Deepsoil User Manual v6
Deepsoil User Manual v6
Deepsoil User Manual v6
Version 6.0
www.illinois.edu/~deepsoil
April 8, 2015
USER MANUAL
Youssef M. A. Hashash
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
hashash@illinois.edu
When referencing the DEEPSOIL program in a publication (such as journal or conference
papers, or professional engineering reports) please use the following reference format:
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 116 p.
2015 Youssef Hashash
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
Page 2 of 116
April 8, 2015
6
7
8
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 3 of 116
April 8, 2015
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 4 of 116
April 8, 2015
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. DEEPSOIL Main Window and Key Tabs ..................................................... 11
Figure 2. DEEPSOIL Options Window. ....................................................................... 12
Figure 3. Motion Viewer (Plots) ................................................................................... 13
Figure 4. Motion Viewer (Tables) ................................................................................ 14
Figure 5. Baseline Correction. ...................................................................................... 15
Figure 6. Input Motion Conversion. ............................................................................. 20
Figure 7. Converted Motion.......................................................................................... 20
Figure 8. Step 1/6: Choose type of analysis. ................................................................ 22
Figure 9. Step 2a/6: Input Soil Properties. ................................................................... 26
Figure 10. Profile Summary.......................................................................................... 30
Figure 11. Step 2b/6: Input Rock Properties................................................................. 31
Figure 12. Step 3/6: Input Motion and Output Layer(s) (Time History Plots Tab) ...... 33
Figure 13. Step 3/6: Input Motion and Output Layer(s) (Spectral Plots Tab) .............. 34
Figure 14. Step 4/6: Small-Strain Damping Formulation. ............................................ 35
Figure 15. Step 5/6: Analysis Options for Frequency Domain or Time Domain
Analysis................................................................................................................. 40
Figure 16. Step6/6: Analysis Results - Plot Output for Layer. ..................................... 43
Figure 17. Summary Profiles ........................................................................................ 44
Figure 18. Column Displacement Animation ............................................................... 45
Figure 19. Convergence Check. .................................................................................... 46
Figure 20. Input Summary ............................................................................................ 47
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 5 of 116
April 8, 2015
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 6 of 116
April 8, 2015
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 7 of 116
April 8, 2015
DEEPSOIL v1.0: First version of DEEPSOIL with both an equivalent linear analysis
capability and a new pressure dependent hyperbolic model in nonlinear analysis:
The equivalent linear capability was based on the pioneering work of Idriss and Seed
(1968), and Seed and Idriss (1970) as employed in the widely used program SHAKE
(Schnabel, et al., 1972) and its more current version SHAKE91 (Idriss and Sun, 1992).
The new pressure dependent hyperbolic model introduced by Park and Hashash (2001)
is employed in nonlinear analysis. This model extended the hyperbolic model
introduced by Matasovic (1992) and employed in the nonlinear site response code DMOD, which was in turn a modification of the Konder and Zelasko (1963) hyperbolic
model. The hyperbolic model had been employed with Masing criteria earlier in the
program DESRA by Lee and Finn (1975, 1978). The hyperbolic model was
originally proposed by Duncan and Chang (1970), with numerous modifications in
other works such as Hardin and Drnevich (1972) and Finn et al. (1977).
DEEPSOIL v2.0-2.6:
Full and extended Rayleigh damping is introduced in DEEPSOIL (Hashash and Park,
2002; Park and Hashash, 2004) with a user interface. This was in part based on
Clough and Penzein (1993) and the findings of Hudson et al. (1994) as implemented
in the program QUAD4-M.
DEEPSOIL v3.0-3.7: Additional enhancements are made to the user interface as well as
inclusion of pore water pressure generation/dissipation capability.
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Current pore water pressure models employed include the same model introduced by
Matasovic (1992), Matasovic and Vucetic (1993, 1995) and employed in the program
D_MOD.
Page 8 of 116
April 8, 2015
DEEPSOIL v3.5: A new soil constitutive model is introduced to allow for significantly
enhanced matching of both the target modulus reduction and damping curves (Phillips
and Hashash, 2008).
A new functionality in the user interface is implemented that allows the user to
automatically generate hyperbolic model parameters using a variety of methods
(Phillips and Hashash, 2008).
DEEPSOIL v3.7: A new pore water pressure generation model for sands is added
the GMP Model (Green et al., 2000), in addition to various improvements in the user
interface, as well as the capability to export output data to a Microsoft Excel file.
DEEPSOIL was made multi-core aware, leading to much faster completion of batchmode analyses.
An update manager was added to notify the user when updated versions of
DEEPSOIL were available.
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 9 of 116
April 8, 2015
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 10 of 116
April 8, 2015
2 Program Organization
The DEEPSOIL graphical user interface is composed of several steps to guide the user
throughout the site response analysis process as illustrated in the Navigation box shown in Figure
1 presented to the user upon starting DEEPSOIL.
At the top left, the user has the option of choosing the Analysis, Motions, or Profiles tab.
These tabs are discussed in the following section.
Figure 2 shows the Options window. This window can be accessed by clicking on the Options
menu. The window allows the user to set the default working directory, the directory containing
input motions for use in analyses, the default directory in which to save profiles, the default units,
the analysis priority, and enable or disable multi-core support.
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 11 of 116
April 8, 2015
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 12 of 116
April 8, 2015
Page 13 of 116
April 8, 2015
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 14 of 116
April 8, 2015
where m, c and k are the mass, the viscous damping and the system stiffness of SDOF system
respectively. u , u and u are the nodal relative accelerations, relative velocities and relative
displacements respectively and u g is the exciting acceleration at the base of SDOF.
