Relative Differences between Nonlinear

and Equivalent-Linear 1-D Site

Response Analyses
Byungmin Kim,a) M.EERI, Youssef M. A. Hashash,b) M.EERI,
Jonathan P. Stewart,c) M.EERI, Ellen M. Rathje,d) M.EERI,
Joseph A. Harmon,b) Michael I. Musgrove,b)
Kenneth W. Campbell,e) M.EERI, and Walter J. Silva,f) M.EERI

This study investigates the conditions for which one-dimensional (1-D) non-
linear (NL) site response analysis results are distinct from equivalent-linear (EL)
results and provides guidance for predicting when differences are large enough to
be of practical significance. Relative differences in spectral accelerations and
Fourier amplitudes computed from NL and EL analyses are assessed for a
range of site conditions and for suites of input motions appropriate for active
crustal and stable continental regions. Among several considered parameters,
EL/NL differences are most clearly dependent on shear strain index (I γ ), defined
as the ratio of input motion peak velocity to time-averaged shear-wave velocity
in the top 30 m of the soil profile. For small I γ (generally under 0.03%), EL and
NL results are practically identical, whereas at larger strains, differences can be
significant for frequencies >0.3 Hz. Frequency-dependent I γ values are recom-
mended for conditions above which NL analyses are preferred to EL. [DOI:
10.1193/051215EQS068M]

INTRODUCTION
An equivalent-linear (EL) one-dimensional (1-D) site response analysis simulates the
nonlinear response of soil using strain-compatible invariant soil properties. The EL soil prop-
erty estimates are set for an averaged strain computed as a percentage of the peak strain and
provide a response that is likely in error for lower and higher strains than the average strain.
Time domain nonlinear (NL) site response analyses incorporate changes in the soil properties
at each time step. This more rigorous approach can better capture soil behavior under large
strains such as for soft soil sites subject to strong ground motions. NL analyses require greater
care in the development of required input parameters such as model parameters, viscous
damping and profile discretization, and are generally more computationally demanding
than EL analyses. The conditions under which the two methods produce consistent and

a)
Risk Management Solutions, Inc, Newark, CA, 94560
b)
Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801
c)
Dept. of Civil and Env. Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, 90095
d)
Dept. of Civil, Architectural, and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX 78712
e)
EQECAT, Inc., Oakland, CA, 94612
f)
Pacific Engineering and Analysis, Inc., El Cerrito, CA, 94530

1845
Earthquake Spectra, Volume 32, No. 3, pages 1845–1865, August 2016; © 2016, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
1846 KIM ET AL.

divergent estimates of site amplification are of practical interest due to the advantages and
disadvantages of each.
Stewart et al. (2008) compared the results of EL and NL analyses performed by Silva
et al. (2000), and noted that there is good agreement between the two approaches over most of
the frequency range from 0.1 Hz to 100 Hz for stiff soils subject to weak motions having
PGA < 0.4 g. However, at larger shaking levels (PGA ≥ 0.4 g), NL responses are larger than
EL responses for frequencies higher than 10 Hz. Differences between EL and NL become
more pronounced for soft soils.
Kramer and Paulsen (2004) conducted an informal survey that showed that EL analyses
provide reasonable results for shear strains less than 1% to 2%. Matasovic and Hashash
(2012) also showed that that there was perception amongst practitioners that NL analyses
are preferred when computed shear strains exceed 1%, although the authors noted that
this threshold is likely too high. Many soils reach failure at around 1% shear strain, and
the onset of nonlinearity in soil behavior starts at significantly smaller strains.
Assimaki and Li (2012) proposed an empirical relationship between soil nonlinearity and
site and ground motion parameters that can be applied a priori (i.e., prior to running a
response analysis). They compared the amplification of spectral accelerations computed
by (1) commonly used site response analysis methods [i.e., the linear (LIN) and the equiva-
lent-linear]; (2) empirical site factors by Boore and Atkinson (2008); and (3) nonlinear
site response analyses using the modified Kondnor and Zelasko (MKZ) hyperbolic
model (Matasovic and Vucetic 1993). They found that the divergence of predicted ampli-
fication levels is least pronounced between EL and NL models, whereas the divergence
between LIN and NL is more pronounced and shows clear dependency on various parameters
such as input motion peak ground acceleration and the time-averaged shear-wave velocity in
the top 30 m of the soil profile (V S30 ).
Kim and Hashash (2013) reported from site response analyses for KiK-net stations sub-
ject to the 2011, M9.0, Tohoku-oki earthquake and other smaller earthquakes in Japan that
the differences between EL and NL are significant for stations with the maximum shear
strains computed from site response analyses greater than 0.3%.
Kaklamanos et al. (2013) evaluated the accuracy and precision of linear and EL site
response analyses using 100 KiK-net downhole arrays in Japan. They provided thresholds
for the reliability of each analysis method using the maximum shear strain computed from
site response analysis. Assuming that NL site response analyses reasonably estimate the soil
responses on the ground surface, they recommended against using linear analyses and pro-
posed an EL-NL transition zone in which NL is recommended when the maximum shear
strains exceed 0.1% to 0.4%. Kaklamanos et al. (2015) updated these recommendations
based on analyses of six KiK-net validation sites, from which they found that NL is preferred
over EL for maximum shear strains > ∼ 0.05%. Zalachoris and Rathje (2015) evaluated
EL and NL site response analyses using 9 borehole arrays in Japan and two other sites
(La Cienega and Lotung), and identified similar thresholds to those proposed by Kaklamanos
et al. (2013). This approach is applied a posteriori, that is, after the analyses are performed.
This study seeks to distinguish EL and NL results on an a priori basis (thus our approach
is distinct from Kaklamanos et al. 2013, 2015). The work described here replaces an earlier
RELATIVE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NONLINEAR AND EQUIVALENT-LINEAR 1-D SITE RESPONSE ANALYSES 1847

