3.1 Analysis Definition: Step 1 of 5

3 Analysis Flow
3.1 Analysis Definition: Step 1 of 5
The first step in the analysis requires the selection of analysis type. Figure 3.1 illustrates the form
for Step 1.
In the introductory tab (Analysis Definition), the user is required to choose the Analysis Method,
the Solution Type (Frequency of Time domain), the Default Soil Model for all newly generated
layers and the Default Hysteretic Re/Unloading Formulation for the analysis of DEEPSOIL. In
addition, the user can choose whether DEEPSOIL will automatically generate profiles for the
given input data (Automatic Profile Generation on/off), the Unit System (English or Metric) as
well as the type of Complementary Analyses that may be requested (Equivalent Linear-Frequency
Domain, Linear-Frequency Domain and Linear-Time Domain). Finally, under Analysis Tag, the
user can see the identifiers, which are IDs that are included in the analysis results to help users
identify the kind of soil model analysis that DEEPSOIL performed (See Table 3.2 for Soil Models
Descriptions).
Figure 3.1. Step 1/5: Choose type of analysis.
DEEPSOIL User Manual V 7.0 Page 34 of 170 November 26, 2020

Note: Before creating a new profile, or opening an existing profile, it is recommended to verify
the Default Working Directory from the menu Options (Figure 3.2). If a different directory is
preferred, press the Change button to bring up a folder browser and select the preferred directory.
At the same window, the user can choose the Default Units (English or Metric), the Default
Language, the Multi Core, the Graph Colors and the choice to allow DEEPSOIL to collect
anonymous data to improve user experience.
Figure 3.2. Choose the Default Working Directory.
Under Analysis Method the following options are available

• Linear
• Equivalent Linear
• Nonlinear
Depending on the Analysis Method choice of the user, different Solution Type, Default Soil Model,
Default Hysteretic Re/Unloading Formulation choices may be available. The available
combinations for each Analysis Method are presented in tabular format in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1. Available analysis option in DEEPSOIL 7
Analysis Method Soil Model Hysteretic Pore Pressure
Re/Un-loading Options
Formulation
Linear Frequency
and Time - - -
domain
Equivalent Frequency ● General Quadratic/ ● Non-Masing
-
Linear domain Hyperbolic Model ● Masing
Nonlinear Time (GQ/H) ● Generate Excess
domain ● Pressure-Dependent Porewater Pressure
Modified Kondner ● Enable Dissipation
Zelasko (MKZ) ● Make top of
● Yee et al. (2013) Profile Permeable
● Discrete Points ● Make Bottom of
(Equivalent Linear) Profile Perm.
● User-Defined (UMAT)

Table 3.2. IDs of different Soil Models in DEEPSOIL – Soil Model Descriptions
ID Model Description
DS-FL0 Frequency Domain Linear
DS-EL0 Frequency Domain Equivalent Linear - Discrete Points
DS-EL1 Frequency Domain Equivalent Linear - MKZ with Masing Rules
DS-EL2 Frequency Domain Equivalent Linear - MKZ with Non-Masing Rules
DS-EL3 Frequency Domain Equivalent Linear - GQ/H with Masing Rules
DS-EL4 Frequency Domain Equivalent Linear - GQ/H with Non-Masing Rules
DS-TL0 Time Domain Linear
DS-NL1 Time Domain Nonlinear - MKZ with Masing Rules
DS-NL2 Time Domain Nonlinear - MKZ with Non-Masing Rules
DS-NL3 Time Domain Nonlinear - GQ/H with Masing Rules
DS-NL4 Time Domain Nonlinear - GQ/H with Masing Rules
-PWP0 Porewater pressure generation without dissipation
-PWP1 Porewater pressure generation and dissipation - permeable halfspace
-PWP2 Porewater pressure generation and dissipation - impermeable halfspace
Note: To review the input parameters, you can select the Input Summary menu at any moment.
The Input Summary window (Figure 3.3) may be viewed any time after completing step 1. Note:
tabs will only appear after the corresponding parameters have been inputted.
Figure 3.3. Input Summary window.