Frequency-domain solution
In the frequency-domain solution, the Fourier Amplitude Spectra (FAS) input motion is modified
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 15 of 116
April 8, 2015
damping ratio calculated as = 2km. Use of the frequency-domain solution requires FFTs (Fast
Fourier Transforms) to move between the frequency-domain, where the oscillator transfer
function is applied, and the time-domain, where the peak oscillator response is estimated. Over
the frequency range of the ground motion, the frequency-domain solution is exact.
conditions and (c) response of the ramp force m u g u g t. The solution in terms of
i+1
i
velocities and displacements is presented in the following equations:
+1 = + + ( ) + (
+1 = + + +
where:
+1
+1
( ) + ( )
=
1 2
1
= ( )
1 2
1 2 2
2
=
+
( ) 1 +
( )
1 2
=
1
2
2 2 1
2
1
+
( ) +
( )
DEEPSOIL 6.0
1 2
Page 16 of 116
( )
April 8, 2015
= ( )
=
1 2
( )
1
1
1
+
+
( ) + ( )
1 2 1 2
=
1
( ) + ( )
1 2
The parameters and define the assumption of the acceleration variation over a time step (t)
and determine the stability and accuracy of the integration of the method. A unique
characteristic of the assumption of average acceleration ( = 0.5 and = 0.25) is that the
integration is unconditionally stable for any t with no numerical damping. For this reason, the
Newmark method with average acceleration is commonly used to model the dynamic response
of single and multiple degree of freedom systems.
The Newmark method has inherent numerical errors associated with time step of the input
motion (Chopra, 1995; Mugan and Hulbe, 2001). These errors generate inaccuracy in the
solution resulting in miss-prediction of the high-frequency response. To determine if a motions
time step is too large to be used directly, the response spectrum calculated with the Newmark
method can be compared with the response spectra calculated by other means and with and
without a time step correction in the motion viewer/processor (see section 2.2).
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 17 of 116
April 8, 2015
|F|i =
i
time step n
where fi is the i-th frequency, n is the number of points in the FFT, |F|i is the Fourier amplitude
at the i-th frequency, and Ci is the i-th amplitude and phase (in complex number representation)
of the FFT. The maximum frequency that can be contained in the motion is dictated by the
motions time step. This maximum frequency is called the Nyquest frequency and is calculated
using the following equation:
fNyquest =
1
2 time step
DEEPSOIL can also smooth the calculated Fourier amplitude spectrum to make interpretation
easier by providing a clearer view of the overall frequency content. DEEPSOIL uses a triangle
smoother in log space (also called a log-triangle smoother).
The smoothing routine in
DEEPSOIL uses a sliding triangular smoothing window in log-space and is adapted from a
routine developed by David Boore. The weights assigned to each point are based on the log
distance from the point of interest. We currently have our maximum smoothing width set to 0.2.
At each frequency of the spectrum the weights of the smoothing window are calculated as
follows:
for frequencies below the current frequency:
Wi =
Wi = 1
where the upper and lower bound indices are determined using the desired window width and
index of the current frequency.
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 18 of 116
April 8, 2015
() =
[()]2
2
0
where is the acceleration due to gravity and () is the acceleration time history.
The Housner intensity (also referred to as spectral intensity) provides a measure of the intensity
of the motion as a function of spectral velocity. It is plotted as a function of time. The Duhamel
integral method is used in calculation of the acceleration response spectra for computational
efficiency, and converted to velocity spectra by multiplying the spectra by the corresponding
angular frequency. The Housner intensity is often reported as a single value, however,
DEEPSOIL is able to provide the Housner intensity as a time-history by calculating the response
spectrum at each point of an acceleration record. The Housner intensity is calculated using the
following equation:
2.5
() = (, )
0 =0.1
where T is the period and is the damping ratio. In DEEPSOIL, the Housner intensity is
calculated assuming a damping ratio of 5%.
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 19 of 116
April 8, 2015
Page 20 of 116
April 8, 2015
Motions can also be added manually. This is done using a text editor capable of producing .TXT
files. To add an input motion, enter the necessary data in the format described below and save as
a .TXT file in the Input Motion directory. The default input motion directory is:
C:\Users\[User Name]\Documents\DEEPSOIL\Input Motions\. If the user has specified a
different directory, the input motion file should be placed in the user-specified directory. If this
method is used, DEEPSOIL must be closed and reopened before the input motion is available for
analyses.
Units of the ground motion should be seconds and gs.
The format should be as follows:
1st row: Number of data points & time step (separated by 1 space)
2nd and subsequent rows: time & acceleration (separated by 1 space)
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 21 of 116
April 8, 2015
3 Analysis Flow
3.1 Analysis Definition: Step 1 of 6
The first step in the analysis requires the selection of analysis type. Figure 8 illustrates the form
for Step 1. The user may also specify a workspace or working directory to use during this
session.
Before creating a new profile, or opening an existing profile, it is recommended to verify the
Current Workspace Directory at the bottom of the page. The DEEPSOIL Working directory
is chosen by default as the default working directory specified using the Options window (Figure
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 22 of 116
April 8, 2015
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 23 of 116
April 8, 2015
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 24 of 116
April 8, 2015
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 25 of 116
April 8, 2015
The entire form is broken up into three sections. The section located at the left is a visual display
of the soil profile. The section at the right is the table where the values for required input
parameters must be entered. The section at the bottom contains information about the soil
column, options for adding/removing layers, water table settings, and conversion functions.