iteration by Kim et al. (2013). That earlier work used EL and NL site response analysis results
from Assimaki and Li (2012), which did not follow now-preferred analysis protocols per-
taining to the selection of input motions and nonlinear soil properties (e.g., Stewart et al.
2014). Moreover, the range of site profiles and ground motions were representative of
Western United States (WUS) conditions, whereas this study sought to also consider Central
and Eastern United States (CEUS) conditions that are known to produce different site
responses as a result of relatively large impedance contrasts and higher-frequency ground
motions than in the WUS (e.g., Silva and Costantino 2002, Hashash et al. 2014). This
study also uses a nonlinear soil model that captures the shear strengths at large strains
(Groholski et al. 2016). In addition, this study utilizes ground motion records instead of
synthetic motions, and considers Fourier amplitude spectra in addition to response spectra.
It encompasses a far larger set of analyses.
The following sections describe the conditions considered in the analysis (site profiles
and input motions), describe the simulation procedures, present representative results for
individual sites, and then interpret the results to identify conditions where EL and NL results
are distinct. Based on these results, predictive guidelines are presented to identify a priori the
conditions for which NL methods are preferred to EL for 1-D site response analysis.

INPUT MOTIONS AND SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY PROFILES

Strong ground motion records and shear-wave velocity profile data representative of
conditions in active crustal (WUS) and stable continental regions (CEUS) were collected
for site response analysis simulations conducted for this study. The combination of ground
motion records and shear-wave profile data is selected to result in similar shear strain ranges
for WUS and CEUS.

ACTIVE CRUSTAL REGION (WUS)

A total of 145 strong ground motion records from sites with V S30 ≥ 700 m∕s from the
NGA-West2 database (Ancheta et al. 2014) were selected for use as input motions in site
response analysis simulations for active crustal regions such as the WUS. Among these
motions, 101 motions are from the WUS, and 44 are from other regions (e.g., Iran,
Japan, Turkey, Italy). Figure 1a shows response spectra of the selected ground motions.
The motions come from earthquakes of magnitude between 4.0 and 7.6, and rupture distances
of 1 to 189 km. Peak ground acceleration (PGA), as indicated by the spectral acceleration
(Sa) at frequency ¼ 100 Hz, ranges approximately from 0.014 g to 1.58 g with a median
value of 0.13 g. Figure 1(c) shows the smoothed Fourier amplitude spectra of the ground
motions. Mean frequencies (approximate centroid of Fourier amplitude spectra; Rathje et al.
1998) range from 0.61 Hz to 11.59 Hz, with a mean of 3.89 Hz. Results of subsequent ana-
lyses are shown only for spectral accelerations at frequencies greater than the minimum
usable frequency from high-pass filtering and for Fourier amplitudes at frequencies between
the high-pass and low-pass frequencies. If the low-pass filtering information is not available,
no filtering was applied. High-pass and low-pass frequencies range from 0.006 Hz to 1.2 Hz
and 15 Hz to 100 Hz, respectively.
The shear-wave velocity (V S ) profile data for 24 strong motion accelerograph sites
(23 sites in California and one in Kobe, Japan) used in previous site response calibration
1848 KIM ET AL.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 1. Response spectra and smoothed Fourier amplitude spectra for input ground motions
used in this study for (a and c) the WUS and (b and d) the CEUS. The median, expðμln Þ, of all
spectra is plotted.

work by Baturay and Stewart (2003) are used as shown in Figure 2. The range of V S30 for
the selected sites is 142692 m∕s, as shown in Figure 3.

STABLE CONTINENTAL REGION (CEUS)

A total of 176 rock ground motions were selected from the suites of motions published in
NUREG-6728 (McGuire et al. 2001). These motions include actual records in CEUS as well
as motions developed by spectrally matching WUS records to CEUS spectra. High-pass and
low-pass filter frequencies of these motions range from 0.01 Hz to 2 Hz and 13 Hz to 70 Hz,
respectively. Figure 1b shows response spectra of the selected input ground motions for
CEUS. The motions come from earthquakes of magnitude between 4.5 and 7.6, and rupture
distances of 0 km to 199 km. Sa values at 100 Hz range approximately from 0.018 g to 3.64 g
with a median value of 0.25 g. Figure 1d shows the smoothed Fourier amplitude spectra.
Mean frequencies range from 0.85 Hz to 12.64 Hz, with a mean of 4.35 Hz, which are higher
than those for WUS motions.
V S profiles representative of Mississippi Embayment conditions (Hashash and Moon
2011) are used to represent the dynamic soil conditions for the CEUS. The exp(log
mean) and exp(log mean  one log standard deviation) of Vs profiles for three National
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) site conditions (Building Seismic Safety
Council (BSSC) 2004) (i.e., C, D, and E) for both upland and lowland of Mississippi
RELATIVE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NONLINEAR AND EQUIVALENT-LINEAR 1-D SITE RESPONSE ANALYSES 1849

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 2. Shear-wave velocity (V S ) profiles for WUS sites for NEHRP site conditions of (a) C,
(b) D, and (c) E.

