 eik2 H2
2
the corresponding value of c at free surface should also 17
vanish. Applying this condition, Eq. 9 becomes;
As Bs 10 where the subscripts in the above equations denote soil
layer number starting from the free surface. Using the
At the interface of soil and rock layer, the continuity above equations, the amplitudes of displacements u
of s and c should be maintained. Using this condition in any two layers p and q (up and uq respectively) are
along with Eqs. 9 and 10, the following relationships correlated as (Kramer 2011);
can be developed (Kramer 2011) to determine the
value of coefficients as; up Ap Bp
18
uq Aq Bq
1       
Ar As 1 as eiks H 1  as eiks H 11
2 In similar manner, the acceleration amplitudes of p
up and uq respectively) can be also
and q layers (
1       
Br As 1  as eiks H 1 as eiks H 12 u x2 u
determined using the correlation up = x2 upq . In case,
2 q

qs Vss the acceleration history of any one layer is known, the

where,as  is known as the complex impedance
qr Vsr acceleration time history for another layer can be
 
ratio,Vss and Vsr are the complex shear wave velocities determined using Eq. 18. It has to be highlighted here
in soil and rock layers respectively. For the case where that Eq. 18 also represents the transfer function
a number of elastic layers arranged one upon the between p and q layers. Correct estimation of the
another, the amplitudes A and B for each layer starting transfer function is of utmost importance since it is
from the free surface layer (1, 2, 3, ) can be written responsible for the changes in ground motion property
as; between the layers. Transfer function can be effec-
tively computed through the recursive formulae men-
A1 B1 13
tioned from Eqs. 13 to 17, for a known value of
1        amplitude A1. The entire computation procedure
A2 A1 1 a1 eik1 H1 B1 1  a1 eik1 H1 discussed above is in frequency domain where x is
2
14 the circular frequency of loading. Earthquake (EQ)
records are however available in time history format.

123
Geotech Geol Eng

Hence, the procedure explained above cannot be
followed until the acceleration time history record is
converted to Fourier spectrum. Fourier transformation
of ground motion is explained in the next subsection.
2.1 Fourier Series Representation of Excitation
Any periodic function P(t), with period T0 can be
represented as the summation of harmonic functions
using complex Fourier series. Though acceleration
time history generated during an EQ is not a periodic
function, it can be assumed to be one having infinite
period. In such a case, an EQ excitation can be
represented as (Chopra 2014);
X
1 ent frequencies following the above methodology.
p t Pj eijx0 t 19
j1
1 T0
Pj r pteijx0 t dt j 0; 1; 2; . . . 20
T0 0
where, P(t) is the excitation in the time domain and Pj
is the Fourier amplitude of the excitation, x0 (x0 2p
T0 )
is the lowest frequency present in the motion. Further,
Eqs. 19 and 20 represent two sided expression for
Fourier Transformation where both the negative and
sampling interval of the original signal and tn = nDt.
The time domain signal Pn can be presented in frequency
domain by a Fourier spectrum which can be obtained by
plotting the array Pj against frequency (jx0). Determi-
nation of frequency content became to a practical reality
only after the publication of CooleyTukey algorithm,
1965 for the fast Fourier transform. In this work the
inbuilt functions in MATLAB, fft and ifft are used
for these purposes. In accordance to the original
algorithm, the total number of points in excitation are
taken as a power of 2, i.e. 210, 211 etc. Figure 2a shows a
typical ground motion and Fig. 2b shows the corre-
sponding Fourier amplitude spectrum where the motion
is decomposed into its constitutive harmonics of differ-
3 Equivalent Linear Soil Properties
When subjected to a symmetric cyclic loading, a soil
can exhibit a hysteresis loop of type shown in Fig. 3.
0.025
(a)
0.02
0.015
Acceleration (g)

0.01
positive frequencies are considered. Equations 19 0.005
and 20 above represent Fourier transformation pair. 0
0 20 40 60 80 100
The array Pj is the Fourier transformation of the -0.005
excitation P(t) while function P(t) is the inverse -0.01
Fourier transformation of the sequence Pj. It can be -0.015
seen from Eq. 20 that, Pj = P-j*, where, asterisk -0.02
indicates complex conjugate. It has to be highlighted -0.025 Time (s)
here that the above equations are applicable when P(t)
is a well-defined function. In discrete Fourier Trans- 0.0012 (b)
form (DFT) however, where the signal in time domain
is sampled at equal time intervals, the harmonic 0.001

representation of the signal can be given as (Chopra 0.0008

Amplitude

2014);
0.0006
X
N1
pn Pj eijx0 tn 21 0.0004
j0
0.0002

1 XN1
0
Pj p eijx0 tn 22 0 5 10 15
T0 n0 n
Frequency (Hz)
where, Pj is the DFT of the time domain signal and Pn is
Fig. 2 a Typical acceleration time history used in the present
the inverse DFT of the array Pj, N is the number of analysis. b Fourier spectrum corresponding to acceleration time
elements present in the original signal Pn, Dt is the history shown in (a)