If a total stress analysis is selected, the user must specify the typical soil properties of each layer
based on the type of analysis that was selected (Linear, Nonlinear, etc).
If an effective stress analysis is selected, the user must specify additional parameters including
the model to be used (Sand/Clay) and their respective parameters. The models are identified as
Sand (S) or Clay (C), and by the initials of the model developer (e.g. M for Matasovic, D for
Dobry, GMP for Green, Mitchell, Polito):
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 26 of 116
April 8, 2015
F/A/ FC
(Define F for Sand model, A for Clay model, FC (%) for GMP model)
s/B/- (Define s for Sand model, b for Clay model, leave blank for GMP model)
g/C/- (Define g for Sand model, C for Clay model, leave blank for GMP model)
v/D/v (Define v for Sand model, Define D for Clay model, v for GMP model)
-/g/- (Leave blank for Sand model, Define g for Clay model, leave blank for GMP)
If an effective stress analysis is selected with the option to Include PWP Dissipation, the user
must also specify:
Cv
*For v, Matasovic (1993) recommends a value ranging from 3.5 5.0, with an average value of
3.8.
The Clay model parameters are:
The GMP model parameters, which can be used for sands, are:
= Scale Factor
Dr (%) = Relative density
FC (%) = Fines Content
v = Curve fitting parameter* (same as used in the Matasovic (1993) Sand model)
For Effective Stress Analysis with the Include PWP Dissipation option:
Cv = Coefficient of consolidation
Units
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 27 of 116
April 8, 2015
3.2.2 Maximum Frequency (for Time Domain Analysis only) (Step 2b)
Upon completing the definition of the soil and model properties, the user is shown a plot of the
maximum frequency versus depth for each layer (Figure 10). A plot of maximum frequencies
(Hz) versus depths of all layers are displayed. The maximum frequency is the highest frequency
that the layer can propagate and is calculated as: fmax = Vs/4H, where Vs is the shear wave
velocity of the layer, and H is the thickness of the layer. To increase the maximum frequency, the
thickness of the layer should be decreased. This check is performed solely for time domain
analyses. It is recommended that the layers have the same maximum frequency throughout the
soil profile, though this is not required. For all layers, the maximum frequency should generally
be a minimum of 30 Hz.
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 28 of 116
April 8, 2015
= 2
The maximum value of shear stress for the given layer is then plotted at the depth corresponding
to that layer. Using this maximum value, the implied friction angle is then calculated using the
following equation:
= 1
The user is encouraged to carefully check the provided plots. If the implied strength or friction
angle of particular layer is deemed unreasonable, the user should consider modifying the
modulus reduction curve for the layer to provide a more realistic implied strength or friction
angle.
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 29 of 116
April 8, 2015
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 30 of 116
April 8, 2015
The user has the option of selecting either a Rigid Half-Space or an Elastic Half-Space. An
informational display makes the user aware that a rigid half-space should be chosen if a within
motion will be used, and an elastic half-space should be selected if an outcrop motion is being
used. If a rigid half-space is being used, no input parameters are required. If an elastic halfspace is being used, the user must supply the shear wave velocity (or modulus), unit weight, and
damping ratio of the half-space. In general, the shear wave velocity of the bedrock should be
greater than that of the overlying soil profile.
Bedrock properties may be saved by giving the bedrock a name and pressing the Save Bedrock
button. The new bedrock will appear in the list of saved bedrocks below. To use a saved
bedrock, select the file from the list box and press the Load button.
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 31 of 116
April 8, 2015
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 32 of 116
April 8, 2015
Figure 12. Step 3/6: Input Motion and Output Layer(s) (Time History Plots Tab)
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 33 of 116
April 8, 2015
Figure 13. Step 3/6: Input Motion and Output Layer(s) (Spectral Plots Tab)
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 34 of 116
April 8, 2015
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 35 of 116
April 8, 2015
Graph Lin. Freq. Domain Graphs the linear frequency domain for specified options
above
Check with Lin. Time Domain Graphs corresponding linear time domain
Clear Time Plots Clears the time domain graphs
Show Rayleigh Damping Graphs the Rayleigh damping, not available for frequency
independent formulation
For more details on this stage, please refer to Example 6 in the tutorial.
When ready to proceed, click Next.
Viscous damping formulation is used to model small strain damping. The viscous damping
formulation results in frequency dependent damping and can introduce significant artificial
damping. It is therefore important to select an appropriate viscous damping formulation and
corresponding coefficients to reduce the numerical damping (Hashash and Park, 2002; Park and
Hashash, 2004). There are three types of Rayleigh damping formulations in DEEPSOIL, as listed
below. It is, however, recommended that the frequency independent damping formulation be
selected for most analyses.
3.5.1.1 Frequency Independent Damping Formulation
This procedure solves for the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the damping matrix and requires
no specification of modes or frequencies. This formulation removes many of the limitations of
Rayleigh Damping and does not greatly increase the required analysis time in most situations. A
complete explanation of the damping formulation is presented in Phillips and Hashash, 2009.
3.5.1.2 Rayleigh Damping formulation types
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 36 of 116
April 8, 2015
A complete explanation of the extended Rayleigh damping formulation is presented in Park and
Hashash, 2004.
Modes/frequencies selection
There are two options available for selecting modes. The first option is choosing the natural
modes (e.g. 1st and 2nd modes). The second option is choosing the frequencies for Rayleigh
damping directly. The resulting Rayleigh damping curve can be displayed by pressing Show
Rayleigh Damping and the curve will be displayed at the right bottom window. Note again that
the viscous damping is frequency dependent. The goal in time domain analysis is to make the
viscous damping as constant as possible at significant frequencies.
