See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/265747745

Simplified procedures for estimating the fundamental period of

a soil profile

Article  in  Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America · January 1976

CITATIONS READS
170 2,682

3 authors, including:

Ricardo Dobry Issa Oweis

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Oweis Engineering Inc
118 PUBLICATIONS   7,757 CITATIONS    19 PUBLICATIONS   373 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Liquefaction Analysis View project

landfill closure View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ricardo Dobry on 17 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 BulletinoftheSeismologicalSocietyofAmerica. Vol.66, No.4, pp. 1293 1321.August 1976

SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING THE FUNDAMENTAL

PERIOD OF A SOIL PROFILE

BY RICARDO DOBRY, ISSA OWEIS, AND ALFREDO URZUA

ABSTRACT

A study was made of simplified procedures for estimating the fundamental

period, T, of a linear or equivalent linear model of a soil profile. Closed form
solutions and approximate methods for computing the first period of an elastic
shear-beam representation of the profile were examined. Closed form solutions are
presented in chart form for the following cases: (a) shear-wave velocity increasing
as a power of depth, (b) shear modulus increasing or decreasing linearly with depth,
(c) two-layer profile, and (d) overconsolidated or uniform crust on layer with
modulus increasing with depth. Seven approximate methods developed to estimate
the period of a layered soil profile without a computer were also discussed and
evaluated. For this evaluation, the periods of 76 representative soil profiles were
estimated by each one of the approximate methods, and the results compared with
the exact values. Methods 6 (Successive Use of Two-Layer Solution) and 7
(Simplified Version of the Rayleigh Procedure) gave errors less than 10 per cent for
the period in all cases considered, and these methods are recommended for practical
use. The approximate methods and the closed form solution charts may be used to
estimate the characteristic site period, Ts, included in the proposed (1976)
modifications to the seismic provisions of the Unified Building Code.

INTRODUCTION

Observations made after destructive earthquakes have shown a correlation between

damage and local geology, with the destruction being in general larger on soft than on
hard soil or rock (Duke, 1958; Medvedev, 1965). Although part of the explanation resides in
excessive settlement, liquefaction or other failure phenomena occurring in soft or loose
sediments during earthquakes, there is also evidence that the characteristics of ground
shaking can be modified by the local soil conditions (Ohsaki, 1969; Seed, 1969). Some
recent earthquakes have illustrated dramatically this effect, through selective damage and
collapse of long-period buildings located in areas having softer or deeper soils: Mexico
City in 1957 (Duke and Leeds, 1959), Caracas in 1967 (Seed et al., 1971), Bursa, Turkey in
1970 (Tezcan and Ipek, 1973; Whitman et al., 1974).
In the last few years, the fast growth in the number of available strong-motion records
has allowed statistical studies of the characteristics of horizontal ground shaking,
includ]ng the effect of local geology. Trifunac and Brady (1975) investigated 374
horizontal accelerograms corresponding to 187 records obtained in the western United
States between 1933 and 1971. Using as a basis for the comparison the Modified Mercalli
Intensity Scale, they obtained average values of peak acceleration which were somewhat
lower for sites on alluvium than for sites on rock. Average peak velocities and
displacements, on the other hand, were higher for the alluvium. This suggests a shift to the
long,period range caused by the presence of soil. The same trend is shown by Figure 1,
which summarizes a study of horizontal ground acceleration response spectra published
by Seed et al. (1974). This last investigation included 104 accelerograms from sites in the
United States and other countries where the soil conditions were known in some detail.
1293
1294 RICARDO DOBRY, ISSA OWEIS, AND ALFREDO URZUA

Before obtaining the averages shown in Figure 1, all response spectra were normalized
with respect to the peak ground acceleration. Figure 1 shows that tall buildings founded

l I I I I

Spectra f~ 5% dompmg

c_o / - - Soft to mediumclay and sand

~ f f ~ r ~ / c o h/~--Deep
es,onle/ ..... Is (>ZSO ft,
;3
/-st,f, so, c°n""'o°s/<'SOf"
~g

I I I I I
O O5 ~0 iS Z.O 25 30
Period - seconds

FIG. 1. Average acceleration spectra for different site conditions [Seed et al., 1974).

TABLE l
NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE BUILDING CODES AND SITE CONDITIONS*

Seismic Forces Factor S is Factor S is Function

Independent of Local Function of Soil and of Site Condition s and
Site Conditions Foundation Conditions of Building Period

E1 Salvador Algeria Argentina

Italy Bulgaria Chile
Philippines Canada Japan
Cuba Mexico
France [Mexico City)
Greece New Zealand
India Rumania
Iran Turkeyt
Israel USA (California)~
Peru USA
Portugal (Massachusetts)§
Spain
USSR
Venezuela

* From IAEE 1973, unless otherwise specified.

~-Tezcan (1973).
Proposed 1976 UBC (SEAOC, 1974).
§ Massachusetts Building Code (1975).

on deep or soft alluvium may be subjected to seismic f6rces several times larger than
similar buildings on rock, if the peak ground acceleration is the same in both cases.
Therefore, observed damage patterns and the statistical analysis of recorded motions
 METHODS FOR ESTIMATING THE F U N D A M E N T A L PERIOD OF A SOIL PROFILE 1295

suggest that both stiffness and depth of soil should be considered in the seismic design of
structures, especially in the long-period range. A survey of the earthquake resistant
regulations for buildings in 25 countries is summarized in Table 1, and it shows that most
codes consider local soil conditions in one way or another. The expression contained in
many codes for calculating the base shear force for building design has typically the form
F=ZIKCSW (1)
where
F = Design base shear
W= Weight of building
Z 1K C = Seismic coefficient including the effect of regional seismicity (Z); and of
importance (I), type (K) and period (C) of the structure
S = Soil factor.
The expression contained in the proposed (1976) modifications to the California and U.S.A.
Unified Building Code (UBC) regulation is identical to equation (1), except that the letter
V is used in the UBC expression for the design base shear instead o f f used in equation (1)
(SEAOC, 1974). Expressions given in other codes may be similar though not necessarily
identical to equation (1) (IAEE, 1973). We are especially interested in the way the soil
factor, S, is specified. In most of the codes listed in the second column of Table 1, S = 1 for
firm ground and 'S> 1 if the building is on soft ground; in these countries, S is only a
function of the stiffness of the ground and it is independent of the period of the building.
Some other countries, listed in the third column of Table 1, have switched, more or less
recently, to a more sophisticated approach, which tries to incorporate some of the
evidence discussed above. In these codes, S depends On the fundamental period of the
structure, as well as on the stiffness and the depth of the soil at the site.
Figure 2 presents the specifications contained in the Mexico City and Chilean Building
codes concerning the influence of soil conditions. Figure 3 shows the design coefficient,
CS, specified by the proposed UBC to be used in connection with equation (1), for two
different site conditions. In the new version of UBC, both S and the product CS are
functions of the characteristic site period, Ts. This characteristic site period depends on the
stiffness and depth to rock-like material of.the soil profile at the site. For horizontally
layered soil profiles, UBC specifies T~ as the value that would be calculated by a one-
dimensional soil response analysis using horizontally polarized, vertically propagating,
seismic shear waves, with due consideration given to the nonlinear slress:strain behavior
of soil materials (SEAOC, 1974). In Figure 3, the two site conditions have been assumed to
correspond to T~=0.5 and Ts= 1.5 seconds, respectively. The characterization of site
conditions by a site period was first introduced into the Chilean Code (IAEE, 1973: Arias et
al., 1969, see also Figure 2b). More recently; the same concept has been incorporated into
the Turkish Code (Tezcan, 1973). Similar proposals have been made for the city of Caracas
(Whitman, .1970; Seed et al., 1970), Japan (Muto, 1963, cited by Ohsaki, 1969), and Puerto
Rico (Capacete, 1971).
The proposed 1976 UBC allows the use of soil response analysis and also of simplified
procedures to estimate Ts. Once Ts has been determined, curves of design CS Versus
structural period (such as shown in Figure 3) can be constructed for the site and the base
shear calculated by means of equation (1). If no estimate of T~is made, the value (CS) max
= 1.5 C (see Figure 3) is to be used (SEAOC, 1974).
This paper studies simplified procedures to compute or estimate the fundamental
period, T, of a linear or equivalent linear soil profile of known properties. The soil deposit
is modeled as a one-dimensional, elastic shear beam on rigid rock. These procedures may
1296 RICARDO DOBRY, ISSA OWEIS, AND ALFREDO URZUA