123

Fig. 3 Typical hysteresis loop for a soil. Modified after Kramer
(2011)
Such a hysteresis loop can be described in two ways;
firstly, by the actual path of the loop and secondly, by
considering some parameters which characterize the
shape of the hysteresis loop. The inclination of the
hysteresis loop depends on the G which can be
obtained at any point in the form of tangent shear
modulus (Gtan) as shown in Fig. 3. Overall, the
average value of G over the entire hysteresis loop
can be obtained by (Kramer 2011);
sc
Gsec 23 1.
cc
Where, Gsec is the secant shear modulus, sc and cc are
the shear stress and shear strain amplitudes respec-
tively. The width of the hysteresis loop is the measure
of the energy dissipation in a single cycle, which can
be conveniently represented by an equivalent damping
ratio b (Kramer 2011) as given below;
1 Aloop
b 24
2p Gsec c2c
Where, Aloop is the area of hysteresis loop in one cycle.
Parameters Gsec and b are known as equivalent linear
soil properties. Value of Gsec depends on the level of
strain. The locus of points corresponding to the tips of
hysteresis loops at various levels of c is called a
backbone curve. This backbone curve can also be
123
Geotech Geol Eng
Fig. 4 Typical modulus reduction curve. Modified after
Kramer (2011)
presented as modulus reduction curve (Fig. 4). It can
be seen from Fig. 4 that the G decreases with
increasing c. Gmax is the maximum shear modulus
which can be computed from shear wave velocity
(Kramer 2011). Similarly value of b also depends on
the level of c known as damping curve. Studies
suggest that the value of b increases with c.
4 Equivalent Linear Ground Response Analysis
Procedure
Once the equivalent linear soil properties (Gsec and b)
throughout the range of c are known as discussed
earlier, equivalent linear site response analysis is
performed. The entire procedure for equivalent linear
analysis is described in the following steps;
Initially, each layer is modeled considering values
of G and b corresponding to low c (10-3 or so).
2. Using above material properties, strain time
history at each layer is computed using Eq. 6.
3. From strain time history calculated in the previous
step, effective strain ceff is computed at each
layer (Kramer 2011) based on maximum value of
c (cmax) as;
cieff j Rc cimaxj 25
where, i refers to iteration number, j refers to layer
number and Rc is the ratio of ceff to cmax which is
often taken as 0.65 (Schnabel et al. 1972).
4. For each layer, a new set of Gi?1 and bi?1 values
are chosen from modulus reduction curve and
damping curve which are consistent with the
above determined value of ceff.
Geotech Geol Eng

5. Steps 24 are repeated until the difference 6. Based on the final values of G and b for each soil
between the computed values of G and computed layer, a linear site response analysis can be
values of b in two successive iterations falls below performed.
1%.

Fig. 5 a Defining dynamic soil properties in the newly bedrock motion used in the newly developed code. d End part of
developed code. b Format of typical modulus reduction curves typical bedrock motion used in the newly developed code
used as input in newly developed code. c Initial part of typical

123

Fig. 5 continued
At present, a MATLAB code is developed such that
it includes soil strength in terms of standard penetra-
tion test (SPT) N values for each sublayer obtained
from borehole test. Further, boundaries between
different soil layers are set. In case of larger thickness
([3 m) of any soil layer, it is further subdivided into
sub-layers of 3 m or less thicknesses (Kumar 2013) for
better approximation of nonlinear soil behavior by
equivalent linear approach. It has to be mentioned here
that equivalent linear analysis methodology discussed
earlier considers the level of c in a soil layer in each
iteration to be constant along the layer thickness. This
assumption may violates if the soil layers are modeled
in larger thickness as soil is actually nonlinear in
nature and considering larger soil thickness for
modelling can cause variation in c along the depth.
For this reason, thicker soil layer are subdivided into
sublayers of smaller thickness in equivalent linear
methodology. Initial Gmax and initial b corresponding
to low value of c, complete dynamic material curves
and input bedrock motion, are four important inputs
123
Geotech Geol Eng
required to initiate the iterative procedure discussed
above. The value of Gmax can be obtained either from
shear wave velocity profile or by empirical formulae
which correlates G (or shear wave velocity) with other
in situ strength parameter measured at very low strain
(\10-3% or lower). After modeling soil properties,
recorded bedrock motions or synthetically generated
ground motions compatible with hazard values as well
as uniform hazard spectra for the region are used as
input motion (Kennedy et al. 1984; Bazzurro et al.
1998; Stewart et al. 2002; Anbazhagan et al. 2011;
Kumar et al. 2012, 2013, Kumar et al. 2016; Desai and
Choudhury 2014).
5 Current Program and Features
The basic methodology for equivalent linear site
response analysis is already explained in the preceding
section. In this section, a MATLAB program is
developed which can perform site response analysis
following equivalent linear methodology discussed
above As per Kumar et al. (2015, 2016), same
borehole can undergo low to high amplification in
ground motion depending upon input motion charac-
teristics. Thus, the response of soil should be exam-
ined for wide range of ground motion parameters.
Present code is developed such that it can analyze
same borehole subjected to large number of ground
motions simultaneously. Further, all the response
parameters (Fourier spectrum, strain time history,
amplification spectra, acceleration time history etc.)
can be shown in a single window so that the user can
compare various response parameters altogether.
Miura et al. (2000) highlighted this shortcoming of
SHAKE stating the reason that SHAKE analysis is
governed by G/Gmax and b values corresponding to
effective strain which is directly related to peak strain.
As a result of which, underestimation of G/Gmax and
overestimation of b particularly at higher frequency
content collectively can cause underestimation of soil
response. Further, Miura et al. (2000) validated this
observation by comparing results from site response
analysis and the actual soil response observed from
vertical seismic array in Tokyo Bay area. In addition,
Miura et al. (2000) clearly mentioned that such an
underestimation of soil response at higher frequency
content based on SHAKE analysis is not specific to
any location but can be observed for any site. Above
Geotech Geol Eng

Table 1 Characteristics of 30 globally recorded ground motions considered in the present work after Kumar et al. (2016)
Sr. Ground motion details as per SHAKE2000 Epicentral Magnitude PGA Duration Predominant
no. distance (Km) (g) (s) frequency* (Hz)

