Simplified Model for Small-Strain Nonlinearity and

Strength in 1D Seismic Site Response Analysis

David R. Groholski, M.ASCE 1; Youssef M. A. Hashash, F.ASCE 2; Byungmin Kim, M.ASCE 3;
Michael Musgrove, S.M.ASCE 4; Joseph Harmon, S.M.ASCE 5; and Jonathan P. Stewart, F.ASCE 6

Abstract: Commonly used simplified one-dimensional nonlinear seismic site response analyses employ constitutive models based on a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by La Trobe University on 05/20/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

variation of the hyperbolic model to represent the initial stress-strain backbone curve. Desirable features of the backbone curve include
provision of (1) an initial shear modulus at zero shear strain, (2) a limiting shear stress at large shear strains, and (3) flexible control of
the nonlinear behavior between those boundary conditions. Available hyperbolic models have combinations of two of these features.
A new general quadratic/hyperbolic (GQ/H) model is developed from the bivariate quadratic equation to provide all desired features.
Nonlinear behavior is controlled by a shear-strain-dependent curve-fitting function. The model’s unload-reload rules and coupling with
pore-water pressure generation are also presented. Several total-stress site response analyses are presented to demonstrate the performance
of the GQ/H model relative to a commonly used hyperbolic model in which the maximum shear stress cannot be defined. The analyses
show the importance of properly representing the maximum shear stress in the constitutive model because it may lead to underestimation
or overestimation of the computed site response. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001496. © 2016 American Society of Civil
Engineers.

Introduction expected. Site response analyses conducted with over- or underes-

Simplified one-dimensional (1D) nonlinear seismic site response
relies on modeling three aspects of soil behavior: (1) the initial
stress-strain (i.e., backbone) curve; (2) the unloading-reloading
hysteretic behavior; and (3) the mechanism of excess pore pressure
generation during dynamic excitation. Over the past 50 years, great
strides have been made in all of these aspects by several researchers
to improve the capabilities of nonlinear seismic site response analy-
sis. These improvements have typically focused on refined repre-
sentation of soil behavior below shear strains of 1–3%, which has
been considered by many to be the shear strain range of interest.
However, in doing so, the modeling of large-strain behavior has
been compromised.
The modeling of large-strain behavior is of paramount impor-
tance for site response analyses where large shear strains are
1 soils is taken as τ at γ ¼ 10% according to the utilized model.
Senior Engineer, Civil Practice, Exponent, Inc., 475 14th St., Ste. 400,
Oakland, CA 94612 (corresponding author). E-mail: dgroholski@exponent
.com
2
Hall Endowed Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineer-
ing, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801. E-mail:
hashash@illinois.edu
3
Senior Modeler, Model Development, Risk Management Solutions,
Inc., 7575 Gateway Blvd., Newark, CA 94560. E-mail: byungmin.kim@
rms.com
4 curve of soils which exhibit strain-hardening behavior. The result
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801.
5
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801.
6
Professor and Chair, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095. E-mail: jstewart@seas.ucla
.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on April 3, 2015; approved on
January 8, 2016; published online on May 19, 2016. Discussion period
open until October 19, 2016; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241.
timated shear strengths of soil can result in unrealistic shear strains
or spectral accelerations. Some available correlations for generating
normalized shear modulus reduction curves typically use a fixed
form of a contemporary soil model which is incapable of specifying
large-strain shear strength. For example, Chiu et al. (2008) note that
a user’s decision to extrapolate the Darendeli (2001) correlations
to large shear strains tends to underestimate shear strengths at shal-
low depths. Both Stewart and Kwok (2008) and Yee et al. (2013)
proposed hybrid procedures to develop backbone curves with
user-defined implied shear strength and can be readily implemented
in equivalent-linear analysis; however, they do not include corre-
sponding hysteretic formulation for implementation in nonlinear
site response analysis. Hashash et al. (2010) recommended a pro-
cedure to adjust normalized shear modulus reduction curves to
appropriately capture the implied shear strength of soils according
to the utilized model. In this paper, the implied shear strength of
However, the proposed hybrid models and procedures are all based
on addressing issues with a fixed form of a constitutive model that
cannot represent large-strain shear strength. There is a pressing need
to correct the issue of large-strain shear strength from a fundamen-
tal basis.
A new constitutive model is developed in this paper to satisfy
both the small-strain and large-strain modeling of the backbone
is a model that provides an initial shear modulus and small strain
nonlinearity equal to the maximum initial shear modulus and small
strain nonlinearity measured from laboratory testing, as well as
obtaining a limiting maximum shear stress as shear strains ap-
proach infinity. The latter aspect represents a significant improve-
ment over other available 1D constitutive models, which typically
yield maximum shear strengths approaching either infinity or zero
as shear strains approach infinity (e.g., models which utilize an
exponential curve-fitting parameter for only some instances of
the independent variable).

© ASCE 04016042-1 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 04016042

 Review of 1D Shear Nonlinear Constitutive Models
This section reviews current constitutive models used to represent
the backbone curve of soils during dynamic loading as well as their
limitations. Where multiple models have used similar parameters,
the parameters are subscripted with an abbreviation of the related
model. All parameters are defined in the Notation section.
Nonlinear soil behavior for 1D site response analysis is typically
modeled in one of two ways: (1) shear strain as an explicit function
of shear stress [i.e., a Ramberg–Osgood (Ramberg and Osgood
1943) derived model]; or (2) shear stress as an explicit function
of shear strain [i.e., a Kondner and Zelasko (1963) derived model].
The current predominant methods of site response analysis involve
solving the dynamic equations of motion to calculate shear stresses,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by La Trobe University on 05/20/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Any variations of this definition will be referred to as pseudorefer-
ence strains and will be subscripted according to the appropriate
model to which it is applied.
An important implication of the KZ model is that τ =τ max ¼
G=Gmax ¼ 0.5 when γ ¼ γ r . The KZ formulation results in a
unique normalized curve when τ =τ max and G=Gmax are plotted
against γ=γ r as shown in Fig. 1. Therefore, it cannot fit the broad
set of stress-strain relationships measured in the laboratory at small
strains. A number of modifications of this formulation were pro-
posed by researchers to improve the fit with available experimen-
tally derived shear modulus reduction curves. These formulations
can be represented by the following functional:
G 1
¼ ð3Þ

and as such, primarily employ constitutive models derived from the Gmax 1 þ Γ
original Kondner–Zelasko model (Kondner and Zelasko 1963),
hereafter called the KZ model. The original KZ model yields a hy- in which Γ = normalized shear strain function that varies between
perbolic relationship between shear stress and shear strain that can the reviewed models. However, plotting G=Gmax against Γ results
be defined as in a unique normalized shear modulus curve shown in Fig. 1 that is
γ
equivalent to the KZ model when Γ ¼ γ=γ r (i.e., a 1∶1 mapping of
Gmax γ τ γ G 1 τ G γ γ=γ r ). Table 1 summarizes the values of Γ for the models proposed
τ¼ Gmax ⇔ τ ¼ rγ⇔ ¼ γ ⇔ ¼ ·
1 þ τ max γ max 1 þ γ r Gmax 1 þ γ r τ max Gmax γ r by Hardin and Drnevich (1972), Matasovic (1993) (the MKZ
model), Hashash and Park (2001), and Darendeli (2001).
ð1Þ 1. Hardin and Drnevich (1972) altered the KZ model by modifying
the denominator γ=γ r term with a hyperbolic strain function, γ h
in which τ = shear stress; γ = shear strain; τ max = shear stress at (Table 1) in which aHD and bHD are curve-fitting parameters,
failure; and Gmax = maximum shear modulus. which results in the KZ model when aHD ¼ 0. γ r is the shear
Hardin and Drnevich (1972) introduced the concept of the refer- strain at which τ =τ max ¼ G=Gmax , but the respective values are
ence strain, γ r , noting that if a “line through the origin [of the shear not necessarily 50% of the maximum values as with the KZ
stress-strain curve] with slope Gmax is extended to intersect the line model. The primary benefit in the inclusion of the hyperbolic
τ ¼ τ max , the intersection defines a strain as”: strain function is that it allows for variation of the normalized
τ max shear stress and normalized shear modulus curves with respect
γr ¼ ð2Þ to γ r . The maximum shear modulus occurs at zero shear strain,
Gmax
and the maximum shear stress is approached as shear strains
This definition of reference strain was first introduced by Hardin approach infinity. However, the selection of appropriate para-
and Drnevich (1972) and will be maintained throughout the paper. meters in Table 1 can be quite challenging as aHD and bHD
simultaneously control the location and curvature of the
1 stress-strain curve. Both τ max and Gmax can be specified in
the model when bHD is positive.
0.8 2. Matasovic (1993) noted that the seismic response of soil depos-
its typically do not exceed the dominant shear strain range of
max