3.1.1 Linear Analysis
A Linear Analysis (Lin) model can be solved in the following two ways:
-Frequency Domain
-Time Domain
In both linear site response analyses, the maximum soil stiffness and a constant damping ratio are
considered throughout the entire time history.
3.1.2 Equivalent Linear Analysis
The Equivalent Linear (EL) model employs an iterative procedure in the selection of the shear
modulus and damping ratio soil properties as pioneered in program SHAKE. These properties can
be defined by discrete points or by defining the soil parameters that define the backbone curve of
one of the nonlinear models.
The option of defining the soil curves using discrete points is only applicable for the Equivalent
Linear analysis. For this option, the G/Gmax and damping ratio (%) are defined as functions of
shear strain (%).
3.1.3 Deconvolution via Frequency Domain Analysis
This approach is the same as the frequency-domain equivalent linear analysis approaches except
that the input motion can be applied at the ground surface or anywhere else in the soil column.
The corresponding rock motion is then computed and provided to the user.
Deconvolution requires definition of a soil profile. The following properties need to be defined
for each layer:
• Thickness
• Shear Wave Velocity (𝑉𝑉𝑠𝑠) or Initial Shear Modulus (𝐺𝐺𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚)
• Unit Weight
• Damping Ratio (%)
To perform the deconvolution,

1. Open or create an frequency domain profile (Linear or Equivalent Linear Analysis)
2. Enter the requested information into the table on Step 2a, as shown in Figure 3.4.

3. Additional layers may be added using the Add Layer button. Unwanted layers may
similarly be removed using the Remove Layer button.
4. Select the bottom layer and check the box labeled Deconvolution near the bottom of the
window
5. Specify the point of application of the ground motion by selecting the appropriate layer in
the drop-down list.
6. Use the circular buttons to select the type of ground motions to be generated as output.
7. Click Next to advance to Step 3 and select the locations for output and the motion(s) to be
deconvolved.
8. Click Next to advance to Step 5 and set the frequency-domain parameters.
9. Click Analyze.
Figure 3.4. Deconvolution analysis parameters.
The output from a deconvolution analysis is a set of DEEPSOIL-formatted motions. Regardless

of the output selection, there will be a file named “Deconvolved - [motion name].txt” that is the
motion at the top of rock (bottom of profile). Additional files will be produced for each layer
output requested and will be named “Deconvolved - [motion name] - layer [#].txt”. These files
can be used directly in DEEPSOIL.

Note: Deconvolution cannot be performed in the time domain analysis. Finding the motion at the
bottom of the soil profile given the motion at the ground surface is an inverse problem in nonlinear
analysis that is complex to solve and is not amenable to a simple deconvolution computation.
3.1.4 Non-Linear Analysis
Non-linear (NL) analysis solves the equations of motions in time domain using the Newmark β
method (implicit) or the Heun’s Method (explicit). Several soil models are available for users to
select from, summarized above and in Table 3.1. The analysis can be performed with or without
porewater pressure generation.
The user has the option of obtaining the site response results using the equivalent linear method
automatically whenever nonlinear site response analysis is conducted. It is highly recommended
that EL results are always examined whenever a NL analysis is conducted. This can be done by
checking the box labeled Equivalent Linear – Frequency Domain as it is shown in Figure 3.5.
Figure 3.5. Complementary Equivalent Linear-Frequency Domain analysis.
3.2 Soil Profile Definition: Step 2 of 5

The Soil Profile Definition window (Figure 3.6) consists of a visual display of the soil profile (Soil
Profile Plot), the Soil Profile Metrics section and either one of the two tabs: (a) Layer Properties
and (b)., Advanced Table View.

The user can define the properties of each layer of the soil profile (Thickness, Shear Wave Velocity
(VS) or Initial Shear Modulus (Gmax) and Unit Weight) using one or both the Layer Properties and
the Advanced Table View tabs.
Additional layers may be added using the Add Layer(s) button. Unwanted layers may similarly be
removed using the Remove Layer(s) button.
If the user selects to generate porewater pressure during the analysis (nonlinear analyses only),
additional parameters must be specified, including the model to be used and their respective
parameters. Each model and the required inputs are discussed in detail in Section 4.
The check box Water Table is used to choose the depth of the water table by clicking the drop-
down menu and selecting the layer that the water table will be above. The Advanced Table View
tab displays every layer beneath the water table by changing the background color to blue. The
location of the water table affects the calculations only when introducing the pressure dependent
soil parameters or performing an effective stress analysis. The location of the water table does not
influence the frequency domain solution.
The Layer Properties (Figure 3.7) tab is divided in five sections: i. the Current Soil Properties, ii.
the Reference Curve iii. the Curve Fitting iv. the Save Materials and v. Other Material Files. In
the right side of the window the plots of G/Gmax, Damping Ratio and Shear Strength vs Shear
Strain are shown. Single Element Test
The Previous Layer and Next Layer buttons on the top right corner of the window can be used to
select the layers. Alternatively, the user can double click on the layer he wants to modify from the
visual display on the left side of the window.