1 ADAK, ALASKA 1971-M 6.8;R-67KM, N81E 86.77 6.8 0.098 24.58 3.32
2 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 1875, M-6, R81-GOULE 81.93 6 0.036 18.59 5.42
HALL STATION
3 ANCHORAGE ALASKA 1975, M 6, R 79, 78.37 6 0.049 38.96 1
WESTWARD HOTEL STATION (BASEMENT)
4 ANZA 02/25/80, BORREGO AIR BRANCH 225 43.1 5.3 0.046 10.25 2.39
5 ANZA 02/25/80 1047, TERWILLIGER VALLEY 135 15.8 5.3 0.08 10.01 6.54
6 BISHOP-ROUND VALLEY 11/23/84 1914, MCGEE 42.35 5.8 0.075 6.8 3.9
CREEK SURFACE 270
7 BORREGO MOUNTAIN 04/09/68 0230, EL CENTRO 60 6.4 0.056 39.95 0.46
ARRAY 9, 270
8 BORREGO MOUNTAIN 04/09/68 0230, PASADENA- 216.8 6.4 0.009 60.23 0.61
ATHENAEUM, 270
9 BORREGO MOUNTAIN 04/09/68 0230, TERMINAL 205 6.4 0.008 51.8 2.5
ISLAND, 339
10 CAPE MENDOCINO EARTHQUAKE RECORD 10 7.1 1.03 59.98 4.44
04/25/92, MW-7.0, 90 DEG COMPONENT
11 CHALFANT 07/20/86 1429, BISHOP PARADISE 19.8 6.4 0.046 39.95 16.5
LODGE,070
12 CHILE EARTHQUAKE, VALPARAISO RECORD, 129.2 7.8 0.12 79.39 2.1
3/3/85
13 COALINGA 05/02/83 2342 PARKFIELD, FAULT 43.9 6.5 0.055 39.95 0.43
ZONE 6/090
14 COALINGA 05/09/83 PALMER AVE ANTICLINE 12.5 5.3 0.215 40 2.29
RIDGE, 090
15 GEORGIA, USSR 06/15/91 0059, BAZ X 49 6.2 0.033 34.07 1.22
16 IMPERIAL VALLEY 10/15/79 2319, BONDS 15.9 5 0.1 19.88 1.41
CORNER 230
17 KERN COUNTY 7/21/52 11:53, SANTA BARBARA 80.5 7.5 0.086 75.35 1.84
COURTHOUSE 042
18 KOBE 01/16/95 2046, ABENO 000 24.9 6.9 0.22 139.98 0.26
19 KOBE 01/16/95 2046, KAKOGAWA 000 22.5 6.9 0.25 40.91 0.91
20 KOBE 01/16/95, KOBE PORT ISLAND 090 0.9 6.9 0.53 42 0.79
21 LIVERMORE 01/27/80 0233, HAYWARD CSUH 33.9 5.8 0.027 15.98 3.61
STADIUM 236
22 LIVERMORE 01/27/80 0233 LIVERMORE MORGAN 20.6 5.8 0.197 24 5.61
TERR PARK 265
23 LOMA PRIETA TA 10/18/89 00:05, ANDERSON 16.9 7 0.24 39.59 2.14
DAN DOWNSTREAM 270
24 LOMA PRIETA TA 10/18/89 00:05, HOLLISTER 13.9 7 0.27 40 1.48
DIFF ARRAY 255
25 MICHIOACAN EARTHQUAKE 19/9/85, CALETA 38.36 8.1 0.14 81.06 1.39
DE CAMPOS, N-COMPONENT
26 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 09/22/52 1141, 44.3 5.2 0.07 40 1.31
FERNDALE 134
27 NORTHRIDGE EQ 1/17/94 1231, ANACAPA 71.4 6.7 0.013 40 4.46
ISLAND
28 NORTHRIDGE EQ 1/17/94 1231, ARLETA 360 9.5 6.7 0.31 39.94 1.46

123

Table 1 continued
Sr. Ground motion details as per SHAKE2000
no.
29 PARKFIELD 06/28/66 04:26, CHROME # 8
30 TRINIDAD 11/08/08, 10:27, RIO DEL OVERPASS E
* Predominant frequency is considered to be the frequency corresponding to the peak Fourier amplitude
observations by Miura et al. (2000) were also found by
Mondal and Kumar (2017) based on 41 boreholes for
Delhi region. As per Mondal and Kumar (2017), site
response analysis based on default value of 15 Hz
given in SHAKE2000 lead to underestimation in
surface ground motions. Thus, based on the recom-
mendations by Mondal and Kumar (2017), higher
frequency contents should be given due importance in
equivalent linear analysis. Newly developed code does
not allow any default value of maximum frequency to
be considered for the analysis and thus user must
define maximum frequency up to which ground
motions should be considered in the equivalent linear
analysis.
Subsoil characteristics obtained from borelog can
be effectively modeled in this program. As mentioned
earlier, one of the prerequisites for any site response
analysis is Gmax value. This value of Gmax can be
defined in the developed code in three different ways.
User can define soil properties as input either in terms
of shear wave velocity (Vs) or SPT-N values. At
present, correlation between SPT-N and Vs developed
by Anbazhagan et al. (2013) for Lucknow area is
included for this purpose. Depending upon the avail-
ability of such correlation for other region, new
correlations if exist, can also be accommodated in the
developed code. Alternatively, Gmax value if known,
also can be given as input. Further, initial value of b is
set to be 1% for all the soil layers as default. However,
user can change b as well, depending upon the
requirement. Many a times due to lack of facilities
and experimental challenges in obtaining site specific
dynamic material properties curves, available standard
dynamic material properties curves are considered for
the site response analysis (Kumar et al. 2016; Mondal
and Kumar 2017). At present, the developed
MATLAB code consists of sixteen different modulus
reduction curves (G/Gmax) taken from existing liter-
ature covering wide range of materials and ten
123
Geotech Geol Eng
Epicentral Magnitude PGA Duration Predominant
distance (Km) (g) (s) frequency* (Hz)
11.2 6.1 0.116 26.09 0.85
72 7.2 0.13 22 3.14
different damping curves are included as dynamic
material property curves. Included G/Gmax curves are;
(1) Sand S1 (CP \ 1.0KSC, Sun et al. 1988), (2) Sand
S2 (CP 13KSC, (3) Sun et al. 1988), (4) Sand S3
(CP [ 3.0 KSC, Sun et al. 1988), (5) Clay C1 (PI
010,Sun et al. 1988), (6) Clay C2 (PI 1020, (7) Sun
et al. 1988), (8) Clay C3 (PI 2040, Sun et al. 1988),
(9) Clay C4 (PI 4080, Sun et al. 1988), (10) Clay C5
(PI [ 80, Sun et al. 1988), (11) Clay upper (Seed and
Sun 1989), (12) Clay (PI = 0, OCR 115,Vucetic and
Dobry 1991), (13) Sand Average (Seed and Idriss
1970), (14) Waste (Singh and Murphy 1990), (15)
Rock (Schnabel 1973), (16) Gravel Average (Seed
et al. 1986). Similarly, damping curves which are
included in the present code are; (1) Sand (Seed and
Idriss 1970), (2) Soil (PI = 0, OCR 18, Vucetic and
Dobry 1991), (3) Soil (PI = 15, OCR 18, Vucetic
and Dobry 1991), (4) Soil (PI = 30, OCR 18,Vucetic
and Dobry 1991), (5) Soil (PI = 50, OCR 18,Vucetic
and Dobry 1991), (6) Soil (PI = 100,OCR 18,Vuce-
tic and Dobry 1991), (7) Clay (Seed and Idriss 1970),
(8) Waste (Singh and Murphy 1990), (9) Rock
(Schnabel 1973) and (10) Gravel average (Seed et al.
1986). Thus, based on the selected curves, sixteen
different combinations of these properties can be used.
A snapshot from the developed code, defining
dynamic material curves are shown in Fig. 5a.
Depending on the users judgment, single or multiple
curves can be selected for modeling a soil column in
the developed code. Material properties are stored in a
spreadsheet named mat_properties.xls representing
percent strain on x-axis while modulus degradation/
percent damping on y-axis. Figure 5b presents four
typical G/Gmax curves stored in mat_properties.xls
in 2 X N matrix format. It can be observed from
Fig. 5b that first row against each material name
represents strain values while the next row contains
the corresponding G/Gmax values. In similar ways,
damping curves for different materials are also stored
Geotech Geol Eng
in 2 X N matrix format. These material properties will
be called through the function material.m for the
analysis. The two corner-most cells of the data
(modulus/damping) are to be given in the function as
input (as encircled in Fig. 5a) and the corresponding
Fig. 6 a Assignment of dynamic soil properties to specific
layer as per the newly developed code. b Selection of input
ground motion and cut off frequency from the developed
database as given in the newly developed code. c Defining soil
material properties are marked in circles in Fig. 5b.
Additional dynamic material curves, in addition to the
curves discussed above, can also be included in the
program. To use new set of G/Gmax and damping
curves, data should be stored in the excel file
layer for applying selected bedrock motion and soil layer at
which response to be determined based on newly developed
code
123

