Effects of Soil Nonlinearity on Physics‐Based Ground Motion Simulation and Their Implications on 1D Site Response Analysis: An Application to Istanbul

ABSTRACT Previously, we have conducted a suite of 57 broadband physics‐based ground motion simulations (GMSs) for a region in Istanbul, Turkey, in which soils were modeled as linear elastic materials. However, from a geotechnical earthquake engineering point of view, soil can indeed exhibit nonlinear behavior, especially in shallow crust with soft soil layers and when subjected to strong ground shaking induced by seismic waves, and hence affect the wave propagation and ground motions. To quantitatively investigate the effects of soil nonlinearity on ground motions, in this study, we select four representative earthquake scenarios and perform fully nonlinear broadband (0–8 Hz) GMSs using a 3D bounding surface plasticity model. In addition, utilizing the motions at the bedrock level from 3D simulations, we conduct 1D nonlinear site response analyses (SRAs) for 2912 sites with different bedrock depths and profiles. Results indicate that compared to 3D nonlinear simulations, the 3D linear cases can both amplify and de‐amplify ground motion intensities, depending on the ground shaking levels, while the 1D nonlinear SRAs are inclined to yield over‐estimations, especially for vertical motions. Twelve stations are also selected to further evaluate the applicability of 1D SRA when soil nonlinearity is considered. Some features in 1D soil profiles, such as reversal and deep bedrock depth, are shown to yield unreliably under‐ and over‐estimations, and therefore dramatically influence the accuracy of SRA predictions.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics
Published
2025-04-15
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4360
Primary Topic
Seismic Performance and Analysis
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Effects of Soil Nonlinearity on Physics‐Based Ground Motion Simulation and Their Implications on 1D Site Response Analysis: An Application to Istanbul

Ertuǧrul Taciroğlu, Jorge G. F. Crempien, Pedro Arduino, Wenyang Zhang et al.
1 links
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics
Seismic Performance and Analysis
article

Effects of Soil Nonlinearity on Physics‐Based Ground Motion Simulation and Their Implications on 1D Site Response Analysis: An Application to Istanbul

Ertuǧrul Taciroğlu, Jorge G. F. Crempien, Pedro Arduino, Wenyang Zhang, Yufeng Dong
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT Previously, we have conducted a suite of 57 broadband physics‐based ground motion simulations (GMSs) for a region in Istanbul, Turkey, in which soils were modeled as linear elastic materials. However, from a geotechnical earthquake engineering point of view, soil can indeed exhibit nonlinear behavior, especially in shallow crust with soft soil layers and when subjected to strong ground shaking induced by seismic waves, and hence affect the wave propagation and ground motions. To quantitatively investigate the effects of soil nonlinearity on ground motions, in this study, we select four representative earthquake scenarios and perform fully nonlinear broadband (0–8 Hz) GMSs using a 3D bounding surface plasticity model. In addition, utilizing the motions at the bedrock level from 3D simulations, we conduct 1D nonlinear site response analyses (SRAs) for 2912 sites with different bedrock depths and profiles. Results indicate that compared to 3D nonlinear simulations, the 3D linear cases can both amplify and de‐amplify ground motion intensities, depending on the ground shaking levels, while the 1D nonlinear SRAs are inclined to yield over‐estimations, especially for vertical motions. Twelve stations are also selected to further evaluate the applicability of 1D SRA when soil nonlinearity is considered. Some features in 1D soil profiles, such as reversal and deep bedrock depth, are shown to yield unreliably under‐ and over‐estimations, and therefore dramatically influence the accuracy of SRA predictions.

Earthquake Engineering & Structural DynamicsVol. 54(9)
University of California, Los Angeles (US), Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile (CL), University of Washington (US), Research Center for Integrated Disaster Risk Management (CL), Texas Advanced Computing Center
Openalex Percentile: Top 92%
Seismic Performance and Analysis
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.