Figure 3.6. Soil Profile Definition – Advanced Table View window.
Figure 3.7. Layer Properties Tab.
The Advanced Table View (Figure 3.6) tab summarizes the input parameters of each layer along
with the generated information from the Layer Properties tab in a tabular format.

The user must specify the typical soil properties of each layer based on the type of analysis that
was selected (Linear, Nonlinear, etc). The input parameters for each soil model are discussed in
Chapter 4.
3.2.1 Single Element Test
Single Element Test option (Figure 3.8) is provided under Layer Properties Tab (Figure 3.7) in
order to test the soil model behavior for given strain path. Soil Model can be changed to any of
available options. Additionally, different damping models and pore water pressure options can be
selected to evaluate the soil hysteresis behavior. Soil backbone curve can be plotted on top of
hysteresis loop. Figure 3.8 shows the hysteresis behavior for soil layer for which MKZ soil model
and Masing type of damping model is adopted.
3.2.2 Maximum Frequency (for Time Domain Analysis only)

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 3.9). 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 layer thickness. To increase the fmax, 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.

Figure 3.8 Single Element Test Window
Figure 3.9. Soil Profile Plot.

3.2.3 Implied Strength Profile (Step 2)
Upon completing the definition of the soil and model properties, the user is shown a plot of the
implied strength of the soil profile. The window provides three plots for the user to view: implied
shear strength versus depth, normalized implied shear strength (shear strength divided by effective
vertical stress) versus depth, and implied friction angle versus depth (Figure 3.9). The shear
strength and friction angle are also provided in the table to the right for closer inspection. The
implied shear strength is calculated from the modulus reduction curves entered as part of step 2a.
At each point on the curve, the shear stress is calculated using the following equation:
𝐺𝐺
𝜏𝜏 = 𝜌𝜌𝑉𝑉𝑠𝑠2 𝛾𝛾 (3.1)
𝐺𝐺𝑜𝑜
where, τ is the shear stress at the given point, ρ is the mass density of the soil, VS is the shear wave
velocity in the given layer, G is the shear modulus at the given point, G0 is the shear modulus at
0% shear strain, γ is the shear strain at the given point.
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:
𝜏𝜏𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝜙𝜙 = 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1 � � (3.2)
𝜎𝜎′𝑣𝑣
Where 𝜙𝜙 is the friction angle, 𝜏𝜏𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 is the maximum shear stress as calculated above, and 𝜎𝜎′𝑣𝑣 is
the effective vertical stress at the mid-depth of each layer.
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.
3.2.4 Halfspace Definition (Bedrock)
As part of the Soil Profile Definition, the user must also define the rock / half-space properties of
the bottom of the profile. This can be done through the Layer Properties tab by double clicking on
the last bottom of the Soil Profile Plot at the left side of the window (Figure 3.10).
The user has the option of selecting either an Elastic Half-space or a Rigid Half-space. An
informational display (Information Regarding Rock Properties) explains that an elastic half-space

should be selected if an outcrop motion is being used and a rigid half-space should be selected if
a within motion is being used. If an elastic half-space is being used, the user must supply the shear
wave velocity (or modulus), unit weight, and damping ratio of the half-space. If a rigid half-space
is being used, no input parameters are required.
In general, the shear wave velocity of the bedrock should be greater than that of the overlying soil
profile. It should be noted that the bedrock damping ratio has no effect in time domain analyses
and only a negligible effect in frequency domain analyses regardless of the value specified by the
user.
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.
If the analysis includes porewater pressure generation and dissipation with a permeable half-space,
the user is also given the option to specify the coefficient of consolidation Cv for the halfspace. If
no value is specified, DEEPSOIL will use the coefficient of consolidation Cv of the last layer for
the half-space as well. If the user is conducting a frequency domain analysis, deconvolution can
be performed rather than a forward analysis. Deconvolution is discussed in section 3.1.3.
Figure 3.10. Halfspace Definition – “Bedrock”.