be used in connection with the determination of the factor S and of the product CS of the
proposed UBC. The value of the soil period, T, determined by these procedures may be

1.oi
a MEXICO CI TY

LOW COMPRESSIBILITY SOILS

s
\ I

0.5
COMPRESSIBILITY SOILS

Ok
0 2 3 4

PERIOD OF STRUCTURE - SECONDS

l.O

SOIL TYPE

g'I5 Rock,
Dense sand, s t i f f to h a r d
cohesive soils
Loose granular soils, medium I
s t i f f and soft cohesive soils I
I
I
I
I
0.2
0.3

0.9

0 I
(PERIOD OF STRUCTURE)/Ts

F~G. 2. Soil factor in building codes of(a) Mexico City and (b) Chile (IAEE, 1973).

equal to T~, if the shear moduli, G, or shear wave velocities, V, used in the computations
already incorporate an appropriate reduction for nonlinear effects, such as obtained in site
response analyses using the equivalent linear approach. If the values of G or V used to
 METHODS FOR ESTIMATING THE FUNDAMENTAL PERIOD OF A SOIL PROFILE 1297

determine T correspond to small strains in the soil, UBC specifies the use of a factor R < 1,
and T~= T/R. The values of R to be used in different seismic zones are (SEAOC, 1974):

Seismic Zone R

1 0.9
2 0.8
3 0.67
4 0.67

BASIC EQUATION

Figure 4 shows a linear elastic, cantilever shear beam representing a soil profile on rigid
rock; this beam extends indefinitely in all horizontal directions. The soil parameters
needed for the computation of the fundamental period, T (sec) of the profile are: the mass
density, p, the shear-wave velocity, V, and the thickness of the deposit, H. Alternatively to V,
the shear modulus, G = pV 2 can be specified. The mass density is defined as: p = 7/g, where
7 = total unit weight of the soil, and g = acceleration of gravity = 32.2 ft/sec 2.
These parameters vary in general with depth, z, as shown in Figure 4. The equation of
motion of shear Waves that travel up and down the soil column is
02X 0 // ~X'~
p &2=~z~G~z) (2)

where z = vertical coordinate, t = time, and x = x(z, t) is the horizontal soil displacement.
The general solution of x(z, t) satisfying equation (2) is an infinite series. If the soil is
vibrating in the first mode at the fundamental frequency, co(rad/sec), only the first term of the
series needs to be considered. In that case, all points of the soil are vibrating in phase at the
frequency co, and

x(z, t)=X(z)exp (icot),

whereX(z) = first modal shape and i = ~ 1. If this expression for x(z, t)is substituted into
equation (2), after some algebra, equation (3) can be obtained

d2X 1 dG dX pco2
dz 2 + G dz dz + ~ X = 0 . t3)

Two boundary conditions are needed to solve equation (3); they correspond to the rock
interface being a zero relative displacement plane, and the ground surface being a zero shear
stress plane
X (H) = 0 (4a)

dz]~=o \d~/:_o=0. (4b)

The second of equations (4b) is usually appropriate. If G = 0 at ground surface, the first of
equations (4b) must be used. In equations (3) and (4), the time variable does not appear, and
the only variable left is the depth, z. All infinite modal shapes and corresponding modal
frequencies satisfy equation (3), but we are only interested in the lowest value of~o and the
associated mode shape X(z) which satisfy equations (3) and (4). Once the fundamental
frequency co is obtained, the fundamental period, T, can be calculated from T = 2re/co. For
1298 RICARDO DOBRY, ISSA OWEIS, AND ALFREDO URZUA

most soil deposits, the density, p, is approximately constant with depth. In that case
equation (3) can be expressed more conveniently in terms of the shear-wave velocity, V
dzX 2 dV dX 0 ) 2
~dz + V dz dz + ~ X = 0 . (5)

.16

.14

.12
\ a) Ts : 0.5 sec.

~\ ~(CS) FORDESIGN

\'~.\,~,. ~ . """~,~.~,--..~,,,,..
.08
d. .......~ (CS)max: 1.5C
(CS)mn= C - ' ~ ' ~""" "

.04

.00

PERIOD OF STRUCTURE, seconds

.16

• 14 b) Ts = 1.5 sec.

.12 .•••.wz•(CS) FOR DESIGN

.08 %%

(CS) C- ~ "

.04

.00
2
PERIOD OF STRUCTURE, seconds

FIG. 3. Values ofcoe~cient CSin the proposed UBC fortwo differentcharacteristicsite periods, ~ (SEAOC,
1974).
= X

p(z) - Y/g
. V(z)
G(z) . p v2

7/~/7////// / / / / / / / / / / / 7 /

R i g i d Rock

FIG. 4. Soil deposit on rigid rock.

In the constant density case, the only soil p r o p e r t y needed for the calculation of co and T is
the distribution with depth of V (or of G).
 METHODS FOR ESTIMATING THE FUNDAMENTAL PERIOD OF A SOIL PROFILE 1299

CLOSED FORM SOLUTIONS

Some closed form solutions have been obtained for simple distributions of V with
depth. A summary of results is presented here; more details can be found in Urzua (1974).
Uniform layer. V and p are assumed constant. This case has been solved elsewhere
(Reid, 1910; Jacobsen, 1930). Equation (5) becomes
d2X/dz 2 + ((2)2/V 2 ) X = O,

The first mode shape is X=cos(co/V)z with co=(~rV/2H) to satisfy the boundary
conditions (4). Therefore
4H
W= - - . {6)
V
Deposit with V = Vozp/2. This case (see Figure 5) was solved for constant p by Idriss and
Seed (1968), and Dobry et al. (1971). It is representative of normally consolidated uniform
o.,0 [ I I I I I I
~, ~7
0.65 ~ ~ 'H Zeq ___~_V - VoZP/2
p = cOnstL~t

0.60

.g
0.55

O.5tO ~,,
\
0.45
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 1.8

FIG. 5. Zeq for profiles with velocity increasing as a power of depth.

soil deposits; values of p between 0.5 and 1 are typically used (Seed and Idriss, 1970;
Richart et al., 1970). Equation (5) becomes
d2X p d X (-.02
-dz
- +z z d z + ~ X = O (7)

with the boundary conditions

X(H)=0, and lira (zPdX/dz)=O.
z~0

The fundamental period, T, is

4rcH(2 - p/2)