0.6
G/Gmax
1–3%. To improve the ability to capture small-strain behavior,
Matasovic (1993) introduced a modified version for the KZ
G/Gmax

model, termed the MKZ model and formulated using γ r;MKZ

max
0.4
(Table 1). τ mo is selected as the “τ ordinate corresponding ap-
0.2 proximately to the upper boundary of this dominant shear strain
range” (Matasovic 1993) of 1–3%. Gmo is the initial tangent
0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 shear modulus. γ r;MKZ is the pseudoreference shear strain for
r the MKZ model, and β and s are curve-fitting parameters con-
trolling the position and curvature of the curve, respectively.
Fig. 1. G=Gmax and τ =τ max with respect to γ=γ r for the original The β parameter defines the ordinate of the τ =τ mo and G=Gmo
Kondner–Zelasko model curves when γ ¼ γ r;MKZ [i.e., τ =τ mo ¼ G=Gmo ¼ 1=ð1 þ βÞ

Table 1. Normalized Shear Strain Function

Normalized shear strain Definition of reference
Model function (Γ) shear strain (γ r ) Comments
KZ Γ ¼ γ=γ r γ r ¼ τ max =Gmax τ max and Gmax specified; nonlinear behavior is fixed
Hardin and Drnevich Γ ¼ γ h ¼ γ=γ r ½1 þ aHD e−bHD ðγ=γ r Þ  γ r ¼ τ max =Gmax τ max and Gmax specified; difficult to determine
nonlinear parameters
MKZ Γ ¼ βðγ=γ r;MKZ Þs γ r;MKZ ¼ τ mo =Gmo Gmax specified, τ max unconstrained
Hashash and Park Γ ¼ βðγ=γ r;HP Þs 0
γ r;HP ¼ aHP ðσv0 =σref ÞbHP Gmax specified, τ max unconstrained
Stokoe and Darendeli Γ ¼ ðγ=γ r;SD Þs γ r;SD ¼ γ@ðG=Gmax 50%Þ Gmax specified, τ max unconstrained
Note: Γ = literature reviewed models.

© ASCE 04016042-2 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 04016042

 when γ ¼ γ r;MKZ ]. The s parameter then allows the curvature to
be adjusted while fixing the reference point where τ =τ max and
G=Gmax curves intersect defined by β. When β ¼ 1 and s ¼ 1,
the MKZ model is functionally equivalent to the KZ model. It
can also be seen that γ r;MKZ is the shear strain at which τ =τ mo ¼
G=Gmo , but that the respective values are not necessarily 50%
of the maximum values depending on the nonzero value of β.
Implications of introducing the exponential s parameter are the
following: (1) if s > 1, then τ → 0 as γ → ∞; (2) if s < 1, then
τ → ∞ as γ → ∞; and (3) if s ¼ 1, then τ → τ mo =β as
γ → ∞. The curve-fitting parameters are generally taken as
β ¼ 1 and s is approximately 0.92 (Darendeli 2001; Zhang et al.
2005). For the case in which β ¼ 1, τ =τ mo ¼ G=Gmo ¼ 0.5
when γ ¼ γ r;MKZ . With s < 1, the shear strength of the soil is
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by La Trobe University on 05/20/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
approximately represent small-strain and large-strain behavior with
the transition governed by an exponential weighting function.
Gingery and Elgamal (2013) also proposed a hybrid method
for simultaneously matching small-strain behavior and the failure
strength of soils at large shear strains. Similar to the previous
model, Gingery and Elgamal’s GH model uses the MKZ model for
the small-strain behavior up to a transitional shear strain. A raised
cosine weighting function is then activated and applied to the MKZ
model which modifies the normalized shear modulus curve to
provide the failure strength at a second transitional shear strain.
Beyond the second transitional shear strain, the weighting function
is modified to provide a constant shear stress (i.e., the specified
failure strength). Implementing this model in site response analysis
software requires constant monitoring of the shear strain to deter-

not defined, and thus the model will typically overestimate the
maximum shear stress but can also underestimate this shear
stress within the relevant range of shear strain. With s > 1 the
model may overestimate maximum shear stress within the rele-
vant range of shear strain before decreasing to zero. The MKZ
model represents an improvement in controlling the stress-strain
curve over the Hardin and Drenvich model. However, a maxi-
mum shear stress can only be prescribed by the user if s ¼ 1.
3. Hashash and Park (2001) suggested an alternate formulation of
the MKZ model’s reference strain to include the effects of con-
fining pressure on modulus reduction. However, the model has
the same limitations as the MKZ model regarding controlling
for the maximum shear stress.
4. Darendeli (2001) suggested an alternative formulation shown in
Table 1. Similar to the MKZ model, the implications of intro-
ducing the exponential s parameter are the following: (1) if
s > 1, then τ → 0 as γ → ∞; (2) if s < 1, then τ → ∞ as
γ → ∞; and (3) if s ¼ 1, then τ → Gmax × γ r;SD as γ → ∞.
The MKZ model reduces to the Stokoe and Darendeli model
when β ¼ 1. As with the MKZ model, a maximum shear stress
can only be specified if s ¼ 1.
These models tend to give reasonably accurate results within
the range of shear strains they consider to be of practical interest.
However, several of these models sacrifice the capability of correctly
modeling the soil behavior at large shear strains and hence the im-
plied shear strength of soil (τ at γ ¼ 10%). Others sacrifice the
capability of accurately modeling nonlinear soil behavior at small
strains while representing the soil shear strength. This is a significant
mine when the weighting function should be activated and what
form it should take.
General Quadratic/Hyperbolic (GQ/H) Model
Backbone Curve
The simplest nontrivial shear stress-strain response of a material
with finite strength is elastic-perfectly plastic behavior. The behav-
ior is linear elastic until the point of yielding or failure is reached,
and then the material deforms under constant shear stress. Both the
shear stiffness of the material (Gmax ) and the shear strength at fail-
ure (τ max ) must be known, as shown in Fig. 2(a), to capture such
behavior. Further, because the response consists only of two inter-
secting lines, a quadratic model can be used to join the two lines
into one curve. In terms of shear stress, τ , and shear strain, γ, a
quadratic model can be described as a second-degree equation
in Cartesian coordinates
Aγ 2 þ Bγτ þ Cτ 2 þ Dγ þ Eτ þ F ¼ 0 ð4Þ
in which A, B, C, D, E, and F are constants.
1.2
1
0.8
max

0.6
shortcoming when using these models in site response analyses G = Gmax
max

max
where large strains are anticipated. Other models have been devel- 0.4
1
oped which address some of these issues by either a bounding
surface plasticity approach [e.g., Borja and Amies (1994), 0.2
Boulanger et al. (2011)] or a hybridized combination of models 0
and transition functions as described in the following. 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
(a)
Yee et al. (2013) proposed a procedure that captures small-strain r

behavior and transitions to a model controlled by failure strength 1.2

at large shear strains. The procedure involves using the MKZ model
for the small-strain behavior up to a transitional shear strain. 1

Beyond the transitional shear strain, a hyperbolic model similar 0.8

to the KZ model is used for the large-strain behavior. Parameters
G/Gmax

of each model are set so that the slopes of the two shear stress-strain 0.6 G/Gmax

curves are equivalent at the transitional shear strain. This allows for 0.4
a smooth, continuous transition between the two curves. However,
such a procedure is difficult to implement in site response analysis 0.2
software because it requires two backbone curves to be defined 0
and monitored throughout the analysis. Therefore, each backbone 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
curve also requires its own unload-reload curve and the transition (b) r

between these curves must be tracked. The Yee et al. (2013) pro-
Fig. 2. Normalized: (a) shear stress; (b) shear modulus boundary
cedure is similar to a previous model proposed by Hayashi et al.
curves with respect to normalized shear strain for the GQ/H model
(1994) in which two weighted hyperbolic functions were utilized to