3.3 Step 3 of 5: Input Motion Selection
The Input Motion Selection allows the user to select specify the input motion(s) to be used in the
analysis. The input motion(s) must be selected from the current input motion library (to which the
user may add additional motions, see section 2.2.8). The motions may be selected by checking the
appropriate checkbox in the second column of the window. All motions can be selected or
deselected by using the Select All button at the bottom of the motion list. Once a motion is selected,
DEEPSOIL will calculate and plot the acceleration, velocity, displacement, Arias intensity and
Housner intensity time histories as well as the Fourier amplitude spectrum and Peak spectral
acceleration (Figure 3.11). If multiple motions are selected, a single motion can be highlighted in
the plots by clicking on it either in the motion list or in its column in the table below the plots.
The user can utilize the dropdown tools menu at the bottom of the window (Figure 3.12) for each
motion in which one of the following options can be chosen: i. Estimate Kappa, ii. Baseline
Correction, iii. Timestep Reduction, iv. Show Tripartite Graph and v. Single Motion View. Finally,
the additional dropdown menu Spectral plots can be used to display: a. a smoothed FAS, b. the
Duhamel Integral, c. the Duhamel Integral with Timestep Correction (zero-padded in frequency
domain) d. the Newmark Beta Method and e. the Newmark Beta Method with Timestep Correction
(zero-padded in frequency domain).
Figure 3.11. Input Motion Selection.

3.4 Step 4 of 5: Viscous/Small-Strain Damping Definition
The Viscous/Small-Strain Damping Definition step appears only for time domain analyses and allows
the user to set the viscous damping formulation and select the optimum modes/frequencies for the
analysis (Figure 3.13). This window is unique to DEEPSOIL and it helps control the introduction
of numerical damping through frequency dependent nature of the viscous damping formulation.
Note that when multiple input motions are selected for an analysis, the viscous damping
formulation and the selected modes/frequencies are the same for all the selected input motions.
The following options must be specified:
• Damping Matrix Type:
o Frequency Independent (recommended)
o Rayleigh Damping
 1 mode/freq.
 2 modes/freq. (Rayleigh)
 4 modes/freq. (Extended Rayleigh)
• Damping Matrix Update:
 Yes
 No
The user can also press the Plot Damping Curve to generate a plot of the Normalized Damping
Ratio. This option is available only when the Rayleigh Damping option is activated. Also, the user
can choose whether the damping matrix will be recalculated at each step of the analysis or not by
choosing the appropriate circular button in the Damping Matrix Update section. Finally, the user
can plot the Frequency Domain Solution and the Time Domain Solution for his motion of choice
using the corresponding buttons from the Linear Response Evaluation section. For more details on
this stage, please refer to Example 6 in the tutorial.
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.

When ready to proceed, click Next.
Figure 3.12. Dropdown tools menu.
Figure 3.13. Viscous/Small-Strain Damping Definition.

3.4.1 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.
3.4.2 Rayleigh Damping formulation types
• Simplified Rayleigh Damping formulation (1 mode/frequency)
Uses one mode/frequency to define viscous damping.
• Full Rayleigh Damping formulation (2 modes/frequencies)
Uses two modes/frequencies to define viscous damping.
• Extended Rayleigh Damping formulation (4 modes)
Uses four modes/frequencies to define viscous damping.
A complete explanation of the extended Rayleigh damping formulation is presented in Park and
Hashash, 2004.
3.4.2.1 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.
3.4.2.2 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.
3.4.2.3 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.
This feature is enabled by clicking the Update Matrix option in the Damping Matrix Update
selection. Note that using this feature may significantly increase the time required to complete an
analysis.
3.5 Step 5 of 5: Analysis Control Definition

In this stage of analysis, the user may specify options to be used for either the frequency domain
or time domain analysis as well as define the output settings (Figure 3.14).
Figure 3.14. Analysis Control Definition.

3.5.1 Frequency domain analysis
The options in a frequency domain analysis are:
• Number of Iterations
• Effective Shear Strain Definition
• Complex Shear Modulus Formulation
o Frequency Independent
o Frequency Dependent
o Simplified
3.5.1.1 Number of Iterations

Determines the number of iterations in performing an equivalent linear analysis. Check whether
the solution has converged and the selected iteration number is sufficient by clicking Check
Convergence tab after running the analysis.
3.5.1.2 Effective Shear Strain Definition

When performing an equivalent linear analysis, the effective strain needs to be defined. An
effective shear strain, calculated as a percentage of the maximum strain, is used to obtain new
estimates of shear modulus and damping ratio. The default and recommended value is 0.65 (65%).
The following equation relates this value to earthquake magnitude.
𝑀𝑀 − 1
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = (3.3)
10
3.5.1.3 Complex Shear Modulus

DEEPSOIL allows a choice among three types of complex shear modulus formulae in performing
frequency domain analysis:
• Frequency Independent Complex Shear Modulus (Kramer, 1996):

The frequency independent shear modulus results in frequency independent damping, and
is thus recommended to be used in the analysis. This is the same modulus used in
SHAKE91.