Fig. 6 continued
mat_properties.xls in the recommended 2 X N
format. The next step is to read the data points in
MATLAB using the function material.m and
adding surplus if loops containing new material
dynamic curves (add if z ==15 as per Fig. 5a) in the
material.m file.
Another important input in any site response
analysis is the input ground motion. Selected input
motion should be a true resemblance of seismic
activity of the region for which site response analysis
is to be carried out. However, for majority of regions,
such ground motions are not available on regional
level. Highlighting the non- availability of regional
ground motion records for site response analysis,
Kumar et al. (2016) proposed a list of 30 globally
recorded ground motions. These 30 ground motions
covered a wide range of frequency content, duration
and amplitude that can come up in an actual EQ
scenario, as well as accounting seismic activity of
nearby as well as distant active sources were selected
from PEER as given in SHAKE2000 database. Thus,
30 ground motions selected by Kumar et al. (2016),
may be considered for site response analysis of a site in
the absence of regional ground motion record. In the
present developed code, above 30 globally recorded
ground motions are stored at present in form of
123
Geotech Geol Eng
spreadsheets as database. However, additional ground
motions recorded at a site or synthetic ground motions
developed for that site if available, can also be
incorporated easily in the developed program. Details
of selected 30 ground motions and their corresponding
ground motion characteristics are tabulated in Table 1.
Collectively developed code has provision to incor-
porate additional ground motions from other sources
also as input parameters. Two typical images repre-
senting the initial part and the end part of the ground
motion record taken from the spreadsheet are shown in
Fig. 5c, d respectively. First row of the EQ data
contains zeroes except for the first column (see
Fig. 5c), which represents the sampling rate (inverse
of sampling interval) of the selected ground motion
and has to be entered manually in accordance with the
selected ground motion. In order to satisfy the
requirement of the developed program, EQ data must
be kept in a proper M x N matrix format. To suffice this
condition, trailing zeroes should be added at the end of
the record as appropriate (Fig. 5d). To introduce a new
ground motion in the database, user has to just paste
the new ground motion to a vacant spreadsheet in
EQMOTIONS.xls file maintaining the requirements
of first and last row as highlighted above (Ref to
Fig. 5c, d).
Geotech Geol Eng

Input motion Strain time history

0.2 0.15
Acceleration(g)

0.1 0.1

Strain(%)
0 0.05

-0.1 0

-0.2 -0.05
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time(s)
Time(s)

motion at the surface 0 Fourier amplitude spectra at the surface

0.4 10
Acceleration(g)

0.2

Amplitude
-5
0 10

-0.2
-10
-0.4 10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 5 10 15
Frequency(Hz)
Time(s)
Spectral acceleration(g)

Response spectra at surface Fourier amplification ratio

2 15
Amplification

1.5
10
1

0.5 5

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
0 5 10 15
Time period(s) Frequency(Hz)

Fig. 7 Typical outcomes obtained from the newly developed code

Once the input dynamic material properties and parameters are required to be estimated as shown in
ground motion are stored in the developed code, Fig. 6c. Once the input motion is fixed, then the code
equivalent linear site response analysis using devel- asks for the cutoff frequency or maximum frequency
oped code can be performed. Initially, all the soil up to which all calculations will be performed (ref to
layers are modeled in terms of thickness, low strain Fig. 6b). The importance of higher frequency ground
shear modulus (Gmax) and low strain damping ratio motions in equivalent linear ground response analysis
(b). In the next step, the dynamic material curves are to are already discussed earlier referring to the work by
be assigned to each soil layer. The code asks to assign Mondal and Kumar (2015, 2017). Hence, the user
material curves for each of the soil layers as shown in needs to defined maximum frequency up to which
Fig. 6a. Dynamic material properties also can be ground motions should be considered in the analysis.
assigned by their respective serial numbers (as shown Once the input soil properties, dynamic material
in Fig. 5c) for which the option is available in the main curves, input motion and cutoff frequency is defined
program itself). Afterwards, the user will be asked to by the user, the program is ready for the analysis. Soil
enter input ground motion number as shown in response in terms of acceleration time history, strain
Fig. 6b. User can specify any number from 1 to 30 time history, Fourier spectrum, response spectrum,
(according to serial number mentioned in Table 1). amplification spectrum can be obtained from the
Next step is to assign selected input ground motion to a developed code (Fig. 7) following the earlier dis-
desired layer and specify the layers where response cussed methodology. It has to be highlighted here that