Figure 3. V S30 for the selected sites for the WUS and CEUS. Boundaries for National Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) site class C (Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC)
2004) are shown.

Embayment are used as shown in Figure 4. The log standard deviation (σ ln ) for V S is taken as
0.15 (Romero and Rix 2005). The profile depth of 100 m is considered to represent the
general site condition of the CEUS.

SITE RESPONSE SIMULATIONS

EL and NL 1-D site response simulations were performed with program
DEEPSOIL v6.0 (Hashash et al. 2015). A total of 6,960 analyses (145 motions 
24 V S profiles  2 analysis methods, EL and NL) were performed for the WUS and
6,336 analyses (176 motions  18 V S profiles  2 analysis methods, EL and NL) for
the CEUS.
1850 KIM ET AL.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 4. Shear-wave velocity (V S ) profiles for CEUS sites for NEHRP site conditions of (a) C,
(b) D, and (c) E.

NONLINEAR SOIL PROPERTIES

Consistent with the recommendations of Stewart et al. (2014), generic modulus reduction
and damping curves of Darendeli (2001), which are considered to be an improvement over
earlier curves, were used. Required input parameters for the Darendeli (2001) curves include
effective vertical stress (σ v0 ), coefficient of earth pressure at rest (K 0 ), plasticity index (PI),
overconsolidation ratio (OCR), number of cycles, and loading frequency. Due to the lack of
site specific information, many of these parameters were assumed. Effective vertical stresses
(σ v0 ) were computed using assumed unit weights ranging from 16 kN∕m3 for soft soils to
21 kN∕m3 for stiff soils, and water table at the ground surface. The PI was assumed
using soil type information. The OCR was assumed to be 1–2. The K 0 was assumed to
vary from 0.6 for soft soils to 1.0 for stiff soils. The number of cycles and loading frequency
were assumed to be 10 Hz and 1 Hz, respectively. The shear strength was assumed based on
soil type and stiffness.

INPUT MOTION SPECIFICATION AND HALF-SPACE

The motions used in this study are either measured or simulated rock outcrop motions.
Therefore, an elastic half-space was used to represent bedrock in accordance with the guide-
line by Kwok et al. (2007). For the WUS sites, the bedrock V S was taken as 800 m∕s when the
V S does not exceed 800 m∕s, or taken as the V S value at the bottom of soil profile (at 100 m)
when the V S exceeds 800 m∕s. A V S of 3;000 m∕s was used for the bedrock at CEUS sites,
which is the recommended reference rock velocity for Central and Eastern North America
(Hashash et al. 2014). A damping ratio of 1% was assumed for the WUS and CEUS bedrock.
These bedrock conditions are shown at the base of profiles in Figure 2 and Figure 4 for WUS
and CEUS sites, respectively.
RELATIVE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NONLINEAR AND EQUIVALENT-LINEAR 1-D SITE RESPONSE ANALYSES 1851

EL AND NL ANALYSES
EL analyses utilize solutions for SH body wave propagation through a layered, visco-
elastic medium. Soil properties in each layer are evaluated using the procedure proposed by
Seed and Idriss (1969) in which the values of shear modulus (G) and damping ratio (ξ) in
each layer are iteratively adjusted until they are compatible with effective shear strains. The
iterations end when compatibility between computed strains and equivalent-linear properties
is achieved for each layer.
NL site response analyses solve for the dynamic response of multi-degree-of-freedom
systems subject to base excitation. The nonlinear soil constitutive model properties are cali-
brated to the same soil and rock properties used for EL analysis. The NL analysis tracks the
shear stress-strain relationships for each layer. The constitutive models implemented in
DEEPSOIL v6.0 (Hashash et al. 2015) are the pressure-dependent hyperbolic model that
is extended from the modified Kondner-Zelasko (MKZ) model (Matasovic 1993) and the
new General Quadratic/Hyperbolic (GQ/H) model that is capable of representing the non-
linear behavior and shear strength (Groholski et al. 2016). The GQ/H model was used as a
primary constitutive model in this study, and the results from the MKZ model are compared
with those from the GQ/H model. A frequency-independent damping model was used to
account for viscous damping at very small strains as described in Phillips and Hashash
(2009). The nonlinear constitutive soil model properties were selected to fit the Darendeli
(2001) target curves using the reduction factor procedure (MRDF) proposed by Phillips and
Hashash (2009). The fitted modulus reduction and damping curves used in NL analyses were
used for EL analyses as well. The results from nonlinear analyses using DEEPSOIL are simi-
lar with those from other codes [e.g., DMOD_2 (Matasovic 2006), TESS (Pyke 2000), and
OpenSees (Mazzoni et al. 2006)] when using the same modulus reduction and damping
curves (Stewart et al. 2008). Moreover, they are nearly identical to DMOD_2 when
using the MKZ model. Therefore, the recommendations derived from this study can be
applicable to other nonlinear site response analysis codes.