Verification of the selected modes/frequencies
The time domain solution uses the frequency dependent Rayleigh damping formulation, whereas
actual viscous damping of soils is known to be fairly frequency independent. The frequency
domain solution uses frequency independent viscous damping. The appropriateness of the chosen
modes/frequencies should be therefore verified with the linear frequency domain solution.
Press Graph Lin. Freq. Domain. The results of the linear frequency domain solution
(Frequency ratio vs. Freq. and Response spectrum plots) will be displayed as blue curves. The
goal is to choose the appropriate modes/frequencies that compare well with the linear frequency
domain solution.
Enter the desired modes/frequencies as input. Then press the Check with Lin. Time Domain
button. The results (in the same window as frequency domain solution) will be displayed as pink
curves. Choose the modes/frequencies that agree well with the linear frequency domain solution.
This is an iterative procedure and optimum modes/frequencies should be chosen by trial and
error.
Damping Matrix Update
This option is only applicable for nonlinear solutions. During the excitation, soil stiffness and the
frequencies corresponding to the natural modes of the profile change at each time step. The
natural modes selected are recalculated at each time step to incorporate the change in stiffness
and the damping matrix is recalculated.
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 37 of 116
April 8, 2015
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 38 of 116
April 8, 2015
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 39 of 116
April 8, 2015
Figure 15. Step 5/6: Analysis Options for Frequency Domain or Time Domain Analysis.
Number of Iterations
Effective Shear Strain Ratio
Complex Shear Modulus
o Frequency Independent
o Frequency Dependent
o Simplified
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 40 of 116
April 8, 2015
1
10
Step Control
o Flexible
o Fixed
Maximum Strain Increment
Number of Sub-Increments
The accuracy of the time domain solution depends on the time step selected. There are two
options in choosing the time step (Hashash and Park, 2001).
3.6.2.1 Flexible Step
A time increment is subdivided only if computed strains in the soil exceed a specified maximum
strain increment.
The procedure is the same as that for the Fixed Step above, except the Flexible option is chosen.
Type the desired Maximum Strain Increment into the text box. The default and recommended
value is 0.005 (%).
3.6.2.2 Fixed Step
Each time-step is divided into N equal sub-increments throughout the time series.
To choose this option:
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 41 of 116
April 8, 2015
If multiple motions were selected for analysis, the output can be found in the users working
directory in a folder named Batch Output. Within this folder, there will be a folder
corresponding to each collection of batch analyses (ie. Batch0, Batch1, etc). These folders
will contain the results from each motion.
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 42 of 116
April 8, 2015
Page 43 of 116
April 8, 2015
DEEPSOIL also provides the option to export the analysis results to a Microsoft Excel file. This
is done by clicking the Export to Excel button on the results form. Note that this feature
requires Microsoft Excel be installed on the system.
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 44 of 116
April 8, 2015
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 45 of 116
April 8, 2015
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 46 of 116
April 8, 2015
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 47 of 116
April 8, 2015
4 Soil Models
A variety of models are available for DEEPSOIL analyses. These models include: a) Equivalent
Linear, b) Hyperbolic (MR, MRD, DC), c) a Non-Masing Hyperbolic model (MRDF), and d)
Porewater Pressure Generation and Dissipation.
1 + Beta
1 + Beta
r
mo
where Gmo = initial shear modulus, mo = shear strength, = shear strain. Beta, s, and r are
model parameters. There is no coupling between the confining pressure and shear stress.
DEEPSOIL extends the model to allow coupling by making r confining pressure dependent as
follows (Hashash and Park, 2001):
v'
r = REF . strain
REF . stress
where v is the effective vertical stress. Ref. stress is the vertical effective stress at which r =
Ref. stress. This model is termed as the pressure-dependent hyperbolic model.
The pressure-dependent modified hyperbolic model is almost linear at small strains and results in
zero hysteretic damping at small strains. Small strain damping has to be added separately to
simulate actual soil behavior which exhibits damping even at very small strains (Hashash and
Park, 2001). The small strain damping is defined as
d
Page 48 of 116
April 8, 2015
Procedure to find the parameters that provide the best fit for the modulus
reduction curve with potentially significant mismatch of the damping curve.
MRD: Procedure to find the parameters that provide the best fit for both the modulus
reduction and damping curve
DC:
Procedure to find the parameters that provide the best fit for the damping curve
with potentially significant mismatch of the backbone curve.
Page 49 of 116
April 8, 2015
where is the maximum shear strain experienced at any given time, ( ) is the shear
modulus at , and P1, P2, and P3 are fitting parameters.
By setting P1= 1 and P2= 0, the reduction factor is equal to 1 (regardless of the value of P3), and
the model is reduced to the Extended Masing criteria.
4.2.2.2 MRDF-Darendeli
The MRDF Pressure-Dependent Hyperbolic (Phillips and Hashash, 2009) model can also be
used with alternative formulations for the reduction factor. One alternative is the formulation
proposed by Darendeli, 2001. This formulation is an empirically-based modified hyperbolic
model to predict the nonlinear dynamic responses of different soil types. The developed model is
implemented as a reduction factor with the form:
( ) = 1 (( )0 )2
where is the maximum shear strain experienced at any given time, ( ) is the shear
modulus at , and P1 and P2 are fitting parameters.