T- (8)
(2-p)Voql

for 0 < p < 2 , q being the first root of J,(qa)=0, and Jn( ) is the Bessel function of order
1300 R1CARDO DOBRY, ISSA OWEIS, AND ALFREDO URZUA

n = ( p - 1 ) / ( 2 - p ) . Equation (8) can also be expressed by means of the equation for the
uniform layer, T =4H/Veq, where Veq is the value of V at the "equivalent depth" Zeq
[2--p ~2/p
Zeq = / - - q l j (9)
\ n /
The solution for this case is plotted in Figure 5 as a graph of Zeq/Hv e r s u s p.
Layer with G varying linearly with depth. This case was solved for constant p. The
original solution for G increasing with depth was presented by Ambraseys (1959). Urzua
(1974) extended it to the case of G decreasing with depth. If Go and Gn are the moduli at
the top and base of the layer
G 1- K 2
--=K 2+ z (10)
Gn H
where K = Gx/~o/'G n . If K < 1, the modulus increases with depth and if K > 1 the soil
becomes less rigid with depth (see Figure 6). The fundamental period is given by equations
(11)
4nHK
T- for 0<K<I
al(1 -K2)Vo
4nHK
T-al(KZ_I)Vo for K>I (ll)

where Vo = (Go~p)1/2 is the wave velocity at the free surface. For all values of K, al is the
first root of the equation

Jo(al ) Y1(Kal ) - Ja (Kal )Yo(al )=0,

where Jo ( ) and J1 ( ) are the Bessel functions of order zero and one; and 11o( ) and Y1( )
are the Weber's Bessel functions of order zero and one, respectively.
In this case, the period can also be expressed by means of the equation for the uniform
layer, T = 4H/.Veq,where Veq is the value of Vat depth Zeq. The expression for Gq, valid for
all values of K, is
/ \
Zeq - [ a 1 1 2 ( 1 - K 2 - - K- 2 (12)
H \HI ) 1 - K 2'

The graph of Zeq/g v e r s u s K is shown in Figure 6. For any K the value of Zeq can be
determined from the graph. Geq is then obtained from a plot of G versus z or from equation
(10). Finally, V~q= (Geq/P)U2, and T is calculhted from the uniform layer expression,
equation (6).
Two-layer profile. This case is shown in Figure 7. The solution was presented by Madera
(1970), Chen (1971), and Urzua (1974).
For each one of the two layers, A and B, there is one equation similar to equation (5),
with V = constant. The solution of this system of two differential equations requires four
boundary conditions. They are: (1) zero shear stress at the free surface, (2) zero relative
displacement at rock interface, (3) continuity of shear stresses at the interface between the
two layers, and, (4) continuity of displacements at the interface between the two layers.
The final equation to be solved to find the fundamental period of the system, 7", is

tan(~ TA~tan(n--TB']-- P~HB TA (13)

\2 T] \2 T] pAHA TB
 METHODS FOR ESTIMATING THE FUNDAMENTAL PERIOD OF A SOIL PROFILE 1301

where TA =4HA/V~ and T~ =4HB/VB would be the fundamental periods of layers A and B
were the other layer not there.

I I [ [ I I I I
Go

1.0 ! I H P . constant
N H 1 /1 / 1/1 1 / / i 1 / N ~ // ~

T = 4H
O.g ¢ Geq/~

I
N~ O.

G increasing with depth

\
0.5
1 I I

I
screasing with depth

0.(

0.5 : i, , d i , , ,
0.1 0.3 1.o 3.0 10.0

K . ,/%/%
Fie. 6. Zeqfor profiles with,linear variation of shear modulus with depth.
_A _

s-

Ig
"r.

L.
1,
o

0.05 0.08 0.1 0.2 0.3 0,4 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Retto of Fundamental Periods of" Lower and Upper Layer = TB/T A

Fxc. 7. Fundamental period of a two-layered soil profile on rigid rock (T).

A graphical solution to the fundamental period T, corresponding to the highest root of

equation (13), is shown in Figure 7.
1302 R1CARDO DOBRY, ISSA OWEIS. AND ALFREDO URZUA

Overconsolidated crust over normally consolidated layer. This case is shown in Figure 8,
and it models approximately many profiles where a weathered or dessicated soil crust
overlies a normally consolidated clay. It was solved by Urzua (1974), for constant p.
For the case of an upper overconsolidated layer (K12> 1), the period equation is

dl(Klal) YI(Klal) 0 0

do(a1) Yo(ax) do(mpKaal) Yo(mpK2al)

=0 (14)
dl(al) Yx(al) -Jl(mpK2al) -Tl(mpK2al)

0 0 do(mpax) Yo(mpal)
where J0, J1, I1oand 111have the same meaning defined above ;K12 -- Go/Gx; K 2 2 --- GI/Gn;
m = HB/HA; p = K 2 (K 12 _ 1 )/(1 - K 2 2 ) ; and a 1 = first root of equation (14).
The period, T, can be obtained from equation (15)
n 4H
T-aK2(l +m)(K12-1) Vn (15)

where H = H A + HB, Vn = (G~/p) U2.

For the case of an upper uniform layer (K~ 2 = 1 ), the period equation is
- sin(qal) cos(qal) 0 0

1 0 -do(K2al) - Yo(K2a,)
=0 (16)
0 1 -dl(Kzal) - YI(K2al)

0 0 Jo(al) Yo(ax):
where q = (1 -K22 )~(2inK2),and the rest of the symbols have thesame meaning as before.
The period is obtainedfrom equation (17)
n 4H
T - a 1(1-K22)(1+1) Vn" (17)

Urzua (1974) calculated T for different combinations of the parameters K1, K2 and m. A
summary plot of the results is shown in Figure 8.

NUMERICAL SOLUTIONS

For many actual soil profiles, the distribution of shear-wave velocity with depth does
not fit any of the cases for which closed form solutions are available, and, therefore,
numerical methods must be used to compute T. Most usually soil deposits can be modeled
by n uniform layers, as shown in Figure 9. There are several methods to calculate the
fundamental period of a layered profile; if the number of layers, n, is large a digital
computer is usually required. Most often these procedures are used as part of a more
complete ground response computer program, especially when a modal analysis is
performed (Idriss and Seed, 1968; Hagmann and Whitman, 1969; Tsai and Housner,
1970). In some response programs, like SHAKE, a damped fundamental period is
calculated rather than the undamped period, T, defined above (Schnabel et al., 1972). The
 METHODS FOR ESTIMATING THE FUNDAMENTAL PERIOD OF A SOIL PROFILE 1303

numerical solutions can be b r o a d l y g r o u p e d in two categories, c o r r e s p o n d i n g to different

ways of m o d e l i n g the soil d e p o s i t :
(a) C o n t i n u o u s s o l u t i o n s . The model used is the same shown in F i g u r e 9, and the basic
e q u a t i o n s (3) and (5) are directly applicable.
(b) D i s c r e t e s o l u t i o n s . The m o d e l of F i g u r e 9 is replaced by a l u m p e d - m a s s or finite