TYPICAL RESULTS OF SITE RESPONSE SIMULATIONS

Examples of computed surface response spectra at two WUS sites computed by the EL
and NL approaches are shown in Figure 5. The two sites are Obregon Park in Los Angeles,
CA (OBR) with V S30 of 457 m∕ sec and Meloland overcrossing near El Centro, CA (ELC)
with V S30 of 193 m∕s. The results in Figure 5 use three input motions having PGA ¼ 0.04 g,
0.23 g and 0.75 g (the motions are labelled in Figure 5 using NGA-West2 Record Sequence
Number (RSN) 11101, 3954, and 8165, respectively).
Looking first at the stiffer OBR site, which has a modelled soil column frequency of
1.24 Hz, the weaker RSN 11101 input motion produces negligible differences between spec-
tral accelerations computed by EL and NL methods (SaEL and SaNL , respectively) (Figure 5a).
RSN 3954 input motion produces small differences between SaEL and SaNL (Figure 5c). The
stronger RSN 8165 input motion produces more noticeable differences between SaEL and
SaNL for frequencies higher than about 8 Hz (Figure 5e). The principal difference is a
flat high frequency spectrum from EL analysis for f > 10 Hz, whereas the NL spectrum
is sloped. There is practically no difference between the computed responses at the soil col-
umn frequency of 1.24 Hz. The larger amplification by the NL analysis at moderate
1852 KIM ET AL.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

Figure 5. Response spectra for input ground motions and computed on the ground surface using
equivalent-linear (EL) and nonlinear (NL) approaches, for two selected stations: (a, c, and e) OBR
(Obregon Park in Los Angeles and (b, d, and f) ELC (Meloland in El Centro), subject to three
ground motions (a and b) RSN 11101, (c and d) RSN 3954, and (e and f) RSN 8165.

frequencies is associated with over-damping of high frequencies in the EL analysis, and the
smaller amplification by the NL analysis at high frequencies is associated with the incoher-
ence in the phase in the ground motion introduced by the instantaneous change in stiffness
that occurs upon stress reversal during the nonlinear stress-strain behavior (Rathje and
Kottke 2011).
The softer ELC site has a modelled soil column frequency of 0.63 Hz. Results from the
weaker RSN 11101 and RSN 3954 input motions are similar between EL and NL methods as
before (Figure 5b and 5d). The stronger RSN 8165 input produces differences at high fre-
quencies as with the OBR site. In addition, there are differences in computed responses at the
resonant frequency of 0.63 Hz, in which the NL amplification is smaller than that for EL. This
RELATIVE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NONLINEAR AND EQUIVALENT-LINEAR 1-D SITE RESPONSE ANALYSES 1853

difference was observed previously by Rathje and Kottke (2011) and is related to over-
estimation of resonant responses in EL due to the time and strain invariant modeling of
soil behavior (Figure 5f).
The aforementioned differences in response spectra by the EL and NL methods are also
demonstrated in Fourier amplitude spectra in Figure 6 (the spectra in log-log scale are
presented in online Appendix A). The differences in Fourier amplitudes computed by the

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

Figure 6. Smoothed and original Fourier amplitude spectra for input ground motions and
computed on the ground surface using equivalent-linear (EL) and nonlinear (NL) approaches,
for two selected stations: (a, c, and e) OBR (Obregon Park in Los Angeles and (b, d, and f)
ELC (Meloland in El Centro), subject to three ground motions (a and b) RSN 11101,
(c and d) RSN 3954 and (e and f) RSN 8165.
1854 KIM ET AL.

EL and NL methods (FaEL and FaNL , respectively) are negligible when the weaker motion is
propagated though the stiffer site, and become more pronounced as the amplitude of the
motion increases and the site becomes softer.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EL AND NL SITE RESPONSES

In this section aggregated results of all 13,296 analyses are evaluated to investigate the
relative differences between EL and NL analysis results. The analysis results for all profile-
input motion combinations were processed to compute the ratios SaEL ∕SaNL and FaEL ∕FaNL .
The present analysis focuses only on relative differences between the EL and NL methods
and does not consider performance relative to observed ground motions. Appendix A
provides summary plots of these ratios for all analyses versus period or frequency.
The trends of SaEL ∕SaNL and FaEL ∕FaNL with numerous ground motion intensity mea-
sures and site parameters were investigated to test their predictive power. Considered
parameters include: the input motion intensity measures (marked with subscript “in”) of
(1) peak ground acceleration (PGAin ) and (2) peak ground velocity (PGV in ); the site para-
meters such as (3) V S30 and (4) amplitude of the linear transfer function at the fundamental
mode site frequency (Amp); and composite parameters representing input motion intensity
and site condition, including (5) shear strain index I γ ¼ PGV in ∕V S30 (e.g., Idriss 2011) and
(6) frequency index, FI (Assimaki and Li 2012). I γ is a proxy for the shear strain induced
within the soil profile. The frequency index (FI) is the normalized cross-correlation between
the amplitude of the linear transfer function of the site and the Fourier amplitude spectrum
of the incident motion. Means and standard deviations of SaEL ∕SaNL and FaEL ∕FaNL
conditional on ranges of all predictive parameters are presented in Appendix B. Among
the considered parameters, the strain index (I γ ) correlates most strongly with relative differ-
ences between EL and NL responses.
I γ can be estimated prior to site response simulations, and is strongly correlated with the
maximum shear strain throughout a soil profile (γ max ) from NL analyses in log-log scale as
shown in Figure 7. The relationship between I γ and γ max from EL analyses is discussed in
Appendix B. The relationships between I γ and γ max are similar for the WUS and CEUS simu-
lations, despite the differences in ground motions and reference rock conditions. Computed
γ max values are larger than the I γ by a consistent amount up to I γ of approximately 0.03%.
This is caused in part by the fact that the strain index is computed using the average shear
wave in the top 30 m rather than the (likely smaller) Vs at the location in the profile having the
peak strain (mostly less than 20 m). When a shallower depth is considered for the average
shear wave velocity (e.g., V S10 ), the strain indices become closer to γ max values (Appendix B).
However, the V S30 is still preferred because it is the most widely used predictor variable
for site effects and is readily available in the U.S. and elsewhere. Computed γ max values
become much larger than I γ at values greater than 0.03% due to the increasing softening
of the soil from nonlinearity, but the correlation between γ max and I γ remains. There is greater
variability in the WUS data than in the CEUS data as represented by log standard deviation
due to more variability in the WUS soil profiles (Figure 2 and Figure 4).
Figure 8 plots SaEL ∕SaNL versus strain index (I γ ) at eight selected frequencies for the
WUS simulations. Mean values of SaEL ∕SaNL are close to unity at low I γ for all frequencies,
and at the lowest plotted frequency of 0.3 Hz are nearly unity for all I γ . However, SaEL ∕SaNL
RELATIVE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NONLINEAR AND EQUIVALENT-LINEAR 1-D SITE RESPONSE ANALYSES 1855