© ASCE 04016042-3 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 04016042

 If the resulting model is to have initial stiffness (slope) Gmax ,
without a constraint on maximum positive shear stress (horizontal
asymptote) τ max , the general quadratic/hyperbolic framework can
be represented by
2 adjusts the curvature of the stress-strain curve and does not affect
θτ − ð1 þ ΓÞτ þ Gmax γ ¼ 0
in which Γ = normalized shear strain function and θ defines the
relationship between Γ, γ, and G (and hence τ ) and is treated as
a curve fitting function. The derivation of this equation is provided
in Appendix S1. The general quadratic/hyperbolic framework en-
compasses the behavior of the KZ, Hardin and Drnevich, MKZ,
Hashash and Park, and Stokoe and Darendeli models as special
cases where θ ¼ 0 for their correspondent cases of Γ (Table 1),
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by La Trobe University on 05/20/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
while also encompassing the behavior of the Yee et al. model as a
special case where θ and Γ take fixed functional forms, also shown
in Appendix S1.
The general solution for this equation represents the backbone
curve and depends on the value of θ. For θ ≠ 0, the solution is
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ð1 þ ΓÞ∓ ð1 þ ΓÞ2 − 4θGmax γ
τ¼ ð6Þ
2θ
in which the sign on the radical governs whether an upper-limiting
or lower-limiting curve will be followed. The sign on the radical,
for many cases, is negative to maintain that τ ¼ 0 when γ ¼ 0 and,
θ
in general, will always remain negative.
θ ≤ 1 ð13Þ
If the resulting model is to have initial stiffness (slope) Gmax ,
and to reach but not exceed a maximum positive shear stress (hori-
zontal asymptote) τ max , while maintaining the limiting condition of
elastic-perfectly plastic behavior, then the model can be reduced to
 
γ strain curves over a defined strain range. With this formulation,
θτ 2 − 1 þ τ þ Gmax γ ¼ 0 ð7Þ
γr
in which θ = primary curve-fitting function of this model. It is
shown in Appendix S1 that θ ≤ 1=τ max to ensure that τ ≤ τ max
for all γ, and also that θ can be presented as a function of γ
under the condition that θ approaches a constant value as shear
strains approach infinity (i.e., ∂θ=∂γ → 0 as γ → ∞). These
constraints must be satisfied to obtain the large-strain maximum
shear stress, τ max .
This equation produces a hyperbola for any finite value of θ.
When θ ¼ 0, the asymptotes of the hyperbola are orthogonal
and result in a rectangular hyperbola. When θ ¼ 1=τ max , the
asymptotes are straight lines which intersect at a point and thus
result in a degenerate, two intersecting line, hyperbola (i.e., elastic-
perfectly plastic behavior). For all other cases where θ ≤ 1=τ max is
finite, the asymptotes of the hyperbola are nonorthogonal and θ
governs the degree of nonorthogonality.
Eq. (7) can be presented in a normalized form as
     infinite shear strain, values of θ1 , θ2 , θ3 , θ4 , and θ5 may be selected
τ 2 γ τ γ during curve fitting such that the implied shear strength at γ ¼ 10%
θτ − 1þ þ ¼0 ð8Þ
τ max γ r τ max γr
in which θτ ¼ θ × τ max . Note that θτ is simply θ multiplied by the
maximum shear stress, τ max . Because the constraint exists whereby
θ ≤ 1=τ max , the corresponding constraint on θτ is that θτ ≤ 1.
The general solution of Eq. (8) yields the backbone curve. For
the case where θτ ≠ 0, the solution is
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
τ 1 þ ðγ=γ r Þ − ½1 þ ðγ=γ r Þ2 − 4θτ ðγ=γ r Þ
¼ ð9Þ
τ max 2θτ
which, due to the radical term, can alternatively be presented as
© ASCE
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 04016042
τ 2ðγ=γ r Þ
¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð10Þ
τ max 1 þ ðγ=γ r Þ þ ½1 þ ðγ=γ r Þ2 − 4θτ ðγ=γ r Þ
The coefficient parameter θτ is a model-fitting function. θτ
ð5Þ
the boundary conditions of the model. The function is constrained
such that θτ ≤ 1 and ∂θ=∂γ → 0 as γ → ∞. The formulation for θτ
can be determined by rearranging Eq. (8)
 τ 
τ
τ
þ ðτ max Þ · ðγγr Þ − ðγγr Þ
θτ ¼ max ð11Þ
τ 2
ðτ max Þ
or, by substituting the definition of τ =τ max from Eq. (1)
ðGGmax Þ þ ðGGmax Þ · ðγγr Þ − 1
θτ ¼ ð12Þ
ðGGmax Þ2 · ðγγr Þ
Thus, Eq. (12) shows that the relationship of θτ with respect to
normalized shear strain can be determined from normalized shear
modulus reduction curves, γ r and τ max .
From consideration of several laboratory-obtained normalized
shear modulus reduction curves, a hyperbolic relationship is pro-
posed for θτ
θ4 · γγr
5
θτ ¼ θ1 þ θ2
θθ35 þ θ4 · γγr
5
in which θ1 , θ2 , θ3 , θ4 , and θ5 are curve-fitting constants chosen to
provide the best fit to the normalized shear modulus versus shear
∂θ=∂γ → 0 as γ → ∞. The effects and purpose of the curve-fitting
constants are shown in Fig. 3 and summarized in the following:
1. θ1 = Lower-bound of θτ (i.e., θτ ¼ θ1 at γ=γ r ¼ 0);
2. θ2 = Range of θτ (i.e., θτ ¼ θ1 þ θ2 as γ=γ r → ∞);
3. θ3 = Reference abscissa of θτ {i.e., when γ=γ r ¼ θ3 , θτ ¼ θ1 þ
θ2 ½θ4 =ð1 þ θ4 Þ};
4. θ4 = Reference ordinate of θτ {i.e., when γ=γ r ¼ θ3 , θτ ¼ θ1 þ
θ2 ½θ4 =ð1 þ θ4 Þ}; and
5. θ5 = Controls the slope of θτ at γ=γ r ¼ θ3 .
It should be noted that θ3 and θ4 are mathematically redundant
(i.e., similar curves can be obtained for two specific combinations
of θ3 and θ4 ). This is intentional to aid in manual curve-fitting pro-
cedures. For example, θ3 and θ4 can be set to lock in a data point.
The parameter θ5 should then be used to adjust the slope and cur-
vature of the model about the “locked-in” data point. When using
curve-fitting algorithms, it is recommended that θ3 or θ4 be set
equal to 1.
Whereas the GQ/H model will always be asymptotic to τ max at
is less than 50% of the target shear strength, τ max . To ensure agree-
ment between the implied shear strength and the target shear
strength, it is recommended that users of the GQ/H model only
allow curve fits where the implied shear strength reaches a desired
fraction of the maximum shear strength at γ ¼ 10%. When using
correlations such as Darendeli (2001), it is recommended that curve
fitting be performed for small-strain data up to the range of appli-
cability for the particular correlation while imposing a condition
that shear stresses achieve a minimum value at γ ¼ 10%. In this
paper, curve-fitting was performed for a shear strain range up to
0.1% under the condition that the shear stresses reach 95% of the
maximum at γ ¼ 10%.
04016042-4 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 0
1 GQ/H Backbone Curve Pore-Water Pressure
-0.5
-1 1 2
5
[ ( )( )]
2

3
4

4
1
4
Degradation Indices

-1.5 The preceding sections presented the development of the GQ/H

-2
model under total stress considerations (i.e., zero excess pore-water
2
pressure). It is well known that the generation of excess pore-water
-2.5 3
2 ( ) 4