K~ = I

K~ = I0
HB/HA = 1

2..c

HB/HA = oo

0.1 0,2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

K2 = VI/VH =G ~ I / GH

FIG. 8. Fundamental period ofoverconsolidated crust over layer with modulus increasing with depth.
Note 1. Vo, ~ , and VH are the shear-wave velocities associated with the moduli G o, GI, and G•.
Note 2. For practical purposes, the dashed line for K ~2 = 10 and any HR/H A > 3 can be assumed to merge to
the right with the solid line for the same HB/H.4 and K I 2= 10, as K 2 approaches the value 1.

element r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the deposit. The analytical a p p r o a c h d e s c r i b e d a b o v e is not

directly a p p l i c a b l e ; instead of the basic wave e q u a t i o n (2), a system of m e q u a t i o n s of
m o t i o n must be solved, where m is the n u m b e r of degrees of freedom of the system (for a
l u m p e d - m a s s representation, m = n u m b e r of masses).
The rest of this discussion on n u m e r i c a l solutions focuses on the c o n t i n u o u s a p p r o a c h (a).
S t a n d a r d m e t h o d s to calculate the f u n d a m e n t a l 15eriod of discrete systems are available as
1304 R1CARDO DOBRY, ISSA OWEIS, AND AEFREDO URZUA

part of programs using modal superposition to calculate the seismic response of structures
and soils.
The continuous, n-layer system shown in Figure 9 could in principle be solved directly
in a similar way done for the two-layer profile. The equation of the first mode shape at
layer i is given by equation (5) with V = V~= constant
d2X 0)2
dz 2 ~- V~/eX = 0 (18)

where V~is the wave velocity in layer i, and co = fundamental frequency of the profile. The
general solution of equation (18) is a cosine expression

X = Aicos ( ~ z + cb~). (19)

Therefore, the first mode shape of the system is composed of n segments of cosine curves,
one for each layer. There are 2n + 1 unknowns (the values A~and &~for all n layers, plus the
frequency o). A system of 2n + 1 equations can be formed and solved in a similar way to
what was done for the solution of the two-layer profile above (Madera, 1971; Urzua,
1974). This method becomes fairly complex for more than two layers. If only the
properties of the first mode of the system are desired, as is our case, simpler procedures can
be used. The most efficient is probably the Rayleigh Procedure (Biggs, 1964). This
algorithm is based on the exact equation
('u /dX\2
(02 JO j°V2{kdz) MZ
- (20)

UopXZdz
Equation (20) is obtained by equalizing the total maximum kinetic and potential
energies of the system when vibrating freely in the fundamental mode. If the equilibrium
between inertia and elastic forces at any level z is introduced, equation (21) is obtained

x ''+''tzl= JOi P(Za)V2(za)

dzo 'O(zb)XIJ)(zb)dZb (21)
za
where X ~j+ 1)=X°)= X is the first modal shape. For equation (21), the origin of coordinate
axis z is defined at the bottom of the deposit, as shown in Figure 11.
The Rayleigh Procedure is an iterative method that uses equations (20) and (21) to
compute the first modal shape, X(z), and the fundamental frequency, ~o. The calculation
steps are the following :-
(a) Assume an initial first modal shape X (~)= X ~1)= 1.
(b) Calculate an improved modal shape X (J+ ') = X ~2)by means of equation (21).
(e) Calculate initial values of the fundamental frequency, ~o, and fundamental period,
T, using equation (20) and T = 2~z/co.
(d) Repeat steps b and c, forj = 2, 3 ..... until the difference in the values of T between
two successive iterations is less than some specified value.
A computer program was written to calculate with this method the undamped period T,
of any layered system. The iterations were stopped when the values of T differed in less
than 0.01 sec; in all profiles studied, the convergence was very fast and only two or three
iterations were needed.
In this report, Thas been defined as the undamped, fundamental period of the linear or
equivalent linear system. If site response analyses are performed using the equivalent
 METHODS FOR ESTIMATING THE FUNDAMENTAL PERIOD OF A SOIL PROFILE 1305

linear method, the model of the profile will include both elastic and damping properties. In
these cases, other definitions of T are possible, and corresponding methods for estimating
the characteristic site period are also allowed by the new UBC (SEAOC, 1974). In one of
these definitions, T is taken as the location of the peak of the Ratio of Response Spectra
between rock and ground surface (Roesset, 1970). In another definition, the program
SHAKE computes T from the location of the first peak of the amplification spectrum
between the base and the top of the profile (Schnabel et al., 1972). In these definitions, T is
a function of the elastic properties shown in Figure 9, and also of the damping ratios of the
layers.
For the range of values of damping ratios used in soil response calculations (usually less
than 0.3), values of T calculated by the Rayleigh and SHAKE programs for the same
linear model, should be very similar. Forty-seven representative soil profiles were selected
from available SHAKE runs and their fundamental periods were calculated by the
Rayleigh program. Figure 10 shows the comparison between the two methods. As
expected, the values calculated by both procedures are very close. The undamped value

Thickness H I
Shear Wave Velocity V 1
Layer No. I Shear Modulus G 1 = Pl V#
Ma~s Density 01 = y l / g

-V-

i Hi' Vi' Gi' Pi

i+l Hi+l' Vi+l* Gi+l* Pi+l

/ , . - / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

FIG. 9. Layered soil profile.

from the Rayleigh Method, TR, is always within 5 per cent higher than the damped period
computed by SHAKE, TA, due to the effect of damping.

APPROXIMATE METHODS

The calculation of the fundamental period, T, of a layered soil profile by the Rayleigh or
other numerical solution, will usually require a digital computer. Simpler, approximate
methods have been used by different authors, to estimate by hand the period of a profile
such as that shown in Figure 9; some olhhese methods are described in Table 2.
The seven approximate methods presented in Table 2 were selected for study and
evaluation. The proposed 1976 UBC incorporates two of the procedures of Table 2; they
are method 1 (Weighted Average of Velocities of Layers) and method 6 (Successive Use of
Two-Layer Solution) (SEAOC, 1974). Five of the procedures of Table 2 had been
proposed and used in previous publications, while methods 5 and 7 were developed during
this study. Methods 1 through 5 are fully described in Table 2, which must be used in
1306 RICARDO DOBRY, 1SSA OWEIS, AND ALFREDO URZUA

conjunction with Figure 9. However, some further explanation is required for methods 6
and 7, and that information is given below.
Method 6. Successive Use of the Two-Layer Solution. This method was proposed by
Dobry and Madera (Madera, 1970), and it is based on the closed form solution for a two-
layer system plotted in Figure 7. The density is assumed constant for all layers. The
procedure includes the following steps to estimate the fundamental period of the layered
system sketched in Figure 9.
(a) The top two layers are assumed to lie on rock and their period T~ _ 2 is computed by
means of the chart in Figure 7. To enter the chart, the fo!lowing values are used from
the actual profile: TA = 4H1/V1 ; TB = 4 H 2 / ~ ; and (pAH A)/(pBHB) = H 1 / H 2 .
(b) The top two layers are replaced by a new top layer, with: TA = T1_ 2 obtained in step
a; and H A = H t + H 2.

TR = 1.05 TA~

i
Tk

- 5
~o
c.
.=
|
/
~2

I
/
0/ Period F r o m P e a k of A m p l i f i c a t i o n Function,
4

T A - Sec

FIG. 10. Comparison of period calculated by Rayleigh procedure, TR, with period obtained from shake~ TA.

