Site Response Analysis (SRA):

A Practical Comparison Among Different

Dimensional Approaches
Francisco Alonso FLORES LOPEZ a,1 Juan Carlos AYES ZAMUDIO b,
,

Carlos Omar VARGAS MORENO b and Alejandro VZQUEZ VZQUEZ c

a
Department of offshore geotechnical engineering, IMP, D.F., Mx.
b
Gerencia de Estudios de Ingeniera Civil. Geotechnical Department, CFE, D.F., Mx.
c
Geotechnical Department, Grupo Riobo, D.F., Mx.

Abstract. Actually, one dimensional approaches are the most used site response
analysis (SRA) in the Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering Practice, mainly due
to the possibility of considering in a relative easy way, the nonlinear soil response.
Nevertheless, these analyses are done in the frequency domain, so an unknown
number of iterations are required according to the lineal equivalent method which
does not account for any structural system or perform dynamic soil-structure
interaction. Finite and different element methods are specifically suitable to
generate analysis with the advantage of incorporating nonlinear subsoil behavior
using ad hoc constitutive relations. Additionally, these methods enable the input of
any structural system (e.g. tunnels, bridges, buildings, etc.) resulting in a coupled
dynamic soil-structure interaction. In this paper, a comparison between the SRA
results between different dimensional approaches (1D, 2D and 3D) is made using
some of the most popular geotechnical software packages in FEM/DEM analyses,
their results are calibrated and compared (in the free field case) with the 1D SRA
results using synthetic seismograms. Finally, some recommendations and
suggested practices include: boundary conditions (rigid and complaint in the base
and absorbent in the lateral boundary) and input seismic accelerogram (in terms of
accelerations or velocities, base line correction, etc.).

Keywords. Dynamic geotechnical analysis, Site Response Analysis, comparison

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

In geotechnical engineering practice, site response analysis (SRA) are becoming a

standard procedure to define site response spectra oriented to be used on structural
systems design; legal building codes have been migrating towards specific site
response spectra which explicitly includes soil dynamic properties (including in a
simplified way the subsoil non-linear behavior). The non-linear subsoil response during
an earthquake typically has been incorporated via step-to-step or frequency domain

1
faflores@imp.mx
analysis, the latter includes the soil non-linear behavior through an equivalent linear
method.
In the present work, the authors present a comparison among the results obtained
from SRA employing different dimensional approaches (1D, 2D and 3D), using some
of the more popular geotechnical engineering codes, their results are calibrated and
compared in a free field condition; synthetic time-histories are used as input motion.

2. Site response analysis (SRA)

Site effects referred as those intensity and frequency content changes in a specific
seismic excitation due to the wave propagation characteristics of the subsoil and the
topographic characteristics that have a direct impact on the structure response during an
earthquake [1].
It is common practice that SRA are calculated via transfer functions, this approach
is restricted to linear systems; time domain methods generally employ a hyperbolic
model to represent the soil response during load and unload, several authors have
developed different non-linear constitutive relationships for unidimensional SRA
which can be implemented in 2D/3D models. Topographic effects, which modifies the
soil seismic response, in general are evaluated with bidimensional models; the most
used solutions to calculate soil SRA are in time domain. Near-source time-histories
usually reports important vertical accelerations, so SRA in 3D which are able to
involve the three time-history components of an earthquake signal are recommended to
evaluate the soil site response.

3. Study case

3.1. Introduction

The subsoil wave amplification phenomenon is greatly dependent of site variability

materials; in table 1 the in situ description for the specific subsoil employed in the SRA
is presented. The damping and stiffness curves were obtained from laboratory tests
(resonant column and cyclic simple shear test [2]), the materials plasticity index (PI)
are presented in the same table. For this specific analysis a typical sandy-clay offshore
shear wave velocity profile was employed (Figure 1).
When generating SRA, the input time-history is applied at a firm material and it is
commonly assumed that the soft rock has a shear wave velocity of 620 m/s; in case the
local site basement has not such characteristics it is necessary to extrapolate the shear
wave velocities (Vs) profile below the maximum explored depth; it was assumed that
Vs increments linearly in function of the effective overburden (v0) [3] and that the
local materials have a linear behavior and a damping ratio of 2%, to consider the
non-linear subsoil behavior it was employed shear stiffness (G/Gmax) and damping ratio
curves () (Figure 2).
 Table 1. Soil stratigraphy employed in the SRA
From to ' PI
Stratum Description
(m) (m) (kN/m3) (%)
I 0 24 6.57 55 Very soft to firm clay
II 24 29 8.64 - Dense silty fine sand
III 29 66 8.02 65 Very stiff to hard clay
IV 66 84 9.11 - Very dense silty fine sand
V 84 95 7.75 57 Hard calcareous clay
VI 95 104 8.48 - Very dense silty fine sand
VII 104 113 9.11 57 Hard calcareous clay
VIII-a 113 119 10.2 - Very dense silty fine sand
VIII-b 119 122 8.79 57 Hard calcareous clay
VIII-c 122 126 9.58 - Dense silty fine sand

