A new simulation-based site amplification model for shallow sites with thickness less than 30 m in Korea is developed. The site amplification model consists of linear and nonlinear components that are developed from one-dimensional linear and nonlinear site response analyses. A suite of measured shear wave velocity profiles is used to develop corresponding randomized profiles. A VS30 scaled linear amplification model and a model dependent on both VS30 and site period are developed. The proposed linear models compare well with the amplification equations developed for the western United States (WUS) at short periods but show a distinct curved bump between 0.1 and 0.5 s that corresponds to the range of site natural periods of shallow sites. The response at periods longer than 0.5 s is demonstrated to be lower than those of the WUS models. The functional form widely used in both WUS and central and eastern North America (CENA), for the nonlinear component of the site amplification model, is employed in this study. The slope of the proposed nonlinear component with respect to the input motion intensity is demonstrated to be higher than those of both the WUS and CENA models, particularly for soft sites with VS30 < 300 m/s and at periods shorter than 0.2 s. The nonlinear component deviates from the models for generic sites even at low ground motion intensities. The comparisons highlight the uniqueness of the amplification characteristics of shallow sites that a generic site amplification model is unable to capture.
AaqibMSadiqSParkDHashashYMPehlivanM (2018) Importance of implied strength correction for 1D site response at shallow sites at a moderate to low seismicity region. Geotechnical Special Publication2018: 445–453.
2.
AfshariKStewartJP (2019) Insights from California vertical arrays on the effectiveness of ground response analysis with alternative damping models. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America109: 1250–1264.
3.
BooreDMJoynerWBFumalTE (1997) Equations for estimating horizontal response spectra and peak acceleration from western North American earthquakes: A summary of recent work. Seismological Research Letters68: 128–153.
4.
BSSC (2015) NEHRP recommended seismic provisions for new buildings and other structures, part 1 provisions, part 2 commentary, building seismic safety council. FEMA report no. P-1050-1. Washington, DC: FEMA.
5.
CadetHBardP-YRodriguez-MarekA (2010) Defining a standard rock site: Propositions based on the KiK-net database defining a standard rock site: Propositions based on the KiK-net database. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America100: 172–195.
6.
ChiouB-JYoungsRR (2008) An NGA model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra. Earthquake Spectra24: 173–215.
7.
ChiouBSJYoungsRR (2014) Update of the Chiou and Youngs NGA model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra. Earthquake Spectra30: 1117–1153.
8.
ChoiYStewartJP (2005) Nonlinear site amplification as function of 30 m shear wave velocity. Earthquake Spectra21: 1–30.
9.
DarendeliMB (2001) Development of a new family of normalized modulus reduction and material damping curves. PhD Thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
10.
GroholskiDRHashashYMAKimBMusgroveMHarmonJStewartJP (2016) Simplified model for small-strain nonlinearity and strength in 1D seismic site response analysis. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering142: 04016042.
11.
HarmonJHashashYMAStewartJPRathjeEMCampbellKWSilvaWJIlhanO (2019a) Site amplification functions for central and eastern North America—Part II: Modular simulation-based models. Earthquake Spectra35: 815–847.
12.
HarmonJHashashYMAStewartJPRathjeEMCampbellKWSilvaWJXuBMusgroveMIlhanO (2019b) Site amplification functions for central and Eastern North America—Part I: Simulation data set development. Earthquake Spectra35: 787–814.
13.
HashashYMIlhanOHarmonJAParkerGAStewartJPRathjeEMCampbellKWSilvaWJ (2020) Nonlinear site amplification model for ergodic seismic hazard analysis in central and eastern North America. Earthquake Spectra36: 69–86.
14.
HashashYMKottkeARStewartJPCampbellKWKimBMossCNikolaouSRathjeEMSilvaWJ (2014) Reference rock site condition for central and eastern North America. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America104: 684–701.
15.
HashashYMMusgroveMHarmonJOkanIGroholskiDPhillipsCParkD (2017) DEEPSOIL 7.0, User Manual. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign.
16.
HassaniBAtkinsonGM (2016) Site-effects model for central and eastern North America based on peak frequency. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America106: 2197–2213.
17.
HassaniBAtkinsonGM (2018) Site-effects model for central and Eastern North America based on peak frequency and average shear-wave velocitysite-effects model for CENA based on peak frequency and average shear-wave velocity. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America108: 338–350.
18.
JakyJ (1948) Pressure in silos. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ICSM, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 21–30 June 1948, pp.103–107.
19.
KaklamanosJBradleyBAThompsonEMBaiseLG (2013) Critical parameters affecting bias and variability in site-response analyses using KiK-net downhole array data. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America103: 1733–1749.
20.
KamaiRAbrahamsonNASilvaWJ (2014) Nonlinear Horizontal site amplification for constraining the NGA-West2 GMPEs. Earthquake Spectra30: 1223–1240.
21.
KimBHashashYMStewartJPRathjeEMHarmonJAMusgroveMICampbellKWSilvaWJ (2016) Relative differences between nonlinear and equivalent-linear 1-D site response analyses. Earthquake Spectra32: 1845–1865.
22.