(c) The rock interface is assumed below layer 3 of the profile and the period T~ _ 3 of the
new system is estimated by means of the chart in Figure 7. The values to enter the
chart are: TA T1_2; TB=4H3/V3;and (pAHA)/(pBHB)= (H1 + H2)/H3.
=

(d) The top three layers are replaced by a new top layer, with TA = TA ; obtained in step
c and H A= Itl + H2 + H3, etc.
(e) The process is repeated until the last layer is considered. The estimated period of the
profile is
r~- r6= r l - . .
An example calculation of method 6 for the soil profile of Figure 11, is shown in Table 3.
Method 7. Simplified Version of the Rayleigh Procedure. This method provides both an
estimate of the fundamental period and of the first modal shape of the layered profile. It is a
 METHODS FOR ESTIMATING THE FUNDAMENTAL ['ERIOD OF A SOIL PROFILE 1307

0 ~o, ~ ~:-~

.~ ~-- ~

~o

.< o

~"a ;~ "f-2~.-
t
II
II II
II ~1 II
~'1 ~1

]1

© ..~

°
E

0
.:-,
5

--& ,%
 1308 RICARDO DOBRY, ISSA OWEIS, AND ALFREDO URZUA

V, fps

T
1000 2000 3000
l

L
y = 105 pcf

v = 133 pcf

= 120 pcf

y = 120 pcf
l
7 = 137 pcf
z l + I = 167 f t .

7 I
Xi+ I = 0.939

FUNDAMENTAL
y = 125 pcf MODAL SHAPE

zmi = 134.5 f t .

80
Xi = 0.710
4-

• 100
HEAR WAVE
VELOCITY
z i = 102 ftL
y = 127 pcf

120

y = 119 pcf T ~ 0.593 sec,

]
T1 = 0,587
I T2 ~ 0.533
140
y = 130 pcf T 3 ~ 0.656
T4 ~ 0.664
y = 135 pcf T 5 ~ 0.492
T6 = 0.590
160 (see Table 3)
y = 138 pcf
T7 = 0.593 s~c.
(see Table 4)

Minimum Velocity
180 Contrast = 0.44

y = 140 pcf

0~,,
0 I
0.2 01.4 016 0.8 1,0"-~x

FIG. 11. Estimate of the period of a soil profile (H = 200 ft) by method 7 and other approximate procedures.

TABLE 3

Q'ACULATION OF PERIOD OF PROFILE IN FIGURE 1 1 BY M E T H O D 6 {SuccEsSIVE USE OF T w O - L A Y E R SOLUTION}

Layers
Considered
From Grotmd H4 H~ H4 HB ~14 I~ 774 T~ T~ 774 T 7~4 T
Surface Down (ft) {fl} (fps) {fps) (sec) (sec) {sec)

1 2 8 5 1.6 828 726 0.039 0.028 0.72 1.75 0.068

1-24 13 7 1.9 726 1039 0.068 0.027 0.40 1.3 0.09
1 to 4 20 8 2.5 1039 825 0.09 0.039 0.43 1.45 0.131
1 to 5 28 5 5.6 825 951 0.131 0.021 0.16 1.15 0.151
1 to 6 33 65 0.51 951 1270 0.151 0.021 1.39 2.2 0.33
1 to 7 98 24 4.1 1270 1065 0.33 0.09 0.27 1.32 0.436
1 to 8 122 16 7.6 1065 1205 0.436 0.053 0.122 1.12 0.488
1 to 9 138 9 15.3 1205 1071 0.488 0.034 0.07 1.07 0.522
1 to 10 147 7 21.0 1071 1633 0.522 0.017 0.033 1.0 0.522
1 to 11 t54 21 7.3 1633 1223 0.522 0.069 0.132 1.13 0.59
1 to 12 175 25 7.0 1223 2777 0.59 0.036 0.061 1.0 0.59

Note. The values in the column labeled "'T!'TA" were obtained from the chart in Figure 7. T -~ T6 =0.59 sec.
 M E T H O D S FOR ESTIMATING THE F U N D A M E N T A L PERIOD OF A SOIL PROFILE 1309

simplified version of the exact Rayleigh procedure described above. Its main characteristic
is that it can be adapted to use with a programmable desk calculator.
The Rayleigh algorithm has a very fast convergence; calculations on many soil profiles
showed that the value obtained in the first iteration differs usually less than 3 per cent from
the exact T. If constant density, p ( z ) = p, is assumed, for the first iteration, j = I and X °l
= X / I I = 1. Equation (21) becomes
: H - z.
X(z)zX~2~ = .
io ,V, 2 ,(:.)
7 - d:, (22)

where X(z) is an estimate of the fundamental mode shape.

For a layered system, the value of X at the upper boundary of layer i, Xi+ I, can be
expressed as the value at the lower boundary, X i, plus an inci'emental term. The
expression, derived from equation (22) is (see also Figure 11 )
U _ _ - -ml .
Xi+ x = X i + ~ 2 2 - - Hi (23)

where X~, Xi+ 1 =estimated fundamental modeshapes at lower and upper boundary of
layer i: H i =thickness of layer i; ( H - z , , , ) = d e p t h of midpoint of layer i.
Equation (23) can be successively applied, starting at the bottom (where XI =0), to
estimating X at all interfaces between layers. Once these values X~ have been computed, a
modified version of equation (20) can be used to estimate the fundamental frequency of the
profile, ~o~ 07. Values ofX i calculated using equation (23) are presented in Figure 11 for a
200-foot profile; the actual fundamental modal shape X I z ) is also included for
comparison.
For a layered system having constant density, both numerator and denominator in
equation (20) become sums ofn terms, one for each layer

E2 dz
~02 i . i - (24)
~ Q:i+'X2d2
i=l. i

Equation (24) can be greatly simplified if the variables d X / d z and X are replaced by
constant, average values for layer i, as follows

X ~,½(Xi + X i + 1 )

d X / d z ~ (Xi+ t -Xi),/Hi = (H - Zmi)/'Vii 2 .

Therefore,equation (24) becomes
it
4 ~ (H - z ., i )2 Hi
i= 1 Vi 2
~,o2 >- ~o7 ~ - . (25)
~, ( X i - ] - X i + 1 )2H i
i-1

and T ~ T7 = 2~/~o~.
Equation (25) has an impressive appearance, but it is ideally suited for a programmable
calculator. The properties of the needed parameters (V,-, Hi, H --:.,i) can be entered layer
by layer, one at a time, starting from the bottom of the profile. The calculator computes
X~+ ~. by means of equation (23), and it calculates and adds up the contributions of layer i
1310 R I C A R D O D O B R Y . [SSA O W E I S , A N D A L F R E D O URZUA

^,

~D
L)

e~

0 M
,..)
)-

~u
t-,-
0

e~ P,1

"n

r,,--

,-r
o
¢5

©
¢-,I
II

Z
©

oo
%

t'-,I
z~, ~

4-
LI
 METHODS FOR ESTIMATING THE FUNDAMENTAL PERIOD OF A SOIL PROFILE 1311

to the denominator and numerator of equation (25). An example calculation of method 7

for the soil profile of Figure 11, is shown in Table 4.
Figure 11 presents also the exact value of the period, T, and the estimates, T1 to Tv
obtained by each one of the approximate methods, for a 12-layer, 200-foot profile.
Each one of the seven approximate methods of Table 1 was evaluated by comparison
with results of ciosed form solutions, and also by means of a statistical study using 76
representative soil profiles. The rest of this paper presents the results of these evaluations.