4
1
pressure during dynamic loading causes degradation of the shear
-3 strength and shear stiffness of the soil. Matasovic (1993) represents
-3.5 Reference the degradation of these within the MKZ model by inclusion of two
(a) -4 degradation indices
0 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
-0.5 δ G ¼ 1 − u ð14Þ
-1
-1.5
-2 3 = 0.1 and
-2.5 =1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by La Trobe University on 05/20/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

3
-3 3 = 10 δ τ ¼ 1 − ðu Þν ð15Þ
-3.5
(b) -4
0 in which δ G = shear modulus degradation function; δ τ = shear stress
-0.5 degradation function; u = excess pore water pressure normalized
-1
-1.5 by initial effective overburden stress; and ν = curve-fitting param-
=3
-2 4
eter to better model the degradation of shear strength with excess
-2.5 =1
-3
4
pore pressure generation. When combined with an excess pore-
4 = 0.333
-3.5 water pressure generation model [e.g., Matasovic (1993) and Green
(c) -4 et al. (2000)], the inclusion of these degradation indices in the GQ/
0
-0.5 H model allows for changes in soil stiffness due to pore-water pres-
-1 sure generation analogous to the MKZ model. Other formulations
-1.5
-2 5 =2 for these degradation parameters are available and may be used in-
-2.5 5 =1 terchangeably in the following equations. These parameters are
-3 = 0.5 implemented in the GQ/H model with the following formulation:
5
-3.5
-4  2      
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 τ δ γ τ δ γ
(d) δ τ · θτ − 1þ G · þ G· ¼0
r
δ τ · τ max δτ γ r δ τ · τ max δτ γr
Fig. 3. Parametric evaluation of nonlinear function θτ ð16Þ

which in turn yields the following normalized solutions when

The case where θτ ¼ 1 is the limiting condition of the GQ/H θτ ≤ 1 and θτ ≠ 0:
model, and thus it is worthwhile to explore this case. Fig. 2(a)

rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
n
o2

shows the normalized shear stress curve plotted versus the normal-
1 þ δδτGγγr − 1 þ δδτGγγr − 4δτ θτ δδτGγγr
ized shear strain in arithmetic scale for the condition of θτ ¼ 1. This τ
¼ ð17Þ
case produces a degenerate hyperbola which represents an elastic- δ τ τ max 2δ τ θτ
perfectly plastic material response. As shear strains approach the
reference shear strain, the shear stress approaches the maximum and
shear stress at a linear slope of G=Gmax ¼ 1. The maximum shear 2
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
n
o2
3
stress is reached at the reference shear strain and then remains con- δG γ
6 1þ − 1 þ δδτGγγr − 4δτ θτ δδτGγγr 7
stant as shear strains approach infinity. Fig. 2(b) shows the semilog G 1 6
δτ γr
7
¼
plot of the corresponding normalized shear modulus reduction δ G Gmax δ G γ=δ τ γ r 4 2δ θ τ τ
5
curve plotted against the normalized shear strain for the condition
of θτ ¼ 1. It can be seen that the normalized shear modulus is equal
ð18Þ
to unity for shear strains less than the reference shear strain, and
transitions into the reciprocal of the normalized shear strain for
shear strains larger than the reference shear strain.
The normalized shear stress curve shown in Fig. 2(a) and the Hysteretic Behavior in GQ/H Model
normalized shear modulus reduction curve shown in Fig. 2(b) re- In the widely used nonlinear time-domain site response analysis
present the bounding (i.e., elastic-perfectly plastic) behavior of the codes (e.g., DESRA, DMOD, and DEEPSOIL), the extended un-
GQ/H model. All behavior must fall on or below these boundary load–reload Masing rules (Masing 1926) are used to model hyster-
curves. These boundaries cannot be exceeded without compromis- etic behavior. The extended Masing rules are commonly stated as:
ing the model (e.g., selecting θτ > 1). In other words, the simplest 1. For initial loading, the stress-strain curve follows the backbone
behavior that can be obtained with the GQ/H model is an elastic- curve:
perfectly plastic response. Furthermore, the bounding curves offer
an opportunity to validate the modeled behavior. τ ¼ Fbb ðγÞ ð19Þ
The Yee et al. (2013) model composed of two simplified
hyperbolic functions can be represented by a single quadratic func- in which τ is the shear stress, and Fbb ðγÞ is the backbone curve
tion with the corresponding θ functions shown in Appendix S1. function.
Additional parameterization possibilities of the GQ/H model are 2. If a stress reversal occurs at a point (γ rev , τ rev ), the stress-strain
provided in Appendix S2. curve follows a path given by

© ASCE 04016042-5 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 04016042

   
τ − τ rev γ − γ rev 1
¼ Fbb ð20Þ τ ¼ τ max f1 þ ðδ G γ=δ τ γ r Þ
2 2 2θτ
3. If the unloading or reloading curve intersects the backbone curve, qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
it follows the backbone curve until the next stress reversal. − ½1 þ ðδ G γ=δ τ γ r Þ2 − 4δ τ θτ ðδ G γ=δ τ γ r Þg ð25Þ
4. If an unloading or reloading curve crosses an unloading or re-
loading curve from the previous cycle, the stress-strain curve     
τ δ γ − γ rev
follows that of the previous cycle. τ ¼ − max 1 þ G
The backbone curve of the GQ/H model is obtained from the θτ δτ 2γ r
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
  2   
previous section δ γ − γ rev δ γ − γ rev
 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  − 1þ G − 4δ τ θτ G þ τ rev
1 δτ 2γ r δτ 2γ r
τ ¼ τ max f1þðγ=γ r Þ− ½1þðγ=γ r Þ2 −4θτ ðγ=γ r Þg ¼ Fbb ðγÞ
2θτ ð26Þ
ð21Þ
Similarly, the stress and modulus degradation indices can be
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by La Trobe University on 05/20/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The unloading-reloading curve can be obtained by applying the applied to the MRDF unloading-reloading equation as
    
second Masing rule to the backbone equation τ δ γ − γ rev
    τ ¼ Fðγ max Þ − max 1 þ G
τ γ − γ rev θτ δτ 2γ r
τ ¼ − max 1 þ sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
   2   
θτ 2γ r δ γ − γ rev δ γ − γ rev
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
    
γ − γ rev 2 γ − γ rev
− 1þ − 4θτ
2γ r 2γ r
in which γ = given shear strain; γ r = reference shear strain; γ rev =
reversal shear strain; and τ rev = reversal shear stress.
However, the hysteretic damping calculated using the unloading-
reloading stress-strain loops based on the Masing rules results in
overestimation of damping at large shear strains. Phillips and
Hashash (2009) proposed an expression that modifies the Masing
unloading-reloading rules and provides better agreement with the
damping curves at large shear strains, commonly called the modulus
reduction and damping factor (MRDF) approach. The Phillips and
Hashash (2009) MRDF reduction factor is given by
 