(a) (b)

Figure 7. Relationships between shear strain index and maximum strain estimated by a non-
linear site response analysis for the (a) WUS and (b) CEUS. Grouped log mean (μln ) and
log mean  one log standard deviation (σ ln ) are plotted. Bilinear fits with correlation coefficients
(r) are presented.

deviates from unity for I γ > ∼0.1%, especially at lower frequencies (0.5 to 3 Hz). At mid-
frequencies of 0.5–1.0 Hz, which approximately encompass the soil column resonant fre-
quencies, SaEL ∕SaNL increases with I γ because of the overestimation of resonant response
in EL analyses when the soil response becomes nonlinear. At frequencies from 2 Hz to 3 Hz,
SaEL ∕SaNL increases with I γ at large strains because of overdamping from EL analysis. The
mean values of SaEL ∕SaNL are close to unity at all I γ for frequencies from 5 to 10 Hz. This is
due to the mixed effects of over-damping of high frequencies in EL analyses, and phase
incoherence of ground motions in NL analyses. The mean values of SaEL ∕SaNL gradually
increase with I γ at a frequency of 100 Hz.
Differences between responses computed by EL and NL analyses are somewhat more
clearly expressed from Fourier amplitude ratios as shown in Figure 9. This observation is
expected because Fourier amplitudes represent only a single frequency, while spectral accel-
erations represent a range of frequencies. Mean values of FaEL ∕FaNL are close to unity at low
I γ , and start to deviate from unity for I γ > ∼0.1%. At the mid-frequencies of 0.5–1.0 Hz,
which approximately encompass the soil column resonant frequencies, FaEL ∕FaNL increases
with I γ . This results from the overestimation of resonant responses in EL analyses when the
soil responses becomes nonlinear, as noted previously. At higher frequencies of f ≥ 2 Hz,
FaEL ∕FaNL decreases with I γ . This decrease is caused by overdamping from EL analysis, as
described previously. The decrease of FaEL ∕FaNL with I γ extends to increasingly smaller
strains as frequency increases.
Results for CEUS sites are shown in Figure 10 and Figure 11 for Sa and Fa ratios, respec-
tively. The results are generally similar to those for WUS sites, except that the high frequency
de-amplification is evident at CEUS sites from Sa ratios at 10 Hz, which is not the case for
WUS sites.
1856 KIM ET AL.

Figure 8. Ratio of SaEL to SaNL for WUS in terms of shear strain index, I γ , for eight select
periods.

Figure 12 compares the trends of mean values of SaEL ∕SaNL and FaEL ∕FaNL against I γ
for WUS and CEUS sites. Mean values of SaEL ∕SaNL for the WUS and CEUS are generally
within a similar range (1 to 2) although there are some differences (Figure 12a). Mean values
of FaEL ∕FaNL for WUS and CEUS sites are in better agreement than those of SaEL ∕SaNL
(Figure 12b). For both the WUS and CEUS cases, the mean values of FaEL ∕FaNL start to
deviate from unity at I γ of around 0.1%, except for frequencies of 5 Hz and greater which
start to deviate from unity at lower I γ .
Figure 13 shows I γ values at which the EL response differs from the NL response by 20%
(i.e., the I γ at which mean of SaEL ∕SaNL or FaEL ∕FaNL ¼ 0.8 or 1.2). The 20% of difference
level is selected based on the judgment, and other levels (i.e., 10% and 30%) are also con-
sidered in the next paragraph. These values for Sa, I γ ðSa20% Þ, and for Fa, I γ ðFa20% Þ, are
plotted as a function of frequency. Although there are some differences of SaEL ∕SaNL for
the WUS and CEUS (Figure 12a), the I γ ðSa20% Þ values for the two regions are comparable
RELATIVE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NONLINEAR AND EQUIVALENT-LINEAR 1-D SITE RESPONSE ANALYSES 1857

Figure 9. Ratio of FaEL to FaNL for WUS in terms of shear strain index, I γ , for eight
select frequencies.