APPROXIMATE METHODS AND CLOSED FORM SOLUTIONS

The results of using the approximate procedures were compared with the available
closed form solutions. T h i s allowed establishment of certain characteristics of the
behavior of each one of the methods under study.
Uniform deposit. For the uniform deposit, most of the methods give the correct value of
the period; they should, as they were designed wiih the equation of T for the uniform
deposit in mind. If only one layer, equal to the entire thickness of the deposit is considered,
the ratios between the estimated period and the correct value, T = 4H/I/, are
T,/T T2/T T3/T T¢/T TjT T6/T T.~/T
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.91 -- 0.79 .
If the deposit is divided into two layers of equal thickness, the ratios are
Yl/Y Y2/Y Y3/Y T~/T Y s / Y Y#Y Yi/Y
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.91 1.0 0.95.
If the deposit is divided into a larger number of layers, the values of T1/T through T6/T do
not change, and TI/T,~0.994.
The comparison above shows that all methods will give good estimates of T for profiles
of almost constant properties.
Deposit with V= Fozp/2 (z= depth). Urzua (1974) investigated the results of methods 1, 2
and 4 for the deposit with V= Vozp/2 (z measured from ground surface) and constant
density. For 0 =<p =<1 and when the deposit is divided into a very large number of layers, he
found always errors of less than 15 per cent. If that comparison is extended to other
methods for p = 0.5 (V = Foz°25), the ratios between estimated and correct values Of the
period are
Yl/Y YdY Y3/Y Y~/Y YdY Yi/Y
1.11 1.09 1.19 1.0 0.99 0.99.
For this profile, almost all of the methods considered give errors smaller or equal than
about 10 per cent, with the exception of method 3 (Sum of Periods of the Layers), which
overestimates T by about 20 per cent.
Deposit with G varying linearly with depth. Ambraseys (1959) studied the behavior of
method 2 (Average of the Moduli) for the case of G increasing linearly with depth (K > 1 ).
He used a large number of layers (n = ~ ), and he found errors always less than 10 per cent.
Urzua (1974) investigated T1, T2, and T4 for the same case; the three methods gave errors
of less than 15 per cent, with the smallest error associated with method 4 (V~qat z = 0.63H);
T1/T and T2/T were always somewhat larger than 1.0.
For method 1, the comparison was extended herein to the case of G decreasing with
depth (K < 1 ), and n = oc. Figure 12 shows the values of TIlT versusK for the range 0.1 < K
< 10. The error is 15 per cent or less when the modulus increases with depth. However,
1312 RICARDO DOBRY, ISSA OWEIS, AND ALFREDO URZUA

when G decreases rapidly with depth, T1 underestimates the actual period, with the error
being as large as 30 or 40 per cent.
T~vo-layer profile. An evaluation of six approximate methods was possible for the case of
a two-layer profile, using the chart of Figure 7, The two layers were selected having the
same thickness (HA = H s ) and the same density but different shear-wave velocities (VA
# Vs). All methods studied underestimated the value of the period, with the error
increasing for profiles having high-velocity contrasts (VA/VB << 1 or VA/VB >> 1 ). Methods 1
through 5 gave maximum errors ranging between 50 and 90 per cent, while the maximum
error of T7 was about 20 per cent (for very small values of VA/VB).

STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF APPROXIMATE METHODS

The second step in the evaluation of the seven approximate methods of Table 2 was to
compare estimated and exact values of T, for realistic models of soil deposits. Seventy-six

1.2

GO G
1.1

2
/I
~" H
[ p = Const.
1.0 I

zl GH

G - GO + GH " GO z
G Increasing with Depth H
0.9

F-
0.8

0.7

D Decreasing with D
0.6

0.5
O.l 0.3 1.0 3.0 IO.O

K = V - ~ H = Vo/VH

FIG. 12. Method 1 and profile having G varying linearly with depth.

representative layered profiles were selected for which ground response studies had been
performed using the program SHAKE; the profiles corresponded to 10 different sites, and
the deposits encompassed an ample range of soil conditions, of depths to rock (H = 40 to
850 ft), of shear-wave velocities (V = 100 to 2500 fps), and of fundamental periods (T= 0.2
to 5sec) (see Table 5). About half of the 76 cases corresponded to wave velocities
compatible with small seismic strains; the rest of the cases were for wave velocities
compatible with strains induced in the soil by various rock motions.
For all cases, the undamped fundamental period, T, was calculated by using the
Rayleigh Method described above, and the estimated values (T1 . . . . . . TT) were also
computed by each approximate method. Finally, the ratios between estimated and actual
value of the period (T1/T . . . . . . TT/T) were also calculated for all cases. Histograms of these
ratios are presented for each method in Figure 13.
 METHODS FOR ESTIMATING THE FUNDAMENTAL PERIOD OF A SOIL PROFILE 1313

~ ~
o ,'~

© ~ ~

Z
©

O ,-..,

~ ~ o
o

~ = ~
O

~D

o ~ ~
O

o
1314 R I C A R D O D O B R Y , ISSA O W E I S , A N D A L F R E D O URZUA

22

20

18

16

14

12

10

0.2 0.3 0,4 0,S 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1,2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
A
T1 / TR
I"I : Period Es1:iJat~i FrOm Weighted Average Shear Wave Veloclty 04ethod I)
TR : Period Calculated by Rayleigh Procedure

FIG. 13a. Method 1.

FIG. 13. Histograms of methods 1 through 7.

22

20

18

16

14

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1,0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1,8
B r2 / T~

T 2 : P e r i o d Estimated Fr~a Weighted Average o f Shear Modulus and D e n s i t y

TR : Period Calculatod by Rayleigh Procedure

F1G. 13b, M e t h o d 2,
 M E T H O D S FOR E S T I M A T I N G THE F U N D A M E N T A L P E R I O D O F A S O I L P R O F I L E 1315

Discz~ssion oJ'results. The comparison of the histograms shown in Figure 13 indicates

that methods 6 and 7 gave much better estimates of the period for the profiles studied than
the other five procedures.
Method 6 (Successive Use of the Two-Layer Solution) gave in all cases errors of less
than 10 per cent. The mean value and standard deviation of the ratio TUT were 1.01 and

t~

u L6

t-t4
z
[2--

t0 I

3--
J m

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

r-0.8 0.9 1.0 1,1 1.2 1.3
"
1,4 1.S
1 1.6 1.7 1.8
c
T3 / TR
T3 : Period Estimated by Summing The Periods of Individual Layers
T R : Period Calculated by The Rayleigh Procedure

FIG. 13c. M e t h o d 3.

114
~o

6 "L

V
"L_
,)

0.4 O.S 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.~ 1.4 1.5 1,6
D T4 / TR

T 4 : Period Estimated Based on Zeq = 0,63 H

T R : Period Calculated by The Rayleigh P r o c e d u r e

FiG. 13d. M e t h o d 4 .

0.04, respectively. The same information used for the histogram for method 6 in Figure 13f
has been replotted in Figure 14, as a graph of T6 versus T. These results are consistent with
the evaluation of method 6 performed by Madera (1970) for 26 soil profiles; he found a
maximum error of 8 per cent.
Method 7 (Simplified Version of the Rayleigh Procedure) also gave in all cases errors of
0.3 0.4 0.$ 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
E
T5 / TR

T$ : P e r i o d E s t i l a t e d Based on L i n e a r MOdal Shape Assumption

TR : P e r i o d C a l c u l a t e d by The R a y l e i g h P r o c e d u r e

FIG. 13e. Method 5.