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Table 2 Typical borehole taken from Kumar et al. (2016) used for validation in the present work
BH Ground water table at 2.1 m below GL
Depth below GL (m) Soil description Thickness of layer Soil classification Depth (m) SPT-N

1 Fill 4.15
2
3
4
5 Clay with low compressibility 1.5 CL 4.15 9
6 5.65 10
7 Silty sand 3.5 SM
8 7.15 17
9
10 9.15 24
11 Clay with low compressibility 6 CL
12 11.15 17
13 12.65 19
14
15 14.15 21
16 15.15 28
17 Silty sand 6 SM 16.65 34
18
19 18.15 38
20 19.65 42
21
22 21.15 50
23 Clay with low compressibility 3 CL 22.65 44
24
25 24.15 48
26 Silty sand SM 25.65 55
27
28 27.15 62
29 28.65 75
30 30.15 88

unlike SHAKE2000 where each response parameter
can be observed separately. In the developed code, all
the above mentioned response parameters for any soil
layer can be obtained together as presented in Fig. 7.
This will help to understand the soil response in time
as well as frequency domain simultaneously by
comparing all the results for any specific soil layer.
Further, the numerical values of all the listed response
parameters can be obtained very easily from the
MATLAB workspace. In addition, unlike
SHAKE2000, the developed code can also indicate
whether the c- G/Gmax values are actually converging
or diverging at the end of five iterations, which is a
default value as given in SHAKE2000. This is a new
feature in the present developed code which will help
the user to decide whether to go for higher number of
iterations or not to perform analysis.
6 Analyses and Validation
To validate the program, site response analysis using
same input data are carried out in this section using
SHAKE2000 as well as using the newly developed

123
Geotech Geol Eng

0.0025
0.0012 (a) (d)

0.001 0.002

Amplitude
Amplitude

0.0008
0.0015
Current program
0.0006 Current program
SHAKE2000
SHAKE 0.001
0.0004
0.0005
0.0002

0 0
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)

0.003 0.004
(b) (e)
0.0035
0.0025
0.003
Amplitude

0.002

Amplitude
0.0025

0.0015 0.002
Current program Current program
0.0015 SHAKE2000
0.001 SHAKE2000
0.001
0.0005
0.0005
0 0
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)

0.025
0.014 (f)
(c)
0.012 0.02
Amplitude

0.01
Amplitude

0.015
0.008
Current program
Current program
0.01 SHAKE2000
0.006
SHAKE2000

0.004
0.005
0.002
0
0
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
Frequency (Hz)
Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 8 af Comparison of Fourier spectra obtained based on newly developed code and SHAKE2000

program. Typical borelog (Refer to Table 2) is
considered from Kumar et al. (2016). G/Gmax and
damping curves for clay layers are considered as per
Vucetic and Dobry (1991). Specific curves for each
clay layer are selected based on Plasticity Index (PI) of
the clay layer given in Table 2. For sandy layers,
G/Gmax and damping curves are taken as average sand
as per Seed and Idriss (1970). Further, fill layer is
encountered as the topmost layer as can be observed
from Table 2. For the present analysis, this fill layers is
assigned with properties of average sand as per Seed
and Idriss (1970). It has to be highlighted here that this
work does not present any case of site specific site
response analysis and thus assigning dynamic

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

0.015
0.0025 (d)
(a)
0.002 0.01
0.0015
0.001 0.005

Strain (%)
Strain (%)

0.0005
0
0 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 20 40 60 80 100
-0.0005 -0.005
-0.001
Current program Current program
-0.0015 -0.01
SHAKE2000 SHAKE2000
-0.002
-0.015 Time (s)
-0.0025 Time (s)

0.1 (e)
0.006 (b)
0.08
0.004 0.06
0.04
0.002
Strain (%)

0.02

Strain (%)
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 50 100 150 200
-0.02
-0.002 Current program -0.04 Current program
SHAKE2000 -0.06 SHAKE2000
-0.004
-0.08

-0.006 -0.1 Time (s)

Time (s)
0.2 (f)
0.25 0.15
(c)
0.2
0.15 0.1

0.1
Strain (%)

0.05
Strain (%)

0.05
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
-0.05
-0.05
-0.1 Current program
Current program
-0.15 -0.1 SHAKE2000
SHAKE2000
-0.2
-0.15 Time (s)
-0.25
Time (s)

Fig. 9 af Comparison of strain time history obtained based on newly developed code and SHAKE2000

properties of average sand to fill layer is just for
comparison of results between the newly developed
code and SHAKE2000. Further, the analysis is done to
show how closely the outcomes from the newly
developed program are matching with that obtained
from SHAKE2000. Further, referring to Table 1, input
motion 8, 9, 10, 11, 18 and 20 are used for comparison
with SHAKE2000. These input motions are chosen in
such a way that a wide range of ground motion
parameters as well as effect of nearby and distant
sources can be incorporated within limited number of
analyses here for validation purpose. Further, it has to
be highlighted here that both the above analyses are
done considering soil column to be rested on elastic
halfspace. Borehole presented in Table 2 represents
soil condition at a typical site in Delhi as per Kumar
et al. (2015). For the estimation of Gmax, built
correlation between Gmax and N-SPT given in

123
Geotech Geol Eng

35 (a)
25 (d)
30 20

Amplification
25
Amplification

15
20
Current program
15 Current program
SHAKE2000 10
SHAKE2000
10
5
5

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)

25 (b) 7 (e)
6
20
5

Amplification
Amplification

15
4
Current program
10 3
SHAKE2000 Current program
2
SHAKE2000
5
1

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)