𝐺𝐺 ∗ = 𝐺𝐺 (1 + 𝑖𝑖2𝜉𝜉) (3.4)
• Frequency Dependent Complex Shear modulus (Udaka, 1975)

The frequency dependent shear modulus results in frequency dependent damping, and
should thus be used with caution.
𝐺𝐺 ∗ = 𝐺𝐺 (1 − 2𝜉𝜉 2 + 𝑖𝑖2�1 − 𝜉𝜉 2 (3.5)
• Simplified Complex Shear modulus (Kramer, 1996)

This is a simplified form of frequency independent shear modulus defined as:
𝐺𝐺 ∗ = 𝐺𝐺 (1 − 𝜉𝜉 2 + 𝑖𝑖2𝜉𝜉) (3.6)
3.5.2 Time domain analysis

For a time domain analysis, the options are:
• 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).
3.5.2.1 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 (%).
3.5.2.2 Fixed Step

Each time-step is divided into N equal sub-increments throughout the time series.

To choose this option:
• Click the option button labeled Fixed
• DEEPSOIL responds by disabling the text box labeled Maximum Strain Increment and
enabling Number of sub-increments
• Type the desired integer value of sub-increments into the text box
3.5.2.3 Integration Method

There are two available time integration methods:
• the Newmark β method (implicit) and
• the Heun’s Method (explicit).
3.5.2.4 Time-history Interpolation Method

This option is only available when the flexible step is selected. When subdividing a time step,
accelerations must be computed at intermediate points. DEEPSOIL implements two subdivision
strategies: 1) linear time-domain interpolation and 2) zero-padded frequency-domain interpolation.
Linear (time-domain) interpolation is the classical approach in which the change in acceleration is
simply divided into equal increments. This method has been shown to fundamentally alter the
motion by adding energy to the signal at frequencies above the Nyquest frequency of the original
signal. This can potentially add high frequency noise to the output signal.
Zero-padded frequency-domain interpolation is often referred to as “perfect interpolation” because
it allows for increased resolution (reduced time step) without adding energy above the Nyquist
frequency of the original signal. This means that the intermediate points are added to the signal in
a manner that is consistent with the actual behavior of the propagating wave. However, they are
not reported in the output and hence can cause a distortion in the output motion. Results from this
method should always be compared to the linear interpolation results.
3.5.2.5 Output Settings

The users can choose the layer(s) for which the results are presented. This can be done by checking
the appropriate checkbox in the first column of the window. There are four different choices: i.
Surface only, ii. All Layers iii. At Specific Depth and iv. At Specific Layers.

All layers can be selected using the All Layers button. Specific layers can be selected by clicking
at the appropriate boxes from the Want Output column of the table. It needs to be noticed that
requesting time-history output for additional layers will increase the time required for analyses to
complete. Therefore, it is recommended that the user only request time-history output for layers of
interest.
The user is also provided with the choice to generate an output displacement animation, by clicking
the box in the Displacement Animation section. As it is stated in the warning note, generating the
displacement animation will slow down the speed of the analysis.
After all the analysis parameters are completed, the user proceeds by clicking the Analyse button
in the right bottom of the window. An Analysis Running window will appear, showing the progress
(Figure 3.15).
Figure 3.15. Analysis Running.
3.6 Results
After the completion of the analysis, the following output for each selected layer will be directly
exported to a text file “Results - motion.txt” in the working directory specified using the Options
menu.
The Results window (Figure 3.16) consists of a visual display of the Motions and Layers selection
and the following tabs: a. Time History Plots, b. Stress-Strain Plots, c. Spectral Plots, d. Profile

Plots, e. Mobilized Strength, f. Displacement Animation, g. Response Spectra Summary and h.
Check Convergence.
If multiple motions were selected for analysis, the output can be found in the user’s working
directory in a folder named “Batch_Output”. Within this folder, there will be a folder
corresponding to each profile and within this folder there will be the folders of each of the motions,
that contain the results from each motion.
If a single motion was selected for analysis, the results can be found in the user’s working
directory.
3.6.1 Time History Plots tab

In the Time History Plots tab, the user can see the following plots: a. Acceleration, b. Relative
Velocity, c. Relative Displacement and d. Arias Intensity (see Figure 3.16). The relative
velocity/displacement are calculated by subtracting the total velocity/displacement at top of rock
from the total velocity/displacement at middle of the target layer. The total velocity and total
displacement are provided in the output database, as described in section 6.1.
3.6.2 Stress-Strain Plots tab

In the Stress-Strain Plots tab, the user can see the following plots: a. Shear Strain, b. Shear Stress
Ratio, c. Excess PWP (if applicable) and d. Strain Stress Ratio (Figure 3.17).