Stratum I Strata IV, VI, VIII-a & VIII-c

Stratum II Strata V,VII & VIII-b
Stratum III
1
max
Normalized Shear Modulus, G/G

(a)
0.8
0
0.6

20 0.4

0.2
40
0
Depth, z (m)

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

Shear Strain, (%)
60
25
(b)
20
Damping Ratio (%)

80

15
100
10

5
120

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear Wave Velocity, V (m/s) Shear Strain, (%)
s

Figure 1. Shear wave velocity profile considered for Figure 2. (a) Normalized shear stiffness G/Gmax and (b)
the analyzes damping ratio employed.

3.2. Input motion

An outcrop target response spectrum obtained from a probabilistic seismic hazard

analysis (PSHA) was employed [4]; since the selected time-histories were processed
and modified to make them compatible with a rock target response spectrum, this
excitation was defined as a rock outcrop motion. To generate synthetic accelerograms,
Geomatrix employed several different empirical records (e.g. Imperial Valley, etc.),
figure 3 shows the synthetic accelerogram associated to a 200 year return period rock
design spectrum (Figure 4) (according to NRF003-PEMEX-2007 the marine platforms
design spectra in the Gulf of Mexico are associated to a return period of 200 years); the
employed time-history has a duration of 163 seconds and a time-step (t) of 0,01 s.
The usage of a seismic record as an input motion involves a pre-processing procedure
which can include base line correction or signal filtering to attempt to eliminate
non-seismic noises [5].
 0.03 0.07

Spectral acceleration, S (g)

0.02 0.06

a
0.05
Acceleration, (g)

0.01

0 0.04

-0.01 0.03

-0.02 0.02

-0.03 0.01

-0.04 0
0 50 100 150 200 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Time, t (s) Period, T (s)

Figure 3. Synthetic accelerogram Figure 4. Rock design spectrum

4. Site Response Analysis models

4.1. Unidimensional model

A SRA was performed using the SHAKE code which uses a linear equivalent method,
each stratum from the geotechnical model was subdivided to obtain 49 layers plus the
half-space layer, the properties (velocities and densities) presented in Figure 1 and
table 1 were employed as well as the degradation curves presented in Figure 2; the
input motion was used as an outcrop motion.

4.2. Finite Difference Method (FDM) bidimensional model

A time domain finite difference model (FLAC) was developed using a geometrically
similar model to the unidimensional scheme, it was generated a 246 m wide x 246 m
height mesh with 2401 rectangular zones (Figure 5), the final equivalent linear
properties obtained from the 1D analysis were employed. In dynamic analysis, the
maximum element size (L) is wave longitude () dependent, so it was verified that the
size of each element was shorter or equal to L /10; a previous static stage was
developed in order to calculate the geostatic stress state. Absorbing boundaries were
used at the sides of the model to minimize the seismic waves reflection, FLAC employs
a special lateral boundary known as free field [6], this lateral boundaries are coupled to
the free field mesh through viscous damping dashpots which simulate absorbing
boundaries (Figure 5); to avoid reflections at the base of the model a set of viscous
boundaries dashpots were used [7].
Due that a viscous boundary is employed at the base of the model, the input
motion must to be defined through a velocity time-history; the accelerogram presented
in figure 3 was integrated to obtain the velocity time-history (Figure 6) and applied at
the base in terms of stresses.
In time domain numerical solutions of the equation of motion, it is important to
consider the solution stability factor; in some cases, the time-step depends on the soil
properties and the size of mesh elements. To define the damping matrix of the equation
of motion, is accepted practice to use the Rayleigh viscous damping, which is
proportional to mass and stiffness (C = M + K); a central frequency of 2.56 Hz was
used to establish the equivalent Rayleigh damping at small strain levels; this value
corresponds to the free field fundamental frequency obtained from the unidimensional
model.
 0.04
0.03
Free field

Free field
0.02

Velocity, (m/s)
0.01
0
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04
0 50 100 150 200
Time, t (s)
Figure 5. Bidimensional FDM model Figure 6. Velocity time history associated with an rock
outcropping excitation.