(Figure 13a). The I γ ðSa20% Þ values generally range from 0.04% to 0.1% for intermediate
frequencies (1–3 Hz), and increase markedly for lower frequency, indicating decreasing
significance of EL-NL differences. The I γ ðSa20% Þ values for a frequency of 100 Hz are
approximately 0.02%. As shown in Figure 13b, the results for I γ ðFa20% Þ are much more
scattered. The I γ ðFa20% Þ values range from 0.1% to 0.3% for intermediate frequencies
(1–3 Hz), and become smaller for higher frequencies and larger for lower frequencies.
The results from the MKZ model with uncorrected shear strengths are similar to those
from the GQ/H model.
Given the general similarity of the trends in Figure 13 for WUS and CEUS conditions, as
well as for Sa and Fa ratios, frequency-dependent threshold values of I γ are proposed to
identify conditions where EL results depart from NL by amounts exceeding 20%:
1858 KIM ET AL.

Figure 10. Ratio of SaEL to SaNL for CEUS in terms of shear strain index, I γ , for eight
select periods.

I γ ¼ 0.09f 0.8
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e1;41;226 (1)

This recommendation is applicable for f < 5 Hz for spectral accelerations, and for
f < 10 Hz for Fourier amplitudes. A greater weight for site amplifications derived from
NL methods should be considered at I γ greater than the proposed threshold depending
on the frequency range of interest. As the proposed threshold is inversely related to fre-
quency, the highest frequency of interest can be used to select the strain index threshold.
This threshold is applicable to both active crustal and stable continental regions. The
same conclusions are derived when the WUS motions are propagated through the CEUS
profiles and vice versa, which confirms the region-independence of the threshold. The
threshold values of I γ for different levels (i.e., 10% and 30%) of differences between EL
and NL are also provided in Figure 14.
RELATIVE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NONLINEAR AND EQUIVALENT-LINEAR 1-D SITE RESPONSE ANALYSES 1859

Figure 11. Ratio of FaEL to FaNL for CEUS in terms of shear strain index, I γ , for eight select
frequencies.

Figure 14 compares the threshold values of I γ from different studies. The maximum shear
strain values proposed by Kaklamanos et al. (2013, 2015), and Kim and Hashash (2013), as
well as those obtained from surveys (Kramer and Paulsen 2004; Matasovic and Hashash
2012), were converted to average I γ values using the WUS and CEUS correlations
shown in Figure 7. The I γ values recommended by this study are smaller than those by
Kim et al. (2013) who proposed an I γ of 0.1% for a frequency of approximately 5 Hz,
and I γ values larger than 0.1% for other frequencies, based on the 10% difference between
SaEL and SaNL . The maximum strain threshold of 1% obtained from surveys (Kramer and
Paulsen 2004; Matasovic and Hashash 2012) converts to I γ ≈ 0.13%, which exceeds values
recommended by this study for f > 1 Hz. The Kim and Hashash (2013) threshold of 0.3%
(based the approximately 30% difference between SaEL and SaNL ) converts to I γ ≈ 0.06%
1860 KIM ET AL.

(a)

(b)

Figure 12. Comparison of mean values of (a) SaEL ∕SaNL and (b) FaEL ∕FaNL versus shear strain
index, I γ , for the WUS and CEUS.

(a) (b)

Figure 13. Shear strain index, I γ , at which the EL response differs than the NL response by 20%
for (a) spectral accelerations [mean of SaEL ∕SaNL ¼ 0.8 or 1.2, I γ ðSa20% Þ], and (b) Fourier ampli-
tudes [mean of FaEL ∕FaNL ¼ 0.8 or 1.2, I γ ðFa20% Þ]. The results from the MKZ model (without
the shear strength correction) are also shown.

which matches our recommendation at 1–2 Hz. The Kaklamanos et al. (2013) thresholds
follow a similar trend with frequency to that proposed here, but their threshold values are
only for frequencies higher than 2 Hz. The Kaklamanos et al. (2015) threshold (I γ ≈ 0.02%)
matches the recommendation by this study for f > 3 Hz. The thresholds proposed by
RELATIVE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NONLINEAR AND EQUIVALENT-LINEAR 1-D SITE RESPONSE ANALYSES 1861

0.1

Figure 14. Comparison of threshold values of I γ with those by Kim et al. (2013) and those con-
verted from maximum shear strains (Kramer and Paulsen 2004, Matasovic and Hashash 2012,
Kaklamanos et al. 2013, Kim and Hashash 2013, Kaklamanos et al. 2015).

Kaklamanos et al. (2013) and Kaklamanos et al. (2015) are based on the conditions at
which the Sa residuals start to deviate from zero.