Figure 3.16. Results - Time History Plots.
Figure 3.17. Results – Stress Strain Plots.
3.6.3 Spectral Plots tab

In the Spectral Plots tab, the user can see the following plots: a. Peak Spectral Acceleration, b.
Fourier Amplitude and c. Fourier Amplitude Ratio (Figure 3.18).

Figure 3.18. Results – Spectral Plots.
3.6.4 Profile Plots tab
In the Profile Plots tab, the user can see the following plots: a. PGA, b. PGD, c. Max Strain, d.
Max Stress, e. Max PWP Ratio (if applicable) and f. Effective Vertical Stress (Figure 3.19).

Figure 3.19. Results – Profile Plots.
3.6.5 Mobilized Strength tab

In the Mobilized Strength tab, the user can see the following plots: a. Mobilized Shear Strength, b.
Normalized Shear Strength and c. Mobilized Friction Angle (Figure 3.20).

Figure 3.20. Results – Mobilized Strength.
Figure 3.21. Results – Displacement Animation.

3.6.6 Displacement Animation tab
In the Displacement Animation tab, the user can see an animation of the Displacement profile over
time (Figure 3.21). The user can modify the speed of the animation by adjusting the slide bar Speed
as well as start, stop and pick a time instance to be plotted using the Stop and Finish buttons and
by adjusting the slide bar Time, respectively. If multiple motions are selected, the user should pick
motion of choice for the animation using the dropdown menu at the top of the soil profile visual.
3.6.7 Response Spectra Summary tab

In the Response Spectra Summary tab, the user can see a plot of the Peak Spectral Acceleration
for the motion as well as the selected layer(s) (Figure 3.22). If multiple motions are selected, the
user should pick motion of choice for the animation using the dropdown menu at the top of the
soil profile visual.
Figure 3.22. Results – Response Spectra Summary.
3.6.8 Check Convergence tab

To view the convergence of the solution, click Check Convergence Tab This option enables
checking whether the solution has converged in an equivalent linear analysis. Plots of maximum

strain profiles for each iteration are displayed (Figure 3.23). To view the layersin the plots, check
Show Layers.
Figure 3.23 Check Convergence Tab
3.6.9 Output data file
Output data for each layer is automatically exported to “Results – motion.txt” in the user’s working
directory.
DEEPSOIL provides the user with the option to export the analysis results to a Microsoft Excel®
file or an LS-DYNA® file. This is done by clicking the Export to Excel or the Export to LS-DYNA
buttons respectively, located in the left bottom part of the results window. Note that this feature
requires that Microsoft Excel® or LS-DYNA® is installed on the system. Also, by clicking on the
Show results in folder view the user is directed to the results’ folder.

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.
4.1 Backbone Curves
4.1.1 Hyperbolic / Pressure-Dependent Hyperbolic (MKZ)
DEEPSOIL incorporates the pressure-dependent hyperbolic model. The modified hyperbolic

model, developed by (Matasovic, 1993), is based on the hyperbolic model by (Konder and Zelasko,
1963), but adds two additional parameters Beta (β) and s that adjust the shape of the backbone
curve:
𝐺𝐺0 𝛾𝛾
𝜏𝜏 = (4.1)
𝛾𝛾 𝑠𝑠
1 + 𝛽𝛽 �𝛾𝛾 �
𝑟𝑟
where G0 = initial shear modulus, τ = shear strength, γ = shear strain. Beta, s, and γ r are the model
parameters, respectively. There is no coupling between the confining pressure and shear stress.
DEEPSOIL extends the model to allow coupling by making γ r confining pressure dependent as
follows (Hashash and Park, 2001):
𝑏𝑏
𝜎𝜎𝑣𝑣′
𝛾𝛾𝑟𝑟 = 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 � � (4.2)
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆
where σv’ is the effective vertical stress. Reference stress is the vertical effective stress at which
γ 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
1 𝑑𝑑 (4.3)
𝜉𝜉 = 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 � ′ �
𝜎𝜎𝑣𝑣
where d can be set to zero in case a pressure independent small strain damping is desired.
In summary, the parameters to be defined in addition to the layer properties are:

• Reference Strain
• Stress-strain curve parameter, Beta (β)
• Stress-strain curve parameter, s
• Pressure dependent (reference strain) parameter, b
• Reference Stress
• Pressure dependent (damping curve) parameter, d
4.1.2 Generalized Quadratic/Hyperbolic (GQ/H) Model with Shear Strength Control
(Darendeli 2001) study constructs the shear strength - shear strain curves based on the
experimentally obtained data. At small strains the data is collected using resonant column test, and
towards the medium shear strain levels the torsional shear test results are used. The values are
extrapolated at the large strain levels. This extrapolation may underestimate or overestimate the
shear strength at large strains. Therefore, shear strength correction is necessary to account for the
correct shear strength at large strains (Phillips and Hashash 2009). General Quadratic/ Hyperbolic
model proposed by (Groholski et al. 2016) has a curve fitting scheme that automatically corrects
the reference curves (such as Darendeli (2001)) based on the specified shear strength at the large
strains (the parameter τmax in the eq. (4.5)). The curve fitting parameters θ1 through θ5 (eq. (4.5))
are used to preserve the modulus reduction curves obtained from reference studies as much as
possible and modifies the large strain values based on the specified large strain shear strength.
The parameters τmax, and θ1 through θ5 are required to construct the shear strength corrected shear
strength - shear strain curves. Obtaining τmax is straightforward and user only needs to determine
the shear strength of the simulated soil material at large strains. The parameters θ1 through θ5 can
be obtained based on the reference study (Groholski et al. 2016). One easy way to obtain these
parameters is using DEEPSOIL (a 1-D nonlinear site response analysis software, (Hashash et al.
2016)). The user can create the layered domain in DEEPSOIL software and select the available
reference curve. Upon constructing the layered domain, GQ/H curve fitting routine calculates the
shear strength corrected shear strength - shear strain curve and provides the parameters θ1 through
θ5. These values can be directly used in soil hysteretic material without necessity to define any
reference shear strength - shear strain curve. The material model uses the τmax, G0, and θ1 through
θ5 to construct the shear strength - shear strain curve using the following functions:

𝛾𝛾
𝜃𝜃4 ∗ (𝛾𝛾 )𝜃𝜃5
𝑟𝑟
𝜃𝜃𝜏𝜏 = 𝜃𝜃1 + 𝜃𝜃2 ∗ 𝜃𝜃5 𝛾𝛾 (4.4)
𝜃𝜃3 + 𝜃𝜃4 ∗ (𝛾𝛾 )𝜃𝜃5
𝑟𝑟
where, 𝛾𝛾𝑟𝑟 is the reference strain and is calculated as 𝛾𝛾𝑟𝑟 = 𝜏𝜏𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 /𝐺𝐺0 . Once the θτ is determined, the
shear strength - shear strain curve is constructed as follows:
1 𝛾𝛾 𝛾𝛾 2 𝛾𝛾
𝜏𝜏 = 𝜏𝜏𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ∗ [ ∗ �1 + � � �
− �1 + � − 4 ∗ 𝜃𝜃𝜏𝜏 ∗ �] (4.5)
𝜃𝜃𝜏𝜏 𝛾𝛾𝑟𝑟 𝛾𝛾𝑟𝑟 𝛾𝛾𝑟𝑟
4.2 Hysteretic (Unload-Reload) Behavior
4.2.1 Masing Rules
When the user wishes to fit a soil curve (i.e. determine the model parameters which most closely
match the defined curves), the following options are available:
MR: 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.
4.2.2 Non-Masing Unload-Reload Rules
The non-Masing model included in DEEPSOIL is the MRDF Pressure-Dependent Hyperbolic

model (Phillips and Hashash, 2009). This model is implemented as a reduction factor which
effectively alters the Masing rules. By introducing the reduction factor, the modulus reduction and
damping curves can be fit simultaneously. The damping behavior is modified as:
𝜉𝜉𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 = 𝐹𝐹(𝛾𝛾𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ) ∗ 𝜉𝜉𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 (4.6)