4.3. FDM three-dimensional model

A 3D finite difference model was developed using the commercial program

FLAC3D; the model consisted in a cubic geometry of 246 x 246 x 246 m, integrated by
127,449 tridimensional elements, incluiding a free-field mesh (Figure 7) which is
integrated to a set of tetrahedral elements. Linear-equivalent properties obtained from
the unidimensional model were employed; as with the 2D model, lateral absorbent
boundaries (based on an viscous boundary scheme proposed by Lysmer & Kuhlemeyer
[7]) were used to minimize the seismic waves reflexion, adittionally free-field
boundaries were incorporated.
A complain base (Quiet boundaries) was employed at the base of the model, due to
the viscous boundary the input motion was applied in terms of velocities and inserted at
the base of the model in terms of stresses (Figure 6). In the 3D model, the same central
frequency of 2.56 Hz used in the bidimensional model was applied, the latter to
establish an equivalent damping Rayleigh associated to small deformations of the soil.

4.4. Finite Element Method (FEM) three-dimensional model

A three-dimensional finite element model (Figure 8) was generated using the

commercial software Plaxis3D, its geometrical dimensions are equivalent to the
previously explained FDM model and the calculated 1D-SRA final equivalent linear
properties were employed. The main numerical stages comprises the static and dynamic
calculations; the same FDM base absorbing boundaries were employed but at the time
this paper was written the lateral free field boundaries were not available, so just lateral
absorbing boundaries were applied (at this moment june 2015, the program plaxis 3D
has released the free field and compliant base boundaries ). Similarly to the FDM, the
input motion (in term of stress) was applied at the base (Figure 6); in FEM to solve the
equation of motion it is employed the Newmark integration scheme which is
unconditionally stable, so the input motion time-step is equal to the analysis time step,
this time step approach has some limitations , if it is too large, the solution may be
unrealistic, so in Plaxis the critical time is a function of the largest element dimension
and of the finite element face area, to obtain a stable solution it is necessary to be in
accordance of the following expressions: 0.5 and 1/4(1/2+) 2, the and
coefficients are different from the Rayleigh viscous damping values, in this study
 =0.25 and =0.5. Respect to damping issues, the Rayleigh viscous scheme was
employed.

Figure 7. 3D FDM model Figure 8. 3D FEM model

4.5. SRA results

Figure 9 shows the elastic 5% damped earthquake response spectra at different

depths obtained from the unidimensional SRA, it is possible to observe the
amplification of the subsoil seismic response, which is more evident at the model top
boundary, the spectrum at the base of the model (-246 m) correspond to the internally
deconvoluted motion.
The resulting 2D-FDM base aceleration time-history was compared with the
obtained from the 1D model (figure 10) (plotted only the first 100 s), it is necessary to
remember that the FDM input motion is in term of stress obtained from the
outocropping velocity time-history. In figure 11, the surface acceleration time-histories
comparison obtained from 1D and 2D-FDM is presented; the same comparison in
presented in figure 12 and 13 but among the 1D/3D-FDM and 1D/3D-FEM models,
respectively.
0.2 0.02
Surface
Spectral accelerarion, S (g)

1D (base)
-6.5 m 0.01 2D FDM (base)
a

0.15 -12.5 m
Acceleration, (g)

-24 m
-66 m 0
0.1 -126 m
-246 m (Bedrock)
-0.01

0.05
-0.02

0 -0.03
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 0 20 40 60 80 100
Period, T (s) Time, t (s)
Figure 9. Response spectrum at different levels of Figure 10. 1D and 2D FDM base acceleration
soil depth comparison
 0.08 0.08
a) b) 1D (surface)
0.06 1D (surface) 0.06
2D FDM (surface) 2D FDM (surface)
0.04 0.04
Acceleration, (g)

Acceleration, (g)
0.02 0.02
0 0
-0.02 -0.02
-0.04 -0.04
-0.06 -0.06
-0.08 -0.08
0 20 40 60 80 100 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time, t (s) Time, t (s)
Figura 11. a) 1D and 2D FDM accelerations comparison for free field condition, b) 20 50 s time window.