CONCLUSIONS
This study investigates the relative differences between results of equivalent-linear
(EL) and nonlinear (NL) one-dimensional site response using a large suite of simula-
tions using input motion profile suites representative of western US and central and
eastern US conditions. EL-NL differences are expressed using frequency-dependent
ratios of spectral accelerations and Fourier amplitudes written as SaEL ∕SaNL and
FaEL ∕FaNL , respectively.
Various ground motion and site parameters that can be computed a priori (PGAin , PGV in ,
V S30 , Amp, I γ , and FI) were considered. It is found that the shear strain index, I γ , which
can be estimated by PGV in ∕V S30 , correlates most strongly with the departure of the
ground motion ratios. Mean values of SaEL ∕SaNL and FaEL ∕FaNL are close to unity at
low I γ , and start to deviate from unity for I γ ≈ 0.1% for frequencies from 1 Hz to 3 Hz.
EL and NL results depart at lower strains for higher frequencies (f ≥ 5 Hz). For the frequen-
cies lower than 1 Hz, the responses of EL and NL methods become distinct at larger
I γ (>0.1%).
There are two causes of departures between EL and NL results for nonlinear problems.
Near the resonant site frequency, EL ordinates exceed NL due to EL forming a more strongly
resonant response that is associated with the time-invariant soil properties. At high frequen-
cies, EL ordinates are lower than NL due to EL overdamping. These differences are more
distinct for Fourier amplitudes ratios than for spectral acceleration ratios.
Based on 10% to 30% differences between EL and NL responses, frequency-dependent
I γ values are proposed as thresholds which can be considered applicable to both WUS and
CEUS conditions. The present analyses may not be adequate for distinguishing high-
frequency ground motion components (generally at frequencies higher than 10 Hz,
including PGA).
1862 KIM ET AL.

LIST OF SYMBOLS
f = Frequency
FaEL = Fourier amplitude estimated by equivalent-linear site response analysis
FaNL = Fourier amplitude estimated by nonlinear site response analysis
K0 = Coefficient of earth pressure at rest
Iγ = Shear strain index
I γ ðSa20% Þ = Shear strain index at which the spectral acceleration estimated by
equivalent-linear site response analysis differs than the that by nonlinear
analysis by 20%
I γ ðFa20% Þ = Shear strain index at which the Fourier amplitude estimated by
equivalent-linear site response analysis differs than the that by
nonlinear analysis by 20%
PGA = Peak ground acceleration
PGAin = Peak ground acceleration of incident motion
PGV = Peak ground velocity
PGV in = Peak ground velocity of incident motion
OCR = Overconsolidation ratio
PI = Plasticity index
SaEL = Spectral acceleration estimated by equivalent-linear site response analysis
SaNL = Spectral acceleration estimated by nonlinear site response analysis
VS = Shear-wave velocity of the subsurface soil
V S30 = Time-averaged shear-wave velocity in the upper 30 meters of sediments
γ max = Maximum shear strain throughout a depth of soil profile computed by
a site response analysis
σ v0 = Effective vertical stress

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was partially supported by the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
Center (PEER) as part of NGA-East, a project funded by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and the Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI), with the participation of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Any opinions,
findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the organizations listed above. The authors
would also like to thank Dr. James Kaklamanos and the anonymous reviewers for their
detailed and insightful comments which improved the quality of the manuscript.

APPENDICES
Please refer to the online version of this paper to access the supplementary material
provided in the appendices.

REFERENCES
Ancheta, T. D., Darragh, R. B., Stewart, J. P., Seyhan, E., Silva, W. J., Chiou, B. S.-J., Wooddell,
K. E., Graves, R. W., Kottke, A. R., Boore, D. M., Kishida, T., and Donahue, J. L., 2014.
NGA-West2 database, Earthquake Spectra 30, 989–1005.
RELATIVE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NONLINEAR AND EQUIVALENT-LINEAR 1-D SITE RESPONSE ANALYSES 1863

Assimaki, D., and Li, W., 2012. Site- and ground motion-dependent nonlinear effects
in seismological model predictions, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 32,
143–151.
Baturay, M. B., and Stewart, J. P., 2003. Uncertainty and bias in ground-motion estimates
from ground response analyses. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 93,
2025–2042.
Boore, D. M., and Atkinson, G. M., 2008. Ground-motion prediction equations for the average
horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA at spectral periods between 0.01 s
and 10.0 s, Earthquake Spectra 24, 99–138.
Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC), 2004. NEHRP Recommended Provisions and
Commentary for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA
450), 2003 Edition, National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, D.C.
Darendeli, M. B., 2001. Development of a New Family Of Normalized Modulus Reduction
and Material Damping Curves, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
Groholski, D. R., Hashash, Y. M. A., Kim, B., Musgrove, M., Harmon, J., and Stewart, J. P.,
2016. Simplified model for small-strain nonlinearity and strength in 1-D seismic site response
analysis, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)
GT.1943-5606.0001496.
Hashash, Y. M. A., Kottke, A. R., Stewart, J. P., Campbell, K. W., Kim, B., Moss, C., Nikolaou,
S., Rathje, E. M., and Silva, W. J., 2014. Reference rock site condition for central and Eastern
North America, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 104, 684–701.
Hashash, Y. M. A., and Moon, S., 2011. Site Amplification Factors for Deep Deposits and Their
Application in Seismic Hazard Analysis for Central U.S., U.S. Geological Survey, 91 pp.
Hashash, Y. M. A., Musgrove, M. I., Harmon, J. A., Groholski, D. R., Phillips, C. A., and Park,
D., 2015. DEEPSOIL 6.0, User Manual, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Idriss, I. M., 2011. Use of Vs30 to represent local site conditions, in 4th LASPEI/IAEE
International Symposium Effects of Surface Geology on Strong Ground Motions, Santa
Barbara, CA.
Kaklamanos, J., Baise, L. G., Thompson, E. M., and Dorfmann, L., 2015. Comparison of 1-D
linear, equivalent-linear, and nonlinear site response models at six KiK-net validation sites,
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 69, 207–219.
Kaklamanos, J., Bradley, B. A., Thompson, E. M., and Baise, L. G., 2013. Critical parameters
affecting bias and variability in site response analyses using KiK-net downhole array data,
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 103, 1733–1749.
Kim, B., and Hashash, Y. M. A., 2013. Site response analysis using downhole array recordings
during the March 2011 Tohoku-Oki earthquake and the effect of long-duration ground
motions, Earthquake Spectra 29, S37–S54.
Kim, B., Hashash, Y. M. A., Kottke, A. R., Assimaki, D., Li, W., Rathje, E. M., Campbell, K. W.,
Silva, W. J., and Stewart, J. P., 2013. A predictive model for the relative differences
between nonlinear and equivalent-linear site repsonse analyses, in 22nd Conference on
Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology (SMiRT22), 18–23 August 2013, San
Francisco, CA.
Kramer, S. L., and Paulsen, S. B., 2004. Practical use of geotechnical site response models,
in Proceedings of the International Workshop on Uncertainties in Nonlinear Soil Properties
and their Impact on Modeling Dynamic Soil Response, University of California, Berkeley,
10 pp.
1864 KIM ET AL.