By setting P1= 1 and P2= 0, the reduction factor is equal to 1, and the model is reduced to the
Extended Masing criteria.
4.2.2.3 Non-Masing Unload-Reload Formulation
0 (( )2)
0 ( )
0 ( )
+
+
1 + ( )
( ) 1 + ( )
1 + 2
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 50 of 116
April 8, 2015
uN =
p f N c F ( ct tvp ) s
1 + f N c F ( ct tvp ) s
c ,
which no significant pore water pressure is generated. tup is between 0.01% and 0.02%
for most of sands and is represented by the parameter g in DEEPSOIL
u N = AN
3s ( c tup ) r
+ BN
2s ( c tup ) r
+ CN
s ( c tup ) r
+D
tup
which no significant pore water pressure is generated. tup for clays is typically greater
than sands (by ~0.1%) and is represented by the parameter g in DEEPSOIL
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 51 of 116
April 8, 2015
1
= (+1 + ) (+1 )
20
=1
The determination of the calibration parameter can be conducted either via graphical
procedure or by use of an empirical relationship. The graphical procedure is described in detail
by Green et al. (2000). However, this causes an interruption in analysis as it requires the
construction of the graphical procedure outside of site response analysis software.
Polito et al. (2008) derived an empirical relationship between , relative density ( ), and
fines content (FC) from a large database of laboratory data on non-plastic silt-sand mixtures
ranging from clean sands to pure silts. The use of this empirical relationship allows the use of
the GMP model directly in nonlinear site response analysis software by removing the need to
find the value of through graphical procedures. The empirical relationship is defined as:
ln() =
The pore water pressure dissipation model is based on Terzaghi 1-D consolidation theory:
2u
u
= Cv ( 2 )
t
z
where Cv is the consolidation coefficient.
Dissipation of the excess pore water pressure is assumed to occur in the vertical direction only.
Porewater pressure generation and dissipation occur simultaneously during ground shaking.
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 52 of 116
April 8, 2015
5.1.3 Results:
Example 1 A:
400
200
0.01
0.1
10
Period (sec)
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 53 of 116
April 8, 2015
01
0.1
10
Period (sec)
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 54 of 116
April 8, 2015
5.2.3 Results:
Example 2 A:
0.4
0.2
0.01
0.1
10
Period (sec)
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 55 of 116
April 8, 2015
Example 2 B:
0.4
0.2
0.01
0.1
10
Period (sec)
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 56 of 116
April 8, 2015
5.3.3 Results:
Example 3 A:
0.4
0.2
0.01
0.1
10
Period (sec)
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 57 of 116
April 8, 2015
Example 3 B:
0.4
0.2
0.01
0.1
10
Period (sec)
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 58 of 116
April 8, 2015
5.4.3 Results:
0.4
0.2
0.01
0.1
10
Period (sec)
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 59 of 116
April 8, 2015
5.5.3 Results:
Input Motion
Nonlinear MR Fitting
Equivalent Linear MR Fitting
Nonlinear MRD Fitting
Equivalent Linear MRD Fitting
Nonlinear DC Fitting
Equivalent Linear DC Fitting
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0
0.01
DEEPSOIL 6.0
1
0.1
Period (sec)
10
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
1E-005
1E-006
1E-007
1E-008
1E-009
1E-010
1E-011
1E-012
0.01
Page 60 of 116
0.1
1
10
Frequency (Hz)
100
April 8, 2015
5.6.3 Results:
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.01
0.1
10
Period (sec)
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 61 of 116
April 8, 2015
5.7.3 Results:
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Shear Strain (%)
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-2
-3
-4
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 62 of 116
April 8, 2015
6 References
Chopra, Anil K. (1995) Dynamic of Structures, Theory and applications to Earthquake
Engineering Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Clough, Ray W., and Joseph Penzien (1993) Dynamics of structures, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Darendeli, M. B. (2001). Development of a New Family of Normalized Modulus Reduction and
Material Damping Curves, Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering,
The University of Texas, Austin, Texas.
Duncan, James M., and Chin-Yung Chang (1970) "Nonlinear analysis of stress and strain in
soils," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Vol. 96, No. SM5, pp 16291653.
Finn, W. D. L., Lee, K. L, and Martin, G. R. (1977) An effective stress model for liquefaction.
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 103, No. GT6, 517-533.
Green, R.A., Mitchell, J.K. and Polito, C.P. (2000). "An Energy-Based Pore Pressure Generation
Model for Cohesionless Soils", Proceedings: John Booker Memorial Symposium, Melbourne,
Australia, November 16-17, 2000.
Hardin, B. O. and Drnevich, V. P. (1972) Shear modulus and damping in soils: Design
equations and curves. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 98,
No. SM7, 667-692.
Hashash, Y. M. A., and D. Park (2002) "Viscous damping formulation and high frequency
motion propagation in nonlinear site response analysis," Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, Vol. 22, No. 7, pp. 611-624.
Hashash, Youssef M. A., and Duhee Park (2001) "Non-linear one-dimensional seismic ground
motion propagation in the Mississippi embayment," Engineering Geology, Vol. 62, No. 1-3, pp
185-206.
Hashash, Y.M.A., Phillips, C. and Groholski, D. (2010). "Recent advances in non-linear site
response analysis", Fifth International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical
Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, Paper no. OSP 4.
Hudson, M., Idriss, I.M., and Beikae, M. 1994. (1994) "QUAD4M - A computer program to
evaluate the seismic response of soil structures using finite element procedures and incorporating
a compliant base." Davis, CA: Center for Geotechnical Modeling, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis, CA.