0.08 0.08
a) b) 1D (surface)
0.06 1D (surface) 0.06
3D FDM (surface)
3D FDM (surface)
0.04 0.04

Acceleration, (g)
Acceleration, (g)

0.02 0.02

0 0

-0.02 -0.02

-0.04 -0.04

-0.06 -0.06

-0.08 -0.08
0 20 40 60 80 100 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time, t (s) Time, t (s)

Figura 12. a) 1D and 3D FDM accelerations comparison for free field condition, b) 20 50 s time window.

0.08 0.08
a) 1D (surface) b) 1D (surface)
0.06 0.06
3D FEM (surface) 3D FEM (surface)
0.04 0.04
Acceleration, (g)
Acceleration, (g)

0.02 0.02

0 0

-0.02 -0.02

-0.04 -0.04

-0.06 -0.06

-0.08 -0.08
0 20 40 60 80 100 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time, t (s) Time, t (s)

Figura 13. a) 1D and 3D FEM accelerations comparison for free field condition, b) 20 50 s time window.

Figure 14 shows the comparison of response spectra at the base and the surface for
1D, 2D and 3D FDM/FEM models, where it is possible to observe a great similarity in
the dynamic response of all the numerical models, however, the FEM model has an
important spectral magnitude difference for periods larger than 1 second and
additionally there is a substantial difference in the surface maximum acceleration time-
history in relation to the 1D model, these differences are attributable to the lack of free
field boundaries in the 3D model, which causes that the wave trains are reflected
towards the model.

5. Conclusions

Unidimensional analyses are a standard procedure in practical SRA, however

these analysis do not involve the effects of the topography and existence of
surface and underground structures, so bidimensional and three-dimensional
models provide an adequate alternative to perform the same analysis with the
advantage to include more complex conditions as well the possibility to include
the 3 components of the seismic input motion. In this paper a comparison of
 movements in terms of acceleration and free field response spectra was presented,
concluding that the 2D and 3D models can reproduce the free field phenomenon,
if appropriate boundary conditions, elements size, input motion and dynamic
properties of the subsoil are included.
When there is the impossibility to include absorbentfree field boundaries, it is
possible to underestimate the free field response in 2D and 3D time domain
models; the input motion should be applied in terms of the shear stresses.
It was considered applicable the employment of linear equivalent properties,
however for step-to-step time domain analysis it is possible to use nonlinear
constitutive models that explicitly include the stress-strain behavior of the soils.
The required computational time for 2D and 3D models is much higher than
1D model, so analysis time-windows are recommended to reduce computational
costs, considering that if a time-window is used, it should be mandatory to impose
the initial velocities and displacements on the numerical models.
The main objective of this paper is to present an overview of the
considerations employed in dynamic models in 2D and 3D of free field,
considering that these observations are also applicable to models that involve
complex dynamic soil-structure interaction.

0.2
Surface (1D)
Base (1D)
Surface (2D FDM)
Spectral acceleration, Sa (g)

0.15
Base (2D FDM)
Surface (3D FDM)
Base (3D FDM)
0.1 Surface (3D FEM)
Base (3D FEM)

0.05

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Period, T (s)
Figure 14. 1D, 2D and 3D base and surface acceleration spectra.

References

[1] Phillips C. y Hashash, Y.M.A. (2009), Damping formulation for nonlinear 1D site response analyses Journal
of Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29(2009) 1143-1158.
[2] Fugro Chance de Mxico, S.A, de C.V. y Constructora Subacutica Diavaz, SONDEO WAKAX, Criterios para
diseo dinmico para condiciones de cargas ssmicas, Sonda de Campeche, 2013.
[3] Seed, H.B. e Idriss. I.M. (1970). Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analyses, Report
EERC 70-10, EERC, University of California, Berkeley
[4] Geomatrix (2006) Evaluacin de peligrosidad ssmica, Baha de Campeche, Mxico, Geoscience Earth &
Marine Services, Inc., Houston Texas, abril.
[5] Ayes J. C. y Flores F. A. (2015) Time-History modification and spectral matching oriented to dynamic
geotechnical analysis XV Congreso Panamericano de Mecnica de Suelos e Ingeniera Geotcnica, Buenos
Aires, Argentina.
[6] Cundall P. A., Hansteen H., Lacasse S. y Selnes P.B. (1980) NESSI Soil Structure Interaction Program for
Dynamic and Static Problems Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Report 51508-9.
[7] Lysmer J. y Kuhlemeyer R. L. (1969) Finite Dynamic Model for Infinite Media, J. Eng. Mech., 95(EM4).