Gγ max p3
Fðγ max Þ ¼ p1 − p2 1 − ð23Þ
Gmax
in which p1 , p2 , and p3 are nondimensional parameters selected to
obtain the best fit with the target damping curve. Eq. (23) shows that
the reduction factor is dependent on the normalized modulus reduc-
tion curve. Thus, the user should first determine the constitutive
model parameters which provide the best fit to the backbone curve.
Then, the reduction factor parameters p1 , p2 , and p3 can be selected
to provide the best fit of the damping curve without modification of
the fit to the backbone curve. Other formulations for the reduction
factor, Fðγ max Þ, such as Darendeli (2001) are available and may be
used interchangeably in the following equations.
The MRDF approach is implemented in the 1D nonlinear site
response analysis program DEEPSOIL by including the reduction
factor, Fðγ max Þ. The modified unloading-reloading equation can be
expressed as
    using the reference curves proposed by Darendeli (2001), it is rec-
τ γ − γ rev
τ ¼ Fðγ max Þ − max 1 þ
θτ 2γ r
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
− 1þ G − 4δ τ θτ G
δτ 2γ r δτ 2γ r
þ τ rev ð22Þ 
− Gγmax δ G ðγ − γ rev Þ þ Gγmax δ G ðγ − γ rev Þ þ τ rev ð27Þ
Calibration of GQ/H Model Parameters
Generic modulus reduction and damping curves by the Electric
Power Research Institute (EPRI 1993), Vucetic and Dobry (1991),
and Darendeli (2001) are commonly used in site response analysis
to represent dynamic soil behavior when no site-specific curves are
available. The authors used the curves proposed by Darendeli
(2001), which are considered to be an improvement over curves
proposed in prior studies, to illustrate the application of the GQ/H
model. The Darendeli (2001) modulus reduction curves require
0
the initial effective vertical stress (σv0 ), the plasticity index (PI),
the overconsolidation ratio (OCR), and the initial coefficient of
effective lateral earth pressure (K 0 ) as input.
Fig. 4 shows the GQ/H model fitting procedure for a modulus
reduction curve for sands which will be used in site response
analyses for the Meloland overcrossing station in California (de-
scribed in the next section). The reference curve was obtained from
0
Darendeli (2001) for an σv0 of 521 kPa, OCR of 1, K 0 of 0.65, PI of
0, and shear strength (τ max ) of 300 kPa [Fig. 4(a)]. The target shear
stress (τ max ) was estimated by the Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion
with assumed frictional angle of 30° and zero cohesion. The initial
maximum shear modulus was estimated using a shear wave veloc-
ity (V s ) of 260 m=s and a unit weight of 18 kN=m3 . The θτ can be
computed using Eq. (12), which is fitted by the hyperbolic relation-
ship Eq. (13) [Fig. 4(b)] using a curve-fitting algorithm. When
ommended to fit θτ for shear strains between 0.001 and 0.1–0.3%
because the proposed reference curves were based on a database
  2    that becomes sparse for shear strains beyond 0.1%, and the fitting
γ − γ rev γ − γ rev
− 1þ − 4θτ − Gγ max ðγ − γ rev Þ of θτ for shear strains less than 0.001% has limited influence on
2γ r 2γ r G=Gmax . The recommended absolute maximum bound of θτ fitting
þ Gγ max ðγ − γ rev Þ þ τ rev ð24Þ is 0.3% for the Darendeli (2001) reference curves, and because of
the limited influence of the fit of G=Gmax to small strains, there
in which γ = given shear strain; γ r = reference shear strain; γ rev = is no recommended absolute minimum bound for θτ fitting. The
reversal shear strain; τ rev = reversal shear stress; and Gγmax = shear shear stress is obtained by Eq. (10). The MKZ and GQ/H models
modulus experienced at γ max on the backbone curve. both match well with the reference G=Gmax curve [Fig. 4(a)]. The
The stress and modulus degradation indices can be applied to MKZ model does not have the capability to match the target shear
the backbone and the unloading-reloading equations to account stress at large shear strains. However, the GQ/H model yields shear
for generated excess pore water pressure as stress that approaches the target shear strength at large shear strains.

© ASCE 04016042-6 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 04016042

 1 20

0.8 0

-20
0.6

G/Gmax
-40
0.4
-60
0.2 -80
0 -100
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 101 102
(a) Shear strain, (%) (b) Normalized shear strain,

0.8
Reference
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by La Trobe University on 05/20/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

= 0.576
0.6 GQ/H
MKZ
0.4

0.2

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
(c) Shear strain, (%)

Fig. 4. GQ/H model fitting procedure for sands with a vertical effective stress of 521 kPa, OCR of 1, and shear strength of 300 kPa [reference curve
from Darendeli (2001)]: (a) normalized shear modulus reduction; (b) θτ ; (c) normalized shear stress (τ =σv0 0 )

In this case, the GQ/H model achieves 95% of the target shear
strength at γ ¼ 10%.
Fig. 5 shows the effect of target shear strength on G=Gmax , θτ ,
and the shear stress generated by the GQ/H model for sands with
the same conditions as that for Fig. 4. The τ max slightly increases
G=Gmax at large strains (γ > 0.1%) [Fig. 5(a)]. The GQ/H model
yields shear stresses that approach varying target shear strengths
[Fig. 5(c)]. Fig. 6 presents this data in normalized stress-strain
space. Fig. 7 shows the MRDF hysteresis behavior of the GQ/H
model. The Masing rules yield damping ratios greater than those
by Darendeli (2001) which are based on dynamic laboratory
tests. When the MRDF procedure is applied to the GQ/H model,
damping ratios are shown to match well with the reference curve
[Fig. 7(a)]. Fig. 7(b) shows the reduction factors for hysteretic

1 5

0.8
0
0.6
G/Gmax

0.4
-5
0.2
Increasing max

0 -10
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
(a) Shear strain, (%) (b) Normalized shear strain,

0.6
Reference

0.4

0.2

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
(c) Shear strain, (%)

Fig. 5. Effect of target shear strength on (a) G=Gmax ; (b) θτ ; (c) shear stress for sands with a vertical effective stress of 521 kPa, and OCR of 1
[reference curve from Darendeli (2001)]

© ASCE 04016042-7 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 04016042

 1.2 0
Silty clay
0.8 Sand
G/Gmax

Silty clay 20

0.4 Sand
Boundary
40

Depth (m)
Clay
(a) 0
1.2 Silty sand
1 60
0.8
0.6
Silt 80
0.4
0.2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by La Trobe University on 05/20/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0 100
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 0 500 0 1000 0 30 60
(b) VS (m/s) Implied shear Implied friction
strength (kPa) angle ( )
Fig. 6. Normalized: (a) shear modulus; (b) shear stress curves for vary-
ing τ max ; the boundary curves (θτ ¼ 1) are presented (a) (b) (c) (d)

MKZ GQ/H

damping and the corresponding MRDF fitting. The authors recom-
mend that fitting of damping ratio be conducted for all available
levels of shear strain. The MRDF procedure generates reduced hys-
teretic shear stress-strain relationships for unloading and reloading
conditions as shown in Fig. 7(c).
Application of the GQ/H Model to Seismic Site
Response Analysis
The performance of the GQ/H model in seismic site response
analysis is demonstrated at two sites whose profiles correspond
to Meloland overcrossing (MEL) in El Centro, California and
Apeel #2 (A02) in Redwood City, California. The input ground
Fig. 8. Profiles of (a) stratigraphy; (b) shear wave velocity (V S ) of sta-
tion Meloland overcrossing (MEL) in California; (c) implied shear
strength; (d) implied friction angle for both MKZ and GQ/H models
motions are described later. An additional site response analysis
was conducted for comparison to centrifuge results presented in
Hashash et al. (2015). The performance of the GQ/H model is
compared with the performance of the MKZ model in accordance
with normalized shear modulus reduction curves proposed by
Darendeli’s (2001) correlations, which utilize the MKZ model as-
suming fixed model parameters. In this section, implied strength
parameters (i.e., shear strengths and friction angles) from the MKZ

40 1.2
hysteretic damping F
Reduction factor for

30
0.8
Damping ratio,

20

0.4
10

0 0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
(a) Shear strain, (%) (b) Shear strain, (%)

300
Reference
200
Shear stress, (kPa)

GQ/H + MRDF
100
GQ/H + Masing
0

-100

-200

-300
-4 -2 0 2 4
(c) Shear strain, (%)

Fig. 7. MRDF procedure for GQ/H model for sands 521 kPa, OCR of 1, and shear strength of 300 kPa [reference curve from Darendeli (2001)]:
(a) damping ratio; (b) MRDF reduction factor, FðγÞ; (c) shear stress-strain relationship for γ rev ¼ 0.3, 1.5, and 4%

© ASCE 04016042-8 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 04016042

 and GQ/H models are determined at γ ¼ 10% for the respective model are approximately 7–12° as shown in Fig. 8(d). The authors
models. Target strength parameters are the limiting strengths fit the GQ/H model to correct the friction angles to a more reason-
desired to be captured by the model as estimated from empirical able range of 25–30°. The shear strengths for the silt and clay layers
correlations. were estimated by 0.22σv0 0 (Ladd 1991) assuming OCR ¼ 1. The

Figs. 8(a and b) show profiles of stratigraphy and shear wave implied shear strengths for the silt and clay layers after correction
velocity, respectively, for station MEL (Baturay and Stewart with the GQ/H model fit are approximately 95% of the estimated
2003). The subsurface soils of this station consist of silts and clays target shear strength (0.22σv00 ) and are less than the implied shear

with layers of sands at three different depths. The natural period of
this site is approximately 1.6 s. The authors calculated modulus
reduction and damping curves by Darendeli (2001) for all soil
layers. Fig. 8(c) shows implied shear strength (τ at γ ¼ 10%)
by the MKZ model with depth, which is defined as the maximum
value of ρV 2S ðG=Gmax Þγ. It is noted that the implied friction angles
estimated by tan−1 ðτ max =σv0 0
Þ for the sand layers for the MKZ
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by La Trobe University on 05/20/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
strengths of the MKZ model. However, use of the MKZ model fit of
the modulus reduction curves results in significant underestimation
of the friction angles for the sand layers. The GQ/H model large-
strain strength is asymptotic to the target friction angle because
τ max is a direct model input [Fig. 8(d)]. Fig. 9 shows normalized
shear modulus, damping ratio, and shear stress curves at depths
corresponding to the mid-depths of three selected sand layers.