5 (c) 5 (f)
4.5 4.5
4 4
3.5
Amplification

3.5
Amplification

3 3
2.5 2.5
2 Current program 2 Current program
1.5 SHAKE2000
1.5
SHAKE2000
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 10 af Comparison of amplification spectra obtained based on newly developed code and SHAKE2000

SHAKE2000 are used in both the analyses here.
Kumar et al. (2016) presented a two-step validation
showing that the inbuilt correlation between Gmax and
N-SPT given in SHAKE2000 can be used for Delhi
soil.
For both the analysis, each of the above selected
ground motions are imparted at the base of soil column
and various outputs obtained from the SHAKE2000
and the newly developed code are compared here. At
first, comparison of Fourier spectra obtained at the
surface based on SHAKE2000 and the newly devel-
oped program considering input motion 8, 9, 10, 11, 18
and 20 at the base of soil columns are shown in
Fig. 8af respectively. It can be clearly observed from
Fig. 8af that Fourier spectra obtained for each ground
motion based on SHAKE2000 and the newly devel-
oped program are exactly matching with each other for
all the selected ground motions. Strain time histories

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

0.15
0.025 (d)
(a)
0.02
0.1
0.015

Acceleration (g)
0.01 0.05
Acceleration (g)

0.005
0
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
0 20 40 60 80 100
-0.005
-0.05
-0.01
Current program
Current program
-0.015 -0.1
SHAKE2000 SHAKE2000
-0.02
-0.15 Time (s)
-0.025 Time (s)

0.6
0.06
(e)
(b) 0.4
0.04

Acceleration (g)
0.2
Acceleration (g)

0.02
0
0 0 50 100 150 200
0 20 40 60 80 100 -0.2
-0.02
Current program
Current program -0.4
SHAKE2000
-0.04
SHAKE2000
-0.6 Time (s)
-0.06 Time (s)

0.6
1.4 (c) (f)
1.2
0.4
1
0.8 0.2
Acceleration (g)
Acceleration (g)

0.6
0
0.4 0 20 40 60 80 100
0.2 -0.2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 -0.4
-0.2 Current program
-0.4 Current program
-0.6 SHAKE2000
-0.6 SHAKE2000

-0.8 -0.8 Time (s)

Time (s)

Fig. 11 af Comparison of acceleration time history obtained based on newly developed code and SHAKE2000

has significance importance in case of equivalent
linear ground response analysis as the governing
equations are controlled by the level of c obtained at
the end of each iteration. Thus, the validation of newly
developed code is also done in terms of strain time
histories. Figure 9af present strain time histories
calculated at the top of second layer, based on
SHAKE2000 and the newly developed program
corresponding to Fig. 9af. Again, it can be observed
from Fig. 9af that the strain time histories obtained as
output from SHAKE2000 and the newly developed
program are matching very well. Fourier amplitude
ratio spectra or amplification spectra for a selective
ground motions can be obtained by dividing Fourier
amplitude spectra at surface with Fourier amplitude
spectra at the base of soil column. Amplification
spectra is a clear indication of subsoil characteristics
used in the analysis. Predominant frequency of the site

123
Geotech Geol Eng

PGA (g) PGA (g)

0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
0 0
(a) (d)
5
5
10
Depth ( m)

10
15

Depth (m)
20 15

25
20
Current program
30 Current program
SHAKE2000 25 SHAKE2000
35
30

PGA (g) PGA(g)

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
0 0
(b) (e)
5 5
10
Depth (m)

Depth (m) 10
15
15
20

25 20
Current program
Current program
30 25 SHAKE2000
SHAKE2000
35
30

PGA (g)
PGA (g)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0 0
(c) (f)
5 5

10 10
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

15
15
20
Current program
20 Current program
25
SHAKE2000 SHAKE2000
25
30
30 35

Fig. 12 af Comparison of PGA versus depth obtained based on newly developed code and SHAKE2000

can be obtained once amplification spectra at the site is matching which is a clear indication that the present
known. In order to understand the effectiveness of code can effectively captures site characteristics.
newly developed code to capture subsoil characteristic Once the Fourier amplitude spectrum is known,
at the site, comparison of amplification spectra calculation of acceleration time history can be
obtained based on SHAKE2000 and the newly devel- obtained from inverse Fourier transform. Further, for
oped program are shown in Fig. 10af corresponding ground response analysis as well as for the quantifi-
to Figs. 8af and 9af. From Fig. 10af, it can be cation of induced effects, acceleration time history is
observed that amplification spectra are closely used as an input. Comparison of acceleration time

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

0.6
0.14 (a) (d)
0.5

Spectral acceleration (g)

0.12
Spectral acceleration (g)

0.1 0.4

0.08
0.3
0.06 Current program
0.2
Current program
0.04 SHAKE2000
0.1 SHAKE2000
0.02

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Time period (s) Time period (s)

0.4 3
(b) (e)
0.35
Spectral acceleration (g)

2.5

Spectral acceleration (g)

0.3
2
0.25

0.2 1.5
0.15
Current program 1 Current program
0.1
SHAKE2000 0.5 SHAKE2000
0.05

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Time period (s)
Time period (s)

3 (c) 3
(f)
2.5 2.5
Spectral acceleration (g)

Spectral acceleration (g)

2 2

1.5 1.5
Current program
1 Current program 1
SHAKE2000
0.5 SHAKE2000 0.5

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Time period (s) Time period (s)

Fig. 13 af Comparison of response spectrum obtained based on newly developed code and SHAKE2000

histories calculated based on newly developed pro- and SHAKE2000 for the same column and based on
gram as well as SHAKE2000 at the surface corre- the same ground input motions are shown in Fig. 13a
sponding to Figs. 8af, 9af and 10af are shown in f indicating a close matching between the two sets of
Fig. 11af showing a close match between the two sets values for all the typical six cases corresponding to
of values. Based on acceleration time history, varia- Figs. 8af, 9af, 10af, 11af, 12f and 13af.
tion in PGA values with depth computed based on Comparisons of outcomes obtained based on newly
newly developed code and SHAKE2000 are also developed code and corresponding outcomes from
shown in Fig. 12af. Finally, response spectra SHAKE2000 in terms of Fourier spectra, strain time
obtained at the surface using newly developed code histories, amplification spectra, acceleration time