~v

24~

22

20

18

16

12

10

0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

F
T6 / TR

T6 : Period E s t i m a t e d From Use o f Two-Layer S o l u t i o n

TR : P e r i o d C a l c u l a t e d by The R a y l e i g h P r o c e d u r e

FiG. 13f. Method6.

1316
 METHODS FOR ESTIMATING THE FUNDAMENTAL PERIOD OF A SOIL PROFILE 1317

less than 10 per cent, as shown by the histogram in Figure 13g. The mean value and
standard deviation of the ratio TT/Twere 1.01 and 0.03, respectively.
Methods 1, 2, 4 and 5 can be grouped together, as they exhibited a similar behavior.
Each method gave, for most profiles, errors of less than 20 per cent, and the maximum
error for each procedure was 40 to 50'per cent. For methods 1 and 2, the peaks of the
histograms in Figure 13 are located at values of the abscissa somewhat larger than 1.0: this
is consistent with the comparison of T~ and T2 with closed form solutions having 1/

'G
T7 / T R
T7: Period Estimated From Simplified Rayleigh Method

TR: Period Calculated by the Rayleigh Procedure

FIG. 13g. M e t h o d 7.

increasing with depth. The behavior of method 1 is also consistent with the evaluation
done by Madera (1970) for 26 soil profiles: he found a maximum error of 25 per cent with
TI/T being usually larger than 1.
Method 3 (Sum of Period of Layers) gave, for a majority of cases, errors larger than 20
per cent. The peak of the histogram in Figure 13c is located at TjT-~ 1,3 ; for most profiles
the method overestimated the value of T. This bias of the procedure is also consistent with
the result of the comparison with the closed form solution for the case V= Voz°2s
presented above.
 1318 RICARDO DOBRY, ISSA OWEIS. AND ALFREDO URZUA

A review of the profiles associated with the largest errors when using methods 1,2 and 5,
showed that these profiles always had big velocity jumps between adjacent layers.
Therefore, a main factor in the poor performance of these procedures was their inability to
account fo r sharp velocity contrasts between strata. The comparison with the closed form
solution for the two-layer profile discussed above, is consistent with this behavior. This
also helps to explain the success of methods 6 and 7, which account better for large velocity
jumps between adjacent layers.
A new parameter was defined to quantify this effect. It was called Minimum Velocity
Contrast. For a given profile, the Minimum Velocity Contrast is the minimum value of
Vk+I/V~ or Vk/Vk+1, where Vk and !P~,+1 are the wave velocities of any two subsequent

Er /////"
o4
+10%

?
-10%

i 3

0 I 2 5 4 5 6

Undamped Fundamental Period, TR - Sec

FIG. 14. Evaluationof method 6.

layers. The ratio defined in this way is always less than one. Figure 15a illustrates how the
Minimum Velocity Contrast is computed.
The values of Minimum Velocity Contrast were calculated for all profiles studied.
Figure 15b presents the ratio T1/T versus Minimum Velocity Contrast; similar graphs
(not presented here) were obtained for T2/T and Ts/T. These results illustrate the need to
restrict the use of the averaging methods 1, 2 and 5 toprofiles having a smooth variation of
velocity with depth.
Figures 12 and 15b suggest that method 1 (Weighted Average of the Velocities) can be
used to estimate the period T, usually with an error of less than 20 per cent, for soil profiles
complying simultaneously with the following two restrictions:
(a) The Minimum Velocity Contrast of the profile is larger than 0.5, and
(b) The shear-wave velocity of the profile does not decrease sharply with depth.
If errors less than I0 l~er cent are required, method 6 or 7 should be utilized.
 METHODS FOR ESTIMATING THE FUNDAMENTAL PERIOD OF A SOIL PROFILE 1319

CONCLUSIONS

A study was made of simple procedures for computing the fundamental period of an
elastic shear beam representing a soil profile. Closed form solutions and approximate

Shear Wave Velocity V -- Ft/Sec

200 400 600 800 i000 1200 1400 1600 1800

I
,9---- A=462 ~J
B=1360 J
-10 ,
CL~V j
F

CLAy
-20

-30
]
£NMOMVEL0C,TY
CONTNAST:-
]
=0.34

5AND

CLAy

-40
SAND
-42

~FIG. 15a. Minimum velocity contrast of a soil profile.

1.5 I I [ i I I I I

1.4

1.2

L
1,2
" L p :,
1.1
• ..'. : • .
00

o°
1.0

0.9
• 8
"8
0.8 "4--

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4 I I I I I I F I I
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

MINIMUM VELOCITY CONTRAST BETWEEN ADJACENT LAYERS WITHIN PROFILE

FIG. 15b. Minimum velocity contrast and method I.

methods were examined, and recommendations were developed for the calculation of the
characteristic site period included in the proposed changes to the Uniform Building Code.
Closed form solutions were presented in graphical form for the following distributions
1320 RICARDO DOBRY, ISSA OWEIS, AND ALFREDO URZUA

of shear-wave velocity, V, or shear m o d u l u s , G, with depth, z: (a) V = Vo zp/2, (b) G

increasing or decreasing linearly with depth, (c) two-layer profile, a n d (d) overcon-
solidated or uniform crust on layer with m o d u l u s increasing with depth. F o r all these
solutions except (c), the solutions were restricted to c o n s t a n t density profiles.
Seven a p p r o x i m a t e m e t h o d s p r o p o s e d b y various a u t h o r s to estimate the p e r i o d of a
layered soil profile w i t h o u t the use of a c o m p u t e r were discussed and evaluated. The
m e t h o d s are s u m m a r i z e d in T a b l e 2, a n d they were e v a l u a t e d b y c o m p a r i s o n with closed
form solutions a n d by a statistical s t u d y using 76 representative soil profiles. The soil
profiles e n c o m p a s s e d an a m p l e range of soil conditions, of depths to r o c k (40 to 850 ft), of
shear-wave velocities (100 to 2500 fps) and of f u n d a m e n t a l p e r i o d s (0.2 to 5 sec). Shear-
wave velocity profiles c o m p a t i b l e with small and large strains were included in the study.
M e t h o d s 6 (Successive Use of T w o L a y e r Solution) a n d 7 (Simplified Version of the
Rayleigh P r o c e d u r e ) gave errors less than 10 per cent for the p e r i o d for all profiles a n d are
r e c o m m e n d e d for practical use. M e t h o d 6 m a y be used for h a n d calculations, while
m e t h o d 7 m a y be used with a p r o g r a m m a b l e desk calculator.
M e t h o d s 1 t h r o u g h 5 gave m a x i m u m errors of a b o u t 50 per cent. M e t h o d 1 (Weighted
Average of Velocities of the Layers), m a y be used to estimate the period, generally with an
error less t h a n 20 per cent, if the shear-wave velocity of the profile does n o t decrease
sharply with depth, and if no big velocity j u m p s are present between a d j a c e n t layers of the
profile.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful to I. M. Idriss for his help during the research and for his useful comments on this paper. We
thank E. Margason, D. Daniels, R. Singh, E. Ng, M. Poblete and A. Cisternas for their help.
• Most of the work on closed form solutions was supported by IDIEM, University of Chile, as part ofA. Urzua's
thesis. The rest of the research was done under a grant from the Professional Development Committee,
Woodward-Clyde Consultants.