15 m
1 25 500

Shear stress (kPa)

0.8 20 400
Damping (%)
G/Gmax

0.6 15 300
0.4 10 200
0.2 5 100
0 0 0
33 m
1 25 500

Shear stress (kPa)

0.8 20 400
Damping (%)
G/Gmax

0.6 15 300
0.4 10 200
0.2 5 100
0 0 0
55 m
1 25 500
Shear stress (kPa)

0.8 20 400
Damping (%)
G/Gmax

0.6 15 300
0.4 10 200
0.2 5 100
0 -4 0 0
10 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 101 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 101 0 2 4 6 8 10
Shear strain (%) Shear strain (%) Shear strain (%)
(a) (b) (c)

MKZ GQ/H τmax

Fig. 9. (a) Normalized shear modulus; (b) damping ratio; (c) shear stress curves for station Meloland overcrossing (MEL) at selected depths (15, 33,
and 55 m) for both MKZ and GQ/H models

Table 2. Summary of Earthquakes and Stations for the Selected Ground Motions (Ancheta et al. 2014)
Earthquake name M Station name Station V S30 (m=s) Epicentral distance (km) PGA (g)
1971 San Fernando 6.61 Pacoima Dam (upper left) 2,016 11.87 1.22
1978 Tabas, Iran 7.35 Tabas 767 55.24 0.81
1989 Loma Prieta 6.93 Gilroy Array #1 1,428 28.64 0.43
1989 Loma Prieta 6.93 UCSC Lick Observatory 714 16.34 0.46
1989 Loma Prieta 6.93 Los Gatos–Lexington Dam 1,070 20.35 0.44
1990 Manjil, Iran 7.37 Abbar 724 40.43 0.52
1992 Landers 7.28 Lucerne 1,369 44.02 0.73
1994 Northridge 6.69 Pacoima Dam (downstr) 2,016 20.36 0.42
1994 Northridge 6.69 Pacoima Dam (upper left) 2,016 20.36 1.39
1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan 7.62 TCU045 705 77.50 0.49
1999 Duzce, Turkey 7.14 IRIGM 496 760 24.31 1.00
2007 Chuetsu-oki, Japan 6.80 Kashiwazaki Nishiyamacho Ikeura 655 10.47 0.86

© ASCE 04016042-9 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 04016042

 The authors used a frequency-independent damping model for the ground motion measured at Pacoima Dam during the 1971 San
viscous damping and the MRDF procedure to model the hys- Fernando earthquake. For each of the MKZ and GQ/H models,
teretic stress-strain behavior (described in Phillips and Hashash equivalent-linear (EL) and nonlinear (NL) site response analyses
2009). were conducted. Peak ground acceleration (PGA) and peak shear
The authors selected strong ground motions at stations with strain versus depth are plotted. The computed surface response
V S30 ≥ 700 m=s from the NGA-W2 database (Ancheta et al. 2014) spectra as well as the input motion response spectrum are also plot-
for use in site response analyses at the selected locations. Table 2 ted. The maximum shear strains for nonlinear and equivalent-linear
describes the earthquakes and recording stations for the 24 selected analyses using the MKZ model are approximately 3.0 and 6.5%,
motions (including both N-S and E-W records). Fig. 10 shows respectively, at a depth of 15 m as shown in Fig. 10(b). When the
the results of site response analyses for station MEL subject to implied shear strengths are corrected using the GQ/H model, the

0 2

Spectral acceleration (g)

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by La Trobe University on 05/20/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1.5
20
1

40
Depth (m)

0.5

0
60 0.01 0.1 1 10
(c) Period (s)

80 Input
Surface (EL-MKZ)
100 Surface (NL-MKZ)
0 0.5 1 0 5
Surface (EL-GQ/H)
PGA (g) Max. shear
(a) (b) strain (%) Surface (NL-GQ/H)

Fig. 10. Results of site response analysis for station Meloland overcrossing (MEL) subject to the ground motion measured at Pacoima Dam during the
1971 San Fernando earthquake: (a) PGA profiles; (b) maximum shear strain profiles; (c) response spectra on the ground surface

0 1.5
1 EL
ln(SaMKZ / SaGQ/H)

0.5
20
0
-0.5

40 -1
Depth (m)

-1.5
(c)
1.5
60
1 NL
ln(SaMKZ / SaGQ/H)

0.5

80 0
-0.5

EL NL -1
100 -1.5
-20 0 20 -20 0 20 0.01 0.1 1 10

Period (s)
(a) (b) (d)
GQ=H
Fig. 11. Differences between maximum shear strains estimated by MKZ (γ MKZ max ) and GQ/H (γ max ) models for both (a) equivalent-linear (EL); and
(b) nonlinear (NL) analyses, and residuals of spectral accelerations on the ground surface; (c) lnðSaMKZ =SaGQ=H Þ for EL; (d) NL analyses for station
Meloland overcrossing (MEL)

© ASCE 04016042-10 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 04016042

 0 0 for a nonlinear analysis using the GQ/H model are greater than
Clay
those using the MKZ model at periods <0.03 s and periods between
Sandy clay 0.2 and 2 s, which is close to and less than the elastic natural period
20 20
(1.6 s). The spectral accelerations for an equivalent-linear analysis
using the GQ/H model are greater than those using the MKZ model
at periods <2.5 s. These results are expected because the capability
Clay of the GQ/H model to model a larger shear stress results in greater
40 40 stiffness at large shear strain.
Depth (m)
Site response analyses using all 24 input ground motions were
conducted to examine the systematic differences between maxi-
mum shear strains and spectral accelerations using the MKZ and
60 60 GQ/H models. Figs. 11(a and b) show the differences in maximum
shear strains resulting from analyses using the MKZ and GQ/H
GQ=H
max − γ max ) for equivalent-linear and nonlinear analy-
Stiff clay models (γ MKZ
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by La Trobe University on 05/20/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ses, respectively. The γ GQ=H

80 80
Graywacke
100 100
0 600 100
VS (m/s)
(a) (b)
Fig. 12. Profiles of (a) stratigraphy; (b) shear wave velocity (V S ) of
station Apeel #2 (A02) in California; (c) implied shear strength for both
MKZ and GQ/H models
maximum shear strains decrease to approximately 1.0 and 2.0% for
nonlinear and equivalent-linear analyses, respectively. The maxi-
mum shear strains at other depths in the sand layers all decreased,
as expected, due to increased shear stiffness resulting from the cor-
rected shear strength. As a result of the decreased strains, the PGA
values using the GQ/H model generally increased at depths <50 m
(above the bottom of the last sand layer) compared to those using
the MKZ model as shown in Fig. 10(a). The response spectra at the
ground surface are shown in Fig. 10(c). The spectral accelerations
max is generally smaller than the γ max in
MKZ
the sand layers. Figs. 11(c and d) show residuals between spectral
MKZ accelerations on the ground surface using the MKZ and GQ/H
models ½lnðSaMKZ =SaGQ=H Þ for equivalent-linear and nonlinear
GQ/H
analyses, respectively. It is noted that that the mean (μ) of
101 102 103 ½lnðSaMKZ =SaGQ=H Þ is less than zero (representing that SaGQ=H is
Implied shear generally greater than SaMKZ ) at periods less than 3 and 4 s for
strength (kPa) equivalent-linear and nonlinear analyses, respectively. The differ-
(c) ence between SaMKZ and SaGQ=H for nonlinear analysis is most
pronounced near the elastic natural period of the site (1.6 s),
whereas that for equivalent-linear analysis is most pronounced at
period of approximately 0.6 s.
Figs. 12(a and b) show profiles of stratigraphy and shear wave
velocity, respectively, for station Apeel #2 (A02) in California
(Baturay and Stewart 2003). The site consists of predominantly soft
clay overlying stiff clays and shale. The shear strengths were esti-
mated by assuming 0.22σv0 0 above 16 m, and below 16 m ranges
0 0
from 0.3σv0 to 1.0σv0 increasing with depth. Fig. 12(c) shows the
implied shear strength for the MKZ and GQ/H models. The use of
the MKZ model fit of the modulus reduction curves results in sig-
nificant overestimation of the shear strength, whereas the implied
shear strength of the GQ/H model reaches approximately 95%
of the estimated target shear strength. This is an opposite trend
GQ=H
to the previous two cases. The difference γ MKZ
max − γ max fluctuates