123
Geotech Geol Eng
history, PGA variation with depth and response
spectra show a very close matching between two sets
of values as discussed above. These are clear evi-
dences that the newly developed program provides
similar results as obtained based on equivalent linear
ground response analysis using SHAKE2000. In
addition, newly developed program however can be
modified to obtain all the above discussed outcomes
for multiple ground motions in a single analysis.
Outcomes from the newly developed code can be
continued for assessment of liquefaction potential in
the same MATLAB code during future work.
7 Conclusion
Role of local soil is most prominent in damage caused
during an EQ. In addition, the soil can undergo low to
high amplification depending upon the characteristics
of input motion. Collectively a soil can behave
differently depending upon the input motion. Depend-
ing upon the soil response, surface scenario can be
minor shaking or total devastation. In the present
work, a new MATLAB based code which can perform
equivalent linear ground response analysis s devel-
oped which can analyze same soil column subjected to
large set of input motions simultaneously. Further all
the response parameters can be obtained simultane-
ously which makes user better platform for compar-
ison. Based on earlier studies, the importance of high
frequency ground motions which if not considered
properly may lead to underestimation of surface PGA
is incorporated in the develop code. Unless the user
defined the maximum frequency up to which input
motions can be used for the analysis, the present code
cannot run on a default value unlike widely accepted
code. Developed code has 30 globally recorded
ground motions, sixteen modulus reduction curves
and ten damping ratio curves in is present database
which can be used for defining inputs for ground
response analysis. Additional input motions and
dynamic soil properties can be added to the existing
database easily in the manuscript. In order to validate
newly developed code, comparison of the response of
one typical soil column subjected to same set of
ground motions are done between newly developed
code and SHAKE2000 in terms of Fourier spectra,
strain time history, amplification spectra, acceleration
time history, PGA versus depth and response spectra.
Selected 30 ground motions cover a wide range of
ground motion parameters and are based on globally
recorded ground motions. Based on the comparison, it
is found that the two sets of outcomes obtained from
SHAKE2000 and newly developed code are very
closely matching in terms of Fourier spectra, strain
time history, amplification spectra, acceleration time
history, PGA versus depth and response spectra. Thus,
the newly developed code can be confidently used for
performing equivalent linear equivalent linear analy-
sis. In addition, newly developed code can analyze the
response of same soil for multiple ground motions
simultaneously. Thus, in a single attempt, the variation
in soil response as a function of different ground
motion parameters can be studied.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the
INSPIRE Faculty program by the Department of Science and
Technology (DST), Government of India for the funding project
Propagation path characterization and determination of in situ
slips along different active faults in the Shillong Plateau Ref.
No. DST/INSPIRE/04/2014/002617 [IFA14-ENG-104] for
providing necessary motivation and support for the present study.
References
Anbazhgan P, Thingbaijam KKS, Nath SK, Kumar JN, Sitharam
TG (2010) Multi-criteria seismic hazard evaluation for
Bangalore city, India. J Asian Earth Sci 38(5):186198
Anbazhagan P, Kumar A, Sitharam TG (2011) Amplification
factor from intensity map and site response analysis for the
soil sites during 1999 Chamoli earthquake. In Proceeding
of third indian young geotechnical engineers conference,
New Delhi, India, pp 311316
Anbazhagan P, Kumar A, Sitharam TG (2013) Seismic site
classification and empirical correlation between standard
penetration test N value and shear wave velocity for deep
soil sites in Indo-Gangetic Basin. Pure appl Geophys
170(3):299318
Assimakia D, Kausel E (2002) An equivalent linear algorithm
with frequency and pressure dependent moduli and
damping for the seismic analysis of deep sites. Soil Dyn
Earthq Eng 22(912):959965
Bazzurro P, Cornell CA, Shome N, Carballo JE (1998) Three
proposal for characterizing MDOF nonlinear seismic
response. J Struct Eng 124(11):12811289
Berdet JP, Ichii K, Lin CH (2000) EERA: a computer program
for equivalent-linear earthquake site response analysis of
layered soil deposits. Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Southern California, Los Angeles
Chopra AK (2014) Dynamics of structures. Pearson Education,
Upper Saddle River
Desai SS, Choudhury D (2014) Spatial variation of probabilistic
seismic hazard of Mumbai and surrounding region. Nat
Hazards 17(1):18731898
123