KimD-SYoonJ-K (2008) Development of new site classification system for the regions of shallow bedrock in Korea. Journal of Earthquake Engineering10: 331–358.
23.
KottkeARRathjeEM (2009) Technical manual for strata. Report No. 2008/10, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, California.
24.
LeeS-HSunC-GYoonJ-KKimD-S (2012) Development and verification of a new site classification system and site coefficients for regions of shallow bedrock in Korea. Journal of Earthquake Engineering16: 795–819.
25.
McGuireRKSilvaWJCostantinoCJ (2001) Technical Basis for Revision of Regulatory Guidance on Design Ground Motions: Hazard-and Risk-Consistent Ground Motion Spectra Guidelines. Washington, DC: Division of Engineering Technology, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.
26.
ManandharSChoH-IKimD-S (2017) Site classification system and site coefficients for shallow bedrock sites in Korea. Journal of Earthquake Engineering22: 1259–1284.
27.
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transportation (MOLIT) (2018) Korean Design Standard (KDS 17 10 00: 2018). Sejong City, Korea: MOLIT.
28.
NavidiS (2012) Development of Site Amplification Model for Use in Ground Motion Prediction Equations. Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin.
29.
NikolaouSMylonakisGEdingerP (2001) Evaluation of site factors for seismic bridge design in New York City area. Journal of Bridge Engineering6: 564–576.
30.
ParkerGAStewartJPHashashYMARathjeEMCampbellKWSilvaWJ (2019) Empirical linear seismic site amplification in central and Eastern North America. Earthquake Spectra35: 849–881.
31.
PehlivanMHashashY (2017) Seismic site response of shallow sites in moderate seismicity regions. In: Proceedings of the 19th international conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering, Seoul, Korea, 17–22 September.
32.
PehlivanMHashashYHarmonJRathjeEStewartJSilvaSCampbellKNikolaouS (2015) Influence of shear wave velocity reversals on one-dimensional site response of spatially varied profiles. Available at: https://escholarship.org/content/qt0wd3x622/qt0wd3x622.pdf?t=nxkc2r (accessed 7 December 2020).
33.
PetersenMDShumwayAMPowersPMMuellerCSMoschettiMPFrankelADRezaeianSMcNamaraDELucoNBoydOS (2020) The 2018 update of the US National Seismic Hazard Model: Overview of model and implications. Earthquake Spectra36: 5–41.
34.
PhillipsCHashashYMA (2009) Damping formulation for nonlinear 1D site response analyses. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering29: 1143–1158.
35.
RégnierJBonillaLFBardPYBertrandEHollenderFKawaseHSiciliaDArduinoPAmorosiAAsimakiD (2018) PRENOLIN: International benchmark on 1D nonlinear site-response analysis—Validation phase Exercise PRENOLIN: International benchmark on 1D nonlinear site-response analysis—Validation phase exercise. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America108: 876–900.
36.
SandıkkayaMAAkkarSBardPY (2013) A nonlinear site-amplification model for the next pan-European ground-motion prediction equations. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America103: 19–32.
37.
SandıkkayaMADinseverL (2018) A site amplification model for crustal earthquakes. Geosciences8: 264.
38.
SeyhanE (2013) Semi-Empirical Characterization of Ground Motions Including Source, Path and Nonlinear Site Effects. Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Los Angeles.
39.
SeyhanEStewartJP (2014) Semi-empirical nonlinear site amplification from NGA-West2 data and simulations. Earthquake Spectra30: 1241–1256.
40.
StewartJPParkerGAAtkinsonGMBooreDMHashashYMSilvaWJ (2020) Ergodic site amplification model for central and eastern North America. Earthquake Spectra36: 42–68.
41.
SunC-G (2010) Suggestion of additional criteria for site categorization in Korea by quantifying regional specific characteristics on seismic response. Geophysics and Geophysical Exploration13: 203–218.
42.
SunC-GChoC-SSonMShinJS (2013) Correlations between shear wave velocity and in-situ penetration test results for Korean soil deposits. Pure and Applied Geophysics170: 271–281.
43.
TeagueDPCoxBRRathjeEM (2018) Measured vs. predicted site response at the Garner Valley Downhole Array considering shear wave velocity uncertainty from borehole and surface wave methods. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering113: 339–355.
44.
ToroG (1995) Probabilistic Models of Site Velocity Profiles for Generic and Site-Specific Ground-Motion Amplification Studies. Upton, NY: Department of Nuclear Energy, Brookhaven National Laboratory.
45.
WairBRDeJongJTShantzT (2012) Guidelines for Estimation of Shear Wave Velocity Profiles. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California.
46.
WallingMSilvaWAbrahamsonN (2008) Nonlinear site amplification factors for constraining the NGA models. Earthquake Spectra24: 243–255.
47.
WolffTF (1989) Pile capacity prediction using parameter functions. In: Predicted and observed axial behavior of piles: Results of a pile prediction symposium, Evanston, Illinois, 25 June 1989, pp. 96–106. Reston, VA: ASCE.
48.
ZalachorisGRathjeEM (2015) Evaluation of one-dimensional site response techniques using borehole arrays. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering141: 04015053.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