0 1
ln(SaMKZ / SaGQ/H)

EL
0.5
20
0

-0.5
40
Depth (m)

-1
(c)
1
60
ln(SaMKZ / SaGQ/H)

NL
0.5

0
80
-0.5
EL NL
100 -1
-20 0 20 -20 0 20 0.01 0.1 1 10
Period (s)
(a) (b) (d)
GQ=H
Fig. 13. Differences between maximum shear strains estimated by MKZ (γ MKZ max ) and GQ/H (γ max ) models for both (a) equivalent-linear (EL);
and (b) nonlinear (NL) analyses, and residuals of spectral accelerations on the ground surface; (c) lnðSaMKZ =SaGQ=H Þ for EL; (d) NL analyses
for station A02

© ASCE 04016042-11 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 04016042

 at depths less than 16 m; however, it is less than zero at depths between SaMKZ and SaGQ=H are most pronounced near the elastic
between approximately 24 and 32 m [Figs. 13(a and b)]. The natural period of the site (1.49 s).
SaGQ=H is generally smaller than SaMKZ unlike the other two cases. A site response analysis was conducted for comparison to cen-
For both equivalent-linear and nonlinear analyses, the differences trifuge results presented in Hashash et al. (2015). In their study, the
implied soil strength was manually corrected using the procedure
0 outlined in Hashash et al. (2010) for the MKZ model, and the re-
sults of 1D site response matched closely with observed centrifuge
measurements. This study shows that similar results can be ob-
tained without manual strength correction by instead applying the
5 GQ/H model to the same profile. Figs. 14(a and b) show profiles of
stratigraphy and shear wave velocity, respectively, for the centri-
fuge model. The model consists of 26 m (at prototype scale) of
dry, dense (relative density, Dr , of approximately 55%) Nevada
10 sand. The friction angle was taken as 33° Hashash et al. (2015).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by La Trobe University on 05/20/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 14(c) shows the implied friction angle for the MKZ model
Depth (m)

Sand without strength correction and the GQ/H model. The use of the
MKZ model fit of the modulus reduction curves results in signifi-
15 cant underestimation of the friction angle, whereas the implied fric-
tion angle of the GQ/H model reaches approximately 95% of the
estimated target friction angle at γ ¼ 10%. Figs. 15(a and b) show
the PGA and maximum shear strain profiles, respectively, of site
20 response analyses conducted with the MKZ and GQ/H models us-
ing the ChiTCU input motion. The softer response of the nonlinear
MKZ model generally underestimates the PGA above a depth of
10 m relative to the centrifuge measurements. The nonlinear MKZ
25 model underestimates the surface spectral response at periods up to
0 500 0 20 40
VS (m/s) Implied friction
approximately 1 s, as shown in Fig. 15(c). The nonlinear GQ/H
angle ( ) model, however, exhibits a much-stiffer response that is in good
agreement with the centrifuge measurements of PGA and spectral
(a) (b) (c)
response. Neither of the equivalent-linear models correctly esti-
MKZ GQ/H mated the response; however, the results of the equivalent-linear
GQ/H model generally exhibited behavior closer to the measured
response.
Fig. 14. Profiles of (a) stratigraphy; (b) shear wave velocity (V S );
Three total stress site response analyses were performed to com-
(c) implied friction angle for both MKZ and GQ/H models of the
pare the results of two types of nonlinear models: one which allows
Hashash et al. (2015) centrifuge model
maximum shear strength to be specified (GQ/H model); and the

0 4
Spectral acceleration (g)

3
5
2

10
Depth (m)

0
15 0.01 0.1 1 10
(c) Period (s)

20
Input
Surface (EL-MKZ)

25 Surface (NL-MKZ)
0 0.5 1 0 2 4 6 Surface (EL-GQ/H)
PGA (g) Max. shear
(a) (b) strain (%) Surface (NL-GQ/H)
Surface (Centrifuge)

Fig. 15. Results of site response analysis for Hashash et al. (2015) centrifuge model subject to the ChiTCU input motion: (a) PGA profiles; (b) max-
imum shear strain profiles; (c) response spectra on the ground surface

© ASCE 04016042-12 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 04016042

 other in which the maximum shear strength is unspecified (MKZ
model). Normalized shear modulus reduction curves were devel-
oped using the Darendeli (2001) correlations, which provide a nor-
malized shear modulus reduction curve utilizing the MKZ model
under the assumption of fixed model parameters. The comparison
of the results of these two models demonstrates the importance
of being able to define the large-strain shear strength of the soil
via the corresponding differences in large-strain stiffness and ensu-
ing site response. In general, care should be taken when using
models and correlations in which the large-strain shear strength
is unspecified. Such models are only applicable to a limited range
of shear strain.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by La Trobe University on 05/20/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
aHD = coefficient curve-fitting parameter of the Hardin and
Drnevich (1972) model;
aHP = coefficient parameter of the Hashash and Park (2001)
pseudoreference shear strain;
bHD = exponent curve-fitting parameter of the Hardin and
Drnevich (1972) model;
bHP = exponent parameter of the Hashash and Park (2001)
pseudoreference shear strain;
Fbb ðγÞ = backbone curve function;
Fðγ max Þ = reduction factor function of the MRDF model;
G = secant shear modulus;
Gðγ1Þ = tangent shear modulus corresponding to the
transitional shear strain of the Yee et al. (2013)
model;