REFERENCES
Ambraseys, N. N. (1959). A note ori the response of an elastic overburden of varying rigidity to an arbitrary
ground motion, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 49, 211-220.
Arias, A., R. Husid, and J. Monge (1969). Comments on the New Chilean SeismicCode for Buildings, Proc. World
Conf. Earthquake Eng., 4th, Santiago, Chile 3, 41 52.
Biggs, J. M. (1964). Introduction to Structural Dynamics, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Capacete, J. L. (1971). Seismic design of structures in Puerto Rico, Rev. Col. Ing. Arquitectos y Agrimensores
Puerto Rico, 21.
Chen, A. T. F. (1971). Natural Periods of Two-layer Systems, Report No. USGS-GD-71-030, U.S. Geological
Survey, Menlo Park, California.
Dobry, R., R. V. Whitman, and J. M. Roesset (1971). Soil Properties and the One-Dimensional Theory of
Earthquake Amplification, Research Report R 71-18, Dept. of Civil Engineering, M.I.T., Cambridge, Mass.
Duke, C. M. (1958). Effects of ground on destructiveness of large earthquakes, J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE
84, 1730-1 to 1730-23.
Duke, C. M. and D. J. Leeds (1959). Soil conditions and damage ir~the Mexico earthquake of July 28, 1957, Bull.
Seism. Soe. Am. 49, 179-191.
Hagmann, A. J. and R. V. Whitman (1969). Comparison of Methods for Analyzing Soil Deposits During
Earthquakes, Research Report R69-29, Dept. of Civil Engineering, M.I.T., Cambridge, Mass.
Idriss, 1. M. (1966). Response of Earth Banks During Earthquakes, Ph.D. Thesis, University of California,
Berkeley.
Idriss, I. M. and H. B. Seed (1968). Seismic response of horizontal soil layers, J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., A SCE
94, 1003-1031.
International Association of Earthquake Engineering (1971). Earthquake Resistant Regulations, a World List,
I.A.E.E., Tokyo, Japan.
Jacobsen, L. S. (1930). Motion of a soil subjected to a simple harmonic ground vibration, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am.
20, 160 195.
 METHODS FOR ESTIMATING THE FUNDAMENTAL PERIOD OF A SOIL PROFILE 1321

Madera, G. A. (1971). Fundamental Period and Amplification of Peak Acceleration in Layered Systems,
Research Report R70-37, Dept. of Civil Engineering, MJ.T., Cambridge, Mass.
Massachusetts Building Code (Jan. l, 1975).
Medvedev, S. V. (1965). Engineering Seismology, U.S. Dept. of Commerce (translated from Russian).
Muto, K. (1963). An Opinion Concerning Earthquake Resistant Design Regulations for High Rise Buildings,
December (Japanese).
Ohsaki, Y. (1969). Effects of local soil conditions upon earthquake damage, Proc. Soil Dynamics Specialty
Session, Intern. Conll Soil Mech. Found. Eng., 7th, Mexico City, 3-32.
Okamoto, S. (1973). Introduction to Earthquake Engineering, John Wiley, New York.
Reid, H. F. (1908). The Influence of the Foundation on the Apparent Intensity, Report on the California
Earthquake of April 18, 1906, State Earthquake Investigation Commission (A. C. Lawson, Chairman),
Carnegie Institution, Washington, D.C., 1969 edition, 2, 50.
Richart. F. E., J. R. Hall, and R. D. Woods (1970). Vibrations of Soils and Foundations, Prentice-Hall, New
Jersey.
Roesset, J. M. and R. V. Whitman (1969). Theoretical Background for Amplification Studies, Research Report
R69-15, Dept. of Civil Engineering, M.I.T., Cambridge, Mass.
Roesset, J. M. (1970). Fundamentals of soil amplification, in Seismic Design for Nuclear Power Plants, R. J.
Hansen, Editor, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass., 183 244.
Rosenblueth, E. (1960). Aseismic provisions for the Federal District, Mexico, Proc. World Conll Earthquake Eng.,
2nd, 3, Tokyo, 2009 2026.
Schnabel, P. B., J. Lysmer, and H. B. Seed (I973). SHAKE--A Computer Program for Earthquake Response
Analysis of Horizontally Layered Sites, Report No, EERC 72 12, Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
University of California, Berk'eley.
SEAOC (1974). Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary, Seismology Committee of the
Structural Engineers Association of California, San Francisco.
Seed, H. B. (1969). The influence of local soil conditions on earthquake damage, Proc. Soil Dynamics
Specialty Session, Intern. Co~f Soil Mech. Found. Eng., 7th, Mexico City, 33 66.
Seed, H. B., I. M. Idriss, and H. Dezfulian (1970). Relationships between Soil Conditions and Building Damage
in the Caracas Earthquake of July 29, 1967, Report No. EERC 70 2 College of Engineering, University of
California, Berkeley.
Seed, H. B. and I. M. Idriss (1970). Soil Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic Response Analyses, Report
No. EERC 70 10. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
Seed, H. B., R. V. Whitman, H. Dezfulian, R. Dobry, and 1. M. ldriss (1972). Relationships between soil conditions
and building damage in the 1967 Caracas earthquake, J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., A SCE 98, Proc. Paper 9108,
August, 787 806.
Seed, H. B., C. Ugas, J. Lysmer (1974). Site Dependent Spectra for Earthquake-Resistant Design, Report No.
EERC 74 12, College of Engineering. University of California, Berkeley, California.
S.hima, E. (1962). Modifications of Seismic Waves in Superficial Layers as Verified by Comparative Observations
on and Beneath the Surface, Bull. Earthquake Res. Inst., Tokyo Univ. 40, 187-259.
Tezcan, S. S. (1973). Closure of Earthquake Design Formula Considering Local Soil Conditions, Proc. A SCE 99,
2479 2484.
Tezcan, S. S. and M. Ipek (1973). Long distance effects of the 28 March 1970 Gedis, Turkey earthquake, Intern. J.
Earthquake Eng. Struet. Dynamics 1,203-216.
Trifunac, M. D. and A. G. Brady ( 19751. On the correlation of seismic intensity scales with the peaks of recorded
strong ground motion, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 65, 139 162.
Tsai, N. C. and G. W. Housner (1970). Calculation of surface motions of a layered half-space. Bull. Seism. Soc.
Am. 60, 1625-1651.
Urzua, A. (1974). Determinacion del Periodo Fundamental de Vibracion del Suelo, Master's Thesis in Soil
Mechanics, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Whitman, R. V. (1969). Effect of Soil Conditions upon Damage to Structures; Caracas Earthquake of 29 July
1967, Report to Presidential Commission for Study of the Earthquake, Caracas, Venezuela.
Whitman, R. V., M. K. Yegian, J. T. Christian, and S. S. Tezcan (1974). Ground Motion Amplification Studies
Bursa, Turkey, Research Report R74-58, Dept. of Civil Engineering, M.I.T., Cambridge, Mass.
Zeevaert, L. (I 972). Foundation Engineering.l}~r D!Illcult Subsoil Conditions, Van Nostrand, New York.
WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH AND
TWO EMBARCADERO CENTER TESTING OF MATERIALS
SUITE 700 UNIVERSITY OF CHILE
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 SANTIAGO. CHILE (A.U.)
(R.D. AND I.O.)
Manuscript received September 2, 1975

View publication stats