Finn WDL, Byrne PL, Martin GR (1976) Seismic response and
liquefaction of sands. J Geotech Eng Div
102(Gt8):841856.
Finn WDL, Martin GR, Lee MKW (1978) Comparison of
dynamic analyses for saturated sands. Proceedings of
ASCE Geotechnical Engineering Div. Specialty Confer-
ence, June 19-21, 1978, Pasadena, California.
Finn WDL, Yogendrakumar M, Yoshida N, Yoshida H (1984)
TARA-3, a computer program to compute the response of
2-dimensional embankment and soil-structure interaction
systems to seismic loading, soil dynamic group. University
of British Colombia, Vancouver
Hardin BO, Drnevich VP (1970) Shear modulus and damping in
soils: measurement and parameter effets. J Geotech Eng
Div ASCE 96(2):453469
Hashash YMA, Park D (2001) Non-linear one-dimensional
seismic ground motion propagation in the Mississippi
embayment. Eng Geol 62(13):185206
Ishihara K, Towhata I (1982) Dynamic response analysis of
level ground based on the effective stress method. In:
Pande GN, Zienkiewicz OC (eds) Soil mechanics- transient
and cyclic loads. Wiley, New York, pp 133172
Jain SK, Murthy CVR, Jaswant NA, Rajendran CP, Rajendran
K, Sinha R (1999) Chamoli (Himalaya, India) Earthquake
of 29 March 1999. EERI Spec Rep 33(7)
Kausel E, Assimaki D (2002) Seismic simulation of elastic soils
via frequency-dependent moduli and damping. J Eng Mech
128(1):3447
Kennedy R, Short S, Merz K, Tokarz F, Idriss I, Power M,
Sadigh K (1984) Engineering characterization of ground
motion-task I: effects of characteristics of free field motion
on structural response. US Nuclear Regulatory Commis-
sion, Washington
Kramer SL (2011) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Pear-
son Education, Upper Saddle River
Kumar A (2013) Seismic microzonation of Lucknow based on
region specific GMPEs and geotechnical field studies.
Ph.D. Thesis, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore
Kumar A, Anbazhagan P, Sitharam TG (2012) Site specific
ground response study of deep Indo-Gangetic Basin using
representative regional ground motions. In: Proceedings
geo-congress 2012, Oakland, California, (ASCE Special
Publication)
Kumar A, Anbazhagan P, Sitharam TG (2013) Liquefaction
hazard mapping of Lucknow- a part of Indo-Gangetic
Basin (IGB). Int J Geotech Earthq Eng 4(1):1741
Kumar A, Harinarayan NH, Baro O (2015) High amplification
factor for low amplitude ground motions: Assessment for
Delhi. Disaster Adv 8(12):115
Kumar A, Baro O, Harinarayan NH (2016) Obtaining the sur-
face PGA from site response analyses based on globally
recorded ground motions and matching with the codal
provisions. Nat Hazards 81:543572
Kumar A, Harinarayan NH, Baro O (2017) Nonlinear soil
response to ground motions during different earthquakes in
Nepal, to arrive at surface response spectra. Nat Hazards
(submitted after minor revision)
Lysmer J, Udaka T, Tsai CF, Seed HB (1975) FLUSH a com-
puter program for approximate 3-D analysis of soil-struc-
ture interaction problems. Report no. EERC75-30,
University of California, Berkeley
123
Geotech Geol Eng
Mahajan AK, Virdi KS (2001) Macroseismic field generated by
29 March, 1999 Chamoli Earthquake and its Seismotec-
tonics. J Asian Earth Sci 19(4):507516
Masuda T, Yasuda S, Yoshida N, Sato M (2001) Field investi-
gations and laboratory soil tests on heterogeneous nature of
alluvial deposits. Soils Found 41(4):116
Meyers MA, Chawla KK (1999) Section 13.10 of mechanical
behaviors of materials, mechanical behaviors of materials.
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River
Miura K, Kobayashi S, Yoshida N (2000) Equivalent linear
analysis considering large strains and frequency dependent
characteristics. In: Proceedings of 12th world conference
of earthquake engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, Paper
no. 1832
Mondal J, Kumar A (2015) Impact of frequency content of input
motion upon local site effects. In: Proceedings of indian
geotechnical conference, December 1620, 2015, Pune,
India
Mondal J, Kumar A (2017) Impact of higher frequency content
of input motion upon equivalent linear site response anal-
ysis for the study area of Delhi. Geotech Geol Eng (Under
Review)
Nakamura S, Yoshida N (2002) Proposal of nonlinear earth-
quake response analysis in frequency domain considering
apparent frequency dependency of soil property. J Geotech
Eng (Proc JSCE No. 722/III-61):169187 (in Japanese)
Nihon (2011) Liquefaction induced damages caused by the M
9.0 East Japan mega earthquake on March 11, 2011, Tokyo
Metropolitan University, Hisataka Tano, Nihon University,
Koriyama Japan, with cooperation of save Earth co. and
Waseda University
Sarkar I, Pachauri AK, Israil M (2001) On the damage caused by
the Chamoli earthquake of 29 March. J Asian Earth Sci
19:129134
Satoh T, Horike M, Takeuchi Y, Uetake T, Suzuki H (1997)
Nonlinear behavior of scoria soil sediments evaluated from
borehole record in eastern Shizuoka prefecture Japan,
Earthquake Eng. Struct Dyn 26:781795
Schnabel PB (1973) Effects of local geology and distance from
source on earthquake ground motion. Ph.D. Thesis,
University of California, Berkeley
Schnabel PB, Lysmer J, Seed HB (1972) SHAKEa computer
program for earthquake response analysis of horizontally
layered sites. Report No. EERC 72-12, University of Cal-
ifornia, Berkeley
Seed HB, Idriss IM (1970) Soil moduli and damping factors for
dynamic response analysis. Report no. EERC 70-10,
University of California, Berkeley
Seed HB, Sun JH (1989) Implications of site effects in the
Mexico City earthquake of September 19, 1985 for earth-
quake resistant design criteria in the San Francisco bay area
of California. Report No. UCB/EERC-89/03, University of
California, Berkeley
Seed HB, Wong RT, Idriss IM, Tokimatsu K (1986) Moduli and
damping factors for dynamic analyses of cohesionless
soils. J Geotech Eng ASCE 112(11):10161032
Singh S, Murphy BJ (1990) Evaluation of stability of sanitary
landfills. Geotechnics of waste fills- Theory and Practice,
STP 1070, ASTM, Philadelphia, PA
Stewart JP, Chiou SJ, Bray JD, Graves RW, Somerville PG,
Abrahamson NA (2002) Ground motion evaluation
Geotech Geol Eng
procedures for performance-based design. Soil Dyn Earthq
Eng 2(912):765772
Streeter VL, Wylie EB, Richart FE (1974) Soil motion com-
putation by characteristic method. J Geotech Eng Div
ASCE 100:247263
Sugito M, Goda H, Masuda T (1994) Frequency dependent equi-
linearized technique for seismic response analysis of multi-
layered ground. J Geotech Eng (Proc JSCE No. 493/III-27),
4958 (in Japanese)
Sun JI, Golesorkhi R, Seed HB (1988) Dynamic moduli and
damping ratios for cohesive soils. Report No. EERC 88-15,
University of California, Berkeley
Vucetic M, Dobry R (1991) Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic
response. J Geotech Eng ASCE 117(GT1):89107
Weissmann GF, Hart RR (1961) The damping capacity of some
granular soils. ASTM STP 305:4554
Yoshida N, Kobayashi S, Suetomi I, Miura K (2002) Equivalent
linear method considering frequency dependent charac-
teristics of stiffness and damping. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng
22:205222
123