Conclusions Gγmax = shear modulus corresponding to the maximum shear

strain;
The quality of nonlinear seismic site response analysis results de- Gmax = maximum shear modulus;
pends primarily on the capability of employed models to accurately Gmo = initial tangent shear modulus as termed in the MKZ
represent nonlinear soil behavior. Accurate constitutive modeling model;
of this behavior requires a model which can (1) provide Gmax at K 0 = initial coefficient of effective lateral earth pressure;
zero shear strain, (2) provide τ max as shear strains approach infinity, p1 , p2 , p3 = curve-fitting parameters of the MRDF model
(3) provide flexible control of the nonlinear behavior between those (Phillips and Hashash 2009);
boundary conditions, and (4) maintain simplicity in formulation Sa = spectral acceleration;
for application in site response analysis. Over the past 50 years, SaGQ=H = spectral acceleration of a soil layer obtained using
several models have been developed, modified, and hybridized GQ/H model;
to provide several of these requirements, but typically only satisfy SaMKZ = spectral acceleration of a soil layer obtained using
two or three. MKZ model;
A new simplified nonlinear shear constitutive model is devel- s = exponent curve-fitting parameter of the MKZ and
oped from fundamental principles of general quadratic equations Darendeli (2001) models;
considering a bounding behavior of an elastic-perfectly plastic re- T = normalized shear stress function;
sponse and resulting in a hyperbolic model. The general quadratic/ u = excess pore pressure ratio;
hyperbolic (GQ/H) model satisfies all of the previously mentioned V s = shear wave velocity;
model requirements. The nonlinear behavior over the entire range V s30 = average shear wave velocity of the upper 30 m of a
of shear strain is governed by a continuous shear strain dependent soil profile;
curve-fitting function, θτ . A simple hyperbolic function is proposed β = coefficient curve-fitting parameter of the MKZ
for θτ based on consideration of several laboratory-obtained nor- model;
malized shear modulus reduction curves. The model is thus capable γ = shear strain;
of representing nonlinear behavior at all shear strains while also γ 0 = shifted shear strain of the Yee et al. (2013) model,
maintaining simplicity in formulation that allows for ease of imple- γ 0 ¼ γ − γ1;
mentation in current site response analysis software. γ 1 = transitional shear strain of the Yee et al. (2013)
The performance of the GQ/H model is demonstrated in total- model;
stress seismic site response analyses by using soil profile infor- γ h = hyperbolic shear strain function of the Hardin and
mation from the two sites in California with 24 ground motions Drnevich (1972) model;
selected from the NGA-West2 database and by comparing analyses γ max = maximum shear strain;
conducted with the GQ/H model to centrifuge test data. The results γ GQ=H
max = maximum shear strain of a soil layer obtained using
obtained using the GQ/H model are compared with those obtained GQ/H model;
using the MKZ model in terms of computed shear strains and sur- γ MKZ
max = maximum shear strain of a soil layer obtained using
face response spectra. The GQ/H model allows the shear strength MKZ model;
0
to be explicitly defined for soil layers, whereas the MKZ model γ ref = shifted reference shear strain of the Yee et al. (2013)
0
lacks this capability. As a result, the MKZ model generally under- model, γ ref ¼ ðτ max − τ 1 Þ=Gðγ1Þ ;
estimates or overestimates the large-strain shear strength of soils, γ r = reference shear strain defined as τ max =Gmax ;
therefore, producing incorrect shear strains and resulting surface γ r;HP = pseudoreference shear strain from Hashash and Park
responses. The results of the seismic site response analyses dem- (2001);
onstrate the effect of modeled shear strength of soil layers on es- γ r;MKZ = pseudoreference shear strain of the MKZ model;
timations of shear strains and spectral accelerations and highlight γ rev = shear strain at reversal;
the importance of the large-strain shear strength behavior of soils γ r;SD = pseudoreference shear strain of the Darendeli (2001)
modeled by the GQ/H model. model;
Γ = normalized shear strain function;
δ G = shear modulus degradation index function,
Notation Matasovic (1993);
δ τ = shear stress degradation index function, Matasovic
The following symbols are used in this paper: (1993);
A, B, C, D, E, F = constant coefficients of the general quadratic ∂γ = partial derivative of γ;
equation; ∂θ = partial derivative of θ;

© ASCE 04016042-13 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 04016042

 θ = curve-fitting function of the GQ/H model;
θτ = curve-fitting function of the normalized GQ/H
model;
θ1 , θ2 , θ3 , θ4 , θ5 = curve-fitting parameters of the θτ
function for the normalized GQ/H model;
λ = exponent scaling factor for the GQ/H model;
μ = mean value;
ν = exponent curve-fitting parameter of the shear stress
degradation index (Matasovic 1993);
ρ = density;
σref = reference shear stress for the Hashash and Park
(2001) reference shear strain;
σv00 = initial effective vertical stress;
τ = shear stress;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by La Trobe University on 05/20/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
τ 1 = transitional shear stress of the Yee et al. (2013)
model;
τ max = maximum shear stress;
τ mo = reference shear stress of the MKZ model; and
τ rev = shear stress at reversal.
Supplemental Data
Appendixes S1 and S2 are available online in the ASCE Library
(www.ascelibrary.org).
References
Ancheta, T. D., et al. (2014). “NGA-west2 database.” Earthquake Spectra,
30(3), 989–1005.
Baturay, M. B., and Stewart, J. P. (2003). “Uncertainty and bias in ground-
motion estimates from ground response analyses.” Bull. Seismol. Soc.
Am., 93(5), 2025–2042.
Borja, R., and Amies, A. (1994). “Multiaxial cyclic plasticity model
for clays.” J. Geotech. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1994)120:
6(1051), 1051–1070.
Boulanger, R., Kamai, R., and Ziotopoulou, K. (2011). “Numerical mod-
eling of liquefaction effects.” 4th IASPEI/IAEE Int. Symp., Univ. of
California, Santa Barbara.
Chiu, P., Pradel, D. E., Kwok, A. O.-L., and Stewart, J. P. (2008). “Seismic
response analyses for the silicon valley rapid transit project.” Geo-
technical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV, ASCE,
Sacramento, CA.
Darendeli, M. B. (2001). “Development of a new family of normalized
modulus reduction and material damping curves.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ.
of Texas, Austin, TX.
EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). (1993). “Guidelines for deter-
mining design basis ground motions.” Rep. No. TR-102293, Palo Alto,
CA.
Gingery, J., and Elgamal, A. (2013). “Shear stress-strain curves based on
the G/Gmax logic: A procedure for strength compatibility.” IACGE
2013, ASCE, Reston, VA, 721–729.
© ASCE 04016042-14
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 04016042
Green, R. A., Mitchell, J. K., and Polito, C. P. (2000). “An energy-based
excess pore pressure generation model for cohesionless soils.” Proc.,
John Booker Memorial Symp., Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Hardin, B. O., and Drnevich, V. P. (1972). “Shear modulus and damping
in soils: Design equations and curves.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Eng. Div.,
98(SM7), 667–692.
Hashash, Y. M. A., Dashti, S., Romero, M. I., Ghayoomi, M., and
Musgrove, M. (2015). “Evaluation of 1-D seismic site response
modeling of sand using centrifuge experiments.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake
Eng., 78, 19–31.
Hashash, Y. M. A., and Park, D. (2001). “Non-linear one-dimensional
seismic ground motion propagation in the Mississippi embayment.”
Eng. Geol., 62(1–3), 185–206.
Hashash, Y. M. A., Phillips, C., and Groholski, D. R. (2010). “Recent ad-
vances in non-linear site response analysis.” 5th Int. Conf. in Recent
Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics,
Missouri Univ. of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO.
Hayashi, H., Honda, M., Yamada, T., and Tatsuoka, F. (1994). “Modeling
of nonlinear stress strain relations of sands for dynamic response analy-
sis.” Proc., 10th Earthquake Engineering World Conf., Balkema,
Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Kondner, R. L., and Zelasko, J. S. (1963). “Hyperbolic stress-strain formu-
lation of sands.” 2nd pan American Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foun-
dation Engineering, Associação Brasileira de Mecânica dos Solos, São
Paulo, Brazil.
Ladd, C. C. (1991). “Stability evaluation during staged construction.” J.
Geotech. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1991)117:4(540), 540–615.
Masing, G. (1926). “Eigenspannungen und Verfestigung beim Mess-
ing.” 2nd Int. Congress on Applied Mechanics, Orell FüssliZurich,
Switzerland.
Matasovic, N. (1993). “Seismic response of composite horizontally-layered
soil deposits.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of California, Los Angeles.
Phillips, C., and Hashash, Y. M. A. (2009). “Damping formulation for non-
linear 1D site response analyses.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 29(7),
1143–1158.
Ramberg, W., and Osgood, W. (1943). “Description of stress-strain curves
by three parameters.” Rep. No. NACA-TN-902, National Advisory
Committee for Aeronautics, Washington, DC.
Stewart, J. P., and Kwok, A. O. (2008). “Nonlinear seismic ground response
analysis: Code usage protocols and verification against vertical array
data.” Geotechnical Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV, D. Zeng, M. T.
Manzari, and D. R. Hiltunen, eds., ASCE Geotechnical Special
Publication, Sacramento, CA.
Vucetic, M., and Dobry, R. (1991). “Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic re-
sponse.” J. Geotech. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1991)117:
1(89), 89–107.
Yee, E., Stewart, J., and Tokimatsu, K. (2013). “Elastic and large-strain
nonlinear seismic site response from analysis of vertical array record-
ings.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606
.0000900, 1789–1801.
Zhang, J., Andrus, R. D., and Juang, C. H. (2005). “Normalized shear
modulus and material damping ratio relationships.” J. Geotech. Geoen-
viron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:4(453), 453–464.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.