Idriss, I. M. and Seed, H. B. (1968) Seismic response of horizontal soil layers. Journal of the
Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 94, No. SM4, pp 1003-1031.
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 63 of 116
April 8, 2015
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 64 of 116
April 8, 2015
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 65 of 116
April 8, 2015
Motion Name
Record
Number
Date of
Event
Magnitude
Distance
to Fault
Rupture
(km)
ChiChi
P1116
1999/09/20
7.6
15.29
0.183
Coyote
P0154
1979/08/06
5.7
17.2
0.124
Imperial Valley
P0165
1979/10/15
6.5
26.5
0.169
Kobe
P1043
1995/01/16
6.9
0.6
0.821
Kocaeli
P1087
1999/08/17
7.4
17.0
0.218
LomaGilroy
P0738
1989/10/18
6.9
19.9
0.170
LomaGilroy2
P0764
1989/10/18
6.9
11.6
0.357
MammothLake
P0232
1980/05/25
6.3
15.5*
A**
0.430
Nahnni
P0498
1985/12/23
6.8
16.0
A**
0.148
Northridge
P0885
1994/01/17
6.7
26.8
0.217
Northridge2
P1014
1994/10/17
6.7
43.4
0.098
Parkfield
P0034
1966/06/28
6.1
9.9
0.357
WhittierNarrows
P0666
1987/10/01
6.0
21.2
0.186
USGS
Site Class
PGA (g)
*Hypocentral distance
** Geomatrix Site Class
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 66 of 116
April 8, 2015
The profile consists of a 70-ft thick soil column overlying rigid bedrock. The soil layer is
assumed to be undamped (zero damping) and linear elastic.
STEP 1/6
For Step 1/6, first choose the method of analysis by selecting Frequency Domain - Linear
Analysis.
For this example, the number of layers will be 1. Check that the value in the # of Layers input
box is 1.
Now we must choose whether to define the stiffness of the layer in shear wave velocity or shear
modulus. Select Wave Velocity.
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 67 of 116
April 8, 2015
STEP 2/6
In Step 2/6, the user must define the soil column and soil properties. The figure below shows the
window that displays the soil properties.
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 68 of 116
April 8, 2015
IMPLIED STRENGTH
This step uses the material properties specified in step 2a to calculate the implied strength of the
profile. Because this example in an idealized soil column, the values will seem very large. In a
real analysis, the soil properties should be modified to reflect realistic strengths. For now,
simply press Next to continue to step 2b.
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 69 of 116
April 8, 2015
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 70 of 116
April 8, 2015
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 71 of 116
April 8, 2015
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 72 of 116
April 8, 2015
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 73 of 116
April 8, 2015
The first number is the total number of data points. The second number is the time step. The
actual time history should be written in two columns, the first column is the time and the second
column is the acceleration. The time should be in units of seconds, and the acceleration should be
in units of g.
STEP 6/6
Upon completion of analysis, the user will be presented with the output window. The output
window displays acceleration, strain, and stress time histories, in addition to stress vs. strain
curves, Fourier amplitude spectrum, Fourier amplification ratio, and response spectra.
Compare your results with the figures shown below. The results should be exactly the same
(note the scales).
The output data has been automatically exported to Results - Motion.txt in the user-specified
working directory. To view the output text file, simply click the Show analysis results in folder
view link located above the Close button. This will open the user-defined working directory,
which should contain the output text file.
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 74 of 116
April 8, 2015
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 75 of 116
April 8, 2015
Note that resonance occurs at natural frequencies and therefore results in significant
amplification of the motion at such frequencies.
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 76 of 116
April 8, 2015
STEP 1/6
All options are the same as in Example 1. Press the Next button to proceed to the soil profile
window.
STEP 2/6
Enter 80 for the thickness of the layer in the soil properties spreadsheet. All other values are
the same as given in Example 1. Press the Next button to continue.
STEP 2b/6
In this step, we will define the elastic properties of the bedrock. Select the Elastic Half-Space
option to define the elastic bedrock properties. Enter the input for the Shear Velocity, Unit
Weight, and Damping Ratio as 5000 ft/sec, 160 pcf, and 2% respectively. You can also save the
bedrock properties by giving the bedrock a name and then clicking the Save Bedrock. Press the
Next button to proceed to Step 3/6.
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 77 of 116
April 8, 2015
For the remaining steps, all options should be selected to be the same as in Example 1 (Input
MotionKobe.txt; Frequency Independent Complex Shear Modulus; FFT).
After you have checked that all options are the same as in Example 1, click the Analyze button
to begin the analysis.
Check your analysis results with the figures shown on the following page. The first figure shows
the calculated surface response spectrum. The elastic bedrock absorbs a significant amount of
energy compared to the rigid bedrock and results in lower resonance.
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 78 of 116
April 8, 2015
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 79 of 116
April 8, 2015
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 80 of 116
April 8, 2015
STEP 1/6
All options for Step 1/6 are exactly the same as those in Example 2.
STEP 2/6
Damping of 5% is imposed on the soil layer. Enter 5 into the Damping Ratio column of the
soil properties spreadsheet. Press the Next button to proceed to Step 2b/6.
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 81 of 116
April 8, 2015
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 82 of 116
April 8, 2015
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 83 of 116
April 8, 2015
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 84 of 116
April 8, 2015
If discrete points are selected, the G/GMAX and damping ratio will be defined in discrete points at
various strain levels. It is also possible to define the G/GMAX and damping curve using the
modified hyperbolic model. In that case, the user needs to define the nonlinear parameters for the
soil model. DEEPSOIL will automatically develop corresponding G/GMAX and damping ratio
curves.