Kwok, A. O. L., Stewart, J. P., Hashash, Y. M. A., Matasovic, N., Pyke, R., Wang, Z., and Yang,
Z., 2007. Use of exact solutions of wave propagation problems to guide implementation
of nonlinear seismic ground response analysis procedures, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 133, 1385–1398.
Matasovic, N., 1993. Seismic Response of Composite Horizontally-Layered Soil Deposits, Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Matasovic, N., 2006. D-MOD_2 - A computer program for seismic response analysis of
horizontally layered soil deposits, earthfill dams, and solid waste landfills, User’s Manual.
GeoMotions, LLC, Lacey, WA, 20 pp.
Matasovic, N., and Hashash, Y., 2012. NCHRP428: Practices and Procedures for Site-Specific
Evaluations of Earthquake Ground Motions (A Synthesis of Highway Practice), National
Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.,
78 pp.
Matasovic, N., and Vucetic, M., 1993. Cyclic characterization of liquefiable sands, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 119, 1805–1822.
Mazzoni, S., McKenna, F., Scott, M. H., and Fenves, G. L., 2006. The Opensees Command
Language Manual, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California,
Berkeley, 451 pp.
McGuire, R. K., Silva, W. J., and Costantino, C. J., 2001. Technical Basis for Revision
of Regulatory Guidance on Design Ground Motions: Hazard- and Risk-Consistent
Ground Motion Spectra Guidelines, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington,
D.C.
Phillips, C., and Hashash, Y. M. A., 2009. Damping formulation for nonlinear 1-D site response
analyses, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29, 1143–1158.
Pyke, R. M., 2000. TESS: A Computer Program for Nonlinear Ground Response Analyses,
TAGA Engineering Systems & Software. Lafayette, CA.
Rathje, E. M., Abrahamson, N., and Bray, J., 1998. Simplified frequency content estimates of
earthquake ground motions, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 124,
150–159.
Rathje, E. M., and Kottke, A. R., 2011. Relative differences between equivalent-linear and non-
linear site response methods, in 5th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical
Engineering, Santiago, Chile, 12 pp.
Romero, S. M., and Rix, G. J., 2005. Ground Motion Amplification in the Upper Mississippi
Embayment, National Science Foundation Mid America Center, Atlanta, GA, 461 pp.
Seed, H. B., and Idriss, I. M., 1969. Influence of soil conditions on ground motions during
earthquakes, ASCE J Soil Mech Found Div 95.
Silva, W., and Costantino, C., 2002. Development of site-specific design ground motions in
Western and Eastern North America, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 22,
755–764.
Silva, W. J., Darragh, R., Gregor, N., Martin, G., Abrahamson, N., and Kircher, C., 2000.
Reassessment of Site Coefficients and Near-Fault Factors for Building Code Provisions,
U.S. Geological Survey, National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, 105 pp.
Stewart, J. P., Afshari, K., and Hashash, Y. M. A., 2014. Guidelines For Performing Hazard-
Consistent One-Dimensional Ground Response Analysis for Ground Motion Prediction,
PEER Report 2014/16, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California, Berkeley, 120 pp.
RELATIVE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NONLINEAR AND EQUIVALENT-LINEAR 1-D SITE RESPONSE ANALYSES 1865

Stewart, J. P., Kwok, A. O.-L., Hashash, Y. M. A., Matasovic, N., Pyke, R., Wang, Z., and
Yang, Z., 2008. Benchmarking of Nonlinear Geotechnical Ground Response Analysis
Procedures, PEER Report 2008/04, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
University of California, Berkeley, 186 pp.
Zalachoris, G., and Rathje, E., 2015. Evaluation of one-dimensional site response techniques
using borehole arrays, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 141,
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001366, 04015053.
(Received 12 May 2015; accepted 14 November 2015)