For this example, select Discrete Points and then press the Next button.
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 85 of 116
April 8, 2015
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 86 of 116
April 8, 2015
The user can define the G/GMAX and damping properties by first defining the number of data
points. Note that the number of data points should be identical for G/GMAX and damping. The
strain and damping values should be entered as a percent [%].
To save the data points, type a name to identify the properties and press Save Material. Once
saved, the newly saved file will appear in the Use Saved Material Properties listbox.
The user can also use saved material properties by selecting the appropriate file from the listbox
and pressing the Use Saved Material button. We will use this method in this example. Select
the saved material named S&I_Mean.dsm and click the Use Saved Material button. The
discrete point data for this material should now be loaded in the spreadsheet as shown below.
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 87 of 116
April 8, 2015
To compare the selected material to a material from the material library, the user must define a)
the Material Type, and b) the Target Curve.
Click on the Material Type drop-down menu and select Sand. Two new items will appear:
Basic Parameters and Target Curve. The Basic Parameters for this case simply displays the
vertical stress at the midpoint of the layer. Now we must define the Target Curve.
Click on the Target Curve drop-down menu. A list of various models for sand will appear.
Select the Seed & Idriss, 1991 (Mean Limit) item. The model soil curves will be plotted in
pink for your reference. In addition, a new item appears labeled: Data Points to Fit. These are
the points that define the model curves. To use this model data, click the Use Material Data
button. The discrete points of your soil model will be updated to match these points. Click
Calculate Curves to verify that the models are the same.
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 88 of 116
April 8, 2015
Once you are satisfied with your soil curves, press the Apply button to apply the properties and
return to the profile spreadsheet.
When you have finished checking the data, press the Next button to proceed.
STEP 2b/6
The entries for this step are the same as those specified in Example 3.
STEP 3/6
The third stage of analysis is the analysis control stage.
Equivalent linear analyses require a number of iterations to obtain more accurate results. The
recommended number of iterations is 15. For the sake of accuracy, you should not choose less
than 10 iterations. For this example, choose (at least) 10 iterations.
Select the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT).
The next step is selecting the effective shear strain ratio. The equivalent linear analysis selects
shear modulus and damping ratio at a representative shear strain at an effective strain as a ratio
of maximum shear strain. Enter an effective shear strain ratio of 0.65.
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 89 of 116
April 8, 2015
Select the Frequency Independent Complex Shear Modulus for use in this analysis.
Finally, press the Next button to proceed to the input motion and output layer(s) selection
window (Step 4/6).
STEP 4/6
Similar to the previous examples, select Kobe.txt as the input motion and select the desired
layers for output. Layer 1 is automatically selected by default. Press the Analyze button to
begin the analysis.
STEP 6/6
The figures below show the computed response spectrum at the surface. Check that your results
match those presented in the figures.
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 90 of 116
April 8, 2015
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 91 of 116
April 8, 2015
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 92 of 116
April 8, 2015
STEP 1/6
Press the Open Existing Profile button and browse for Example 4. It should be located in the
Examples directory.
Once you find the appropriate directory, open Example 4
(Ex4_EQL_Single_Layer.dp).
Press Next to proceed to Step 2/6.
STEP 2/6
As you can see, all of the information for Layer 1 corresponds to Example 4. We will now
modify this data and add two additional layers to the profile. First, change the Thickness and
Shear Wave Velocity of Layer 1 to 10 ft and 1000 ft/sec, respectively.
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 93 of 116
April 8, 2015
There are two methods of adding a layer to the profile. We will use the first method to add the
first layer, and the second method to add the second layer.
To add a layer to the profile by the first method, first select Layer 1 by left-clicking any of the
cells in that row. Now, right-click to bring up the soil properties pop-up menu and select Add
Layer from the list of commands. A new Add Layer window will appear.
In the Add Layer window, select the After Layer option and select Layer 1 from the dropdown list. After pressing Add, the new soil layer should be visible in the spreadsheet.
Enter the thickness (30 ft), unit weight (125 pcf), and shear wave velocity (1500 ft/sec) of the
soil layer. Also apply the Seed & Idriss, 1991 (Mean Limit) curves for the layer as was done
in Example 4.
To add the third layer, left-click one of the cells in the spreadsheet. Now click the Add Layer
button in the Soil Profile group located in the middle of the form. Again select the After Layer
option and select 2 using the drop-down box and press the Add button. Repeat the same process
outlined above, but using a thickness of 40 ft and a shear wave velocity of 2000 ft/sec. Be sure
that you check your input in the spreadsheet to confirm that it matches the one shown below.
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 94 of 116
April 8, 2015
For Step 2b/6 and Step 3/6, keep all other options the same as Example 4.
STEP 4/6
Keep all other selected options the same as in Example 4, including the input motion
(Kobe.txt). If you like, you may select to analyze Layers 2 and 3 (Layer 1 is selected by
default) by checking (double-clicking) each layers corresponding checkbox located to the left of
the input motion plot. Once you have checked your input and specified which layers are to be
analyzed, press the Analyze button to run the analysis.
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 95 of 116
April 8, 2015
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 96 of 116
April 8, 2015
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 97 of 116
April 8, 2015
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 98 of 116
April 8, 2015
STEP 2/6
Note that the basic properties of the layers (Thickness, unit weight, and shear velocity) are
preserved.
DEEPSOIL 6.0
Page 99 of 116
April 8, 2015
For each layer, bring up the soil properties window using the Soil Properties button or by
double-clicking the layer.
The default non-linear parameters are given as S&I_M_NL.dsm. Find the file in the Saved
Materials list box and press Use Saved Material to apply the material data to the layer.
Find the Seed & Idriss, 1991 (Mean Limit) curves in the Material Library as was done in
previous examples. Now, press Calculate Curves to display the soil curves. Compare the
calculated curves to the Seed and Idriss mean cohesionless curves. The Seed and Idriss curves,
which are the reference curves, will be shown in pink.
To match the Seed and Idriss curves, the material constants need to be changed. The soil model
incorporated in DEEPSOIL is the extended modified hyperbolic model:
v'
r = REF . strain
.
REF
stress
Damping ratio
( v ')d
The parameters that control the shape of the backbone curve are (beta), s, and r.
The curve can be made confining pressure dependent by selecting the reference stress and the
b-parameter. Select b = 0 to make the curve pressure independent. Note that r = reference
effective strain for b = 0 or v = reference stress.
The small strain damping properties can also be made pressure dependent by introducing the d
parameter. The d parameter in the equation is the small strain damping in the user interface.
Select d = 0 to make the curve pressure independent.
DEEPSOIL 6.0
April 8, 2015
For nonlinear analyses, DEEPSOIL will automatically check the maximum frequency of each
layer. The Maximum Frequency vs. Depth will be plotted with a table of corresponding values
given on the right. This check is to ensure that the maximum cut-off frequency is always greater
than or equal to 25 Hz.
DEEPSOIL 6.0
April 8, 2015
STEP 4/6
DEEPSOIL 6.0
April 8, 2015
DEEPSOIL 6.0
April 8, 2015
Finally, select the Frequency Independent option for the analysis. We have now optimized this
analysis. Press the Analyze button to continue.
DEEPSOIL 6.0
April 8, 2015
DEEPSOIL 6.0
April 8, 2015
DEEPSOIL 6.0
April 8, 2015
DEEPSOIL 6.0
April 8, 2015
The first parameter that needs to be defined for each layer is the PWP Model. The models that
can be used in analysis are Sand (1), Clay (2), or GMP (3) which is another model that can be
used for sands. Each layer may use a different PWP Model. For the purpose of this example, set
each layer to use the Sand Model by entering 1 into each layers corresponding cell.
DEEPSOIL 6.0
April 8, 2015
f = 1
p/r/Dr (%)
p = 1
F/A/FC(%)
F = 0.73
s/B/-
s = 1
g/C/- g = 0.02
v/D/v v = 3.8
-/g/-
Cv = 0.1
The PWP section of the spreadsheet should look like the following figure.
After checking your input, press the Next button to continue to the third stage of analysis.
The remaining steps of the analysis are exactly the same as in Example 6. Check that your input
for Steps 3/6 5/6 are the same as in Example 6. In Step 4/6, be sure to select the Kobe.txt
input motion for analysis.
DEEPSOIL 6.0
April 8, 2015
Now lets take a look to see if any pore water pressure was generated in Layer 1 due to the input
motion. You can do this by selecting the PWP vs Time tab for a quick visualization. For the
purposes of this example, lets examine the exported output data. Use Windows Explorer to
navigate to the folder you specified as your working directory when you started DEEPSOIL or
press the Show results in folder view link shown above the close button. If you kept the
default directory suggested by DEEPSOIL, then navigate to the Working folder of the
DEEPSOIL program path. The current working directory can also be found using the input
summary. To view the input summary, click on the View menu and select Input Summary.
The working directory will be listed on the Analysis Selection tab of the form.
Open Results Kobe.txt. If you have completed other analyses with the Kobe motion, the
results file will be Results Kobe#.txt, where # is simply an index referring to the most recent
analysis.
DEEPSOIL 6.0
April 8, 2015
Results Kobe.txt contains all of the output data produced by DEEPSOIL. As can be seen
from the figure above, the last column of data contains the pore water pressure in the layer at a
given time.
Scroll down to the very bottom of Results Kobe.txt. Here you will find data regarding the
PGA, Maximum Strain, Maximum Stress Ratio, and Maximum Pore Water Pressure Ratio
Profiles.
As you can see from the results, almost no pore water pressure was generated in Layer 1, and the
largest pressures were generated in Layer 5.
Using Results Kobe.txt, we can determine the generation of pore water pressures with time,
and also quickly identify which layer experiences the maximum generation of pore water
pressure.
If you would prefer to view these results in the form of a Microsoft Excel file, simply click the
Export Output to Excel button on the results form. This will create an Excel file that contains
DEEPSOIL 6.0
April 8, 2015
DEEPSOIL 6.0
April 8, 2015
f = 2
p/r/Dr (%)
Dr = 0.95
F/A/FC(%)
FC = 15
s/B/-
Cv = 0.1
The PWP section of the spreadsheet should look like the following figure.
After checking your input, press the Next button to continue to the third stage of analysis.
The remaining steps of the analysis are exactly the same as in Example 6. Check that your input
for Steps 3/6 5/6 are the same as in Example 7. In Step 4/6, be sure to select the Kobe.txt
input motion for analysis.
The response spectra and excess pore pressure plots are shown below for your comparison.
DEEPSOIL 6.0
April 8, 2015
DEEPSOIL 6.0
April 8, 2015
DEEPSOIL 6.0
April 8, 2015
DEEPSOIL 6.0
April 8, 2015