where F(γm) is the reduction factor calculated as a function of γm,, the maximum shear strain
experienced by the soil at any given time, and ξMasing is the hysteretic damping calculated using the
Masing rules, based on the modulus reduction curve. Two formulations for F(γm) are implemented
in DEEPSOIL and are discussed in the following sections.
4.2.2.1 MRDF-UIUC
The MRDF Pressure-Dependent Hyperbolic (Phillips and Hashash, 2009) model available in
DEEPSOIL allows the user to introduce a reduction factor into the hyperbolic model. The
reduction factor has the form:
𝐹𝐹(𝛾𝛾𝑚𝑚 ) = 𝑃𝑃1 − 𝑃𝑃2 (1 − 𝐺𝐺(𝛾𝛾𝑚𝑚 )⁄𝐺𝐺0 )𝑃𝑃3 (4.7)
where 𝛾𝛾𝑚𝑚 is the maximum shear strain experienced at any given time, 𝐺𝐺(𝛾𝛾𝑚𝑚 ) is the shear modulus
at 𝛾𝛾𝑚𝑚 , and P1, P2, and P3 are the 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 model (Phillips and Hashash, 2009) 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:
𝐹𝐹(𝛾𝛾𝑚𝑚 ) = 𝑃𝑃1 (𝐺𝐺(𝛾𝛾𝑚𝑚 )⁄𝐺𝐺0 )𝑃𝑃2 (4.8)
where 𝛾𝛾𝑚𝑚 is the maximum shear strain experienced at any given time, 𝐺𝐺(𝛾𝛾𝑚𝑚 ) is the shear modulus
at 𝛾𝛾𝑚𝑚 , and P1 and P2 are the 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
The hyperbolic / pressure-dependent hyperbolic unload-reload equation is modified with the
reduction factor, 𝐹𝐹(𝛾𝛾𝑚𝑚 ), as follows:
𝐺𝐺0 ((𝛾𝛾 − 𝛾𝛾𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 )⁄2) 𝐺𝐺0 (𝛾𝛾 − 𝛾𝛾𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 ) 𝐺𝐺0 (𝛾𝛾 − 𝛾𝛾𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 )
𝜏𝜏 = 𝐹𝐹(𝛾𝛾𝑚𝑚 ) �2 𝑠𝑠 − 𝑠𝑠 �+ + 𝜏𝜏𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 (4.9)
(𝛾𝛾 − 𝛾𝛾𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 ) 𝛾𝛾𝑚𝑚 𝛾𝛾𝑚𝑚 𝑠𝑠
1 + 𝛽𝛽 � 2𝛾𝛾 � 1 + 𝛽𝛽 � 𝛾𝛾 � 1 + 𝛽𝛽 � 𝛾𝛾 �
𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟
4.3 Porewater Pressure Generation & Dissipation
The following table summarizes the available excess pore water pressure generation models and
required parameters.
Table 4.1 Available Excess Pore Water Pressure Generation Models and Parameters
PWP Model Input Input Input Input Input Input Input

Soil Type Abbrev.
Model No: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Dobry &
Sand S-M/D 1 f p F s γtvp v -
Matasovic
Matasovic
Clay C-M 2 s r A B C D γtvp
& Vucetic
Dr
GMP Cohesioneless GMP 3 α FC(%) - - v -
(%)
Park & Ahn Sand P/A 4 α β Dru=1.0 CSRt - v -
Generalized Any G 5 α β - - - v -
Each model is described in the following sections. The user is referred to the original sources for
additional details.
4.3.1 Dobry/Matasovic Model for Sand
The Matasovic (1992) pore water pressure generation parameters must be determined by a curve-
fitting procedure of cyclic undrained lab-test data. Once the data is obtained, the following

equation, proposed by Matasovic and Vucetic (1993, 1995), can be used to determine the best-fit
parameters to be used in the analysis.
The excess pore water pressure is generated using the following equation:
𝑠𝑠
𝑝𝑝 ∗ 𝑓𝑓 ∗ 𝑁𝑁𝑐𝑐 ∗ 𝐹𝐹 ∗ �𝛾𝛾𝑐𝑐 − 𝛾𝛾𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 �
𝑢𝑢𝑁𝑁 = 𝑠𝑠 (4.10)
1 + 𝑓𝑓 ∗ 𝑁𝑁𝑐𝑐 ∗ 𝐹𝐹 ∗ �𝛾𝛾𝑐𝑐 − 𝛾𝛾𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 �
Table 4.2 Description of Dobry/Matasovic Model Parameters

VARIABLE DESCRIPTION
uN Normalized excess pore pressure (ru).
Neq Equivalent number of cycles.
γc The current reversal shear strain.
γtvp Threshold shear strain value.
p Curve fitting parameter.
s Curve fitting parameter.
F Curve fitting parameter.
f Dimensionality factor.
v Degradation parameter
4.3.1.1 Remarks:
The uN parameter is defined as the normalized excess pore water pressure ratio (ru = u’ / σv’).
Neq is the equivalent number of cycles calculated for the most recent strain reversal. For uniform
strain cycles, the equivalent number of cycles is the same as the number of loading cycles. For
irregular strain cycles, since the cycle number does not increase uniformly, Neq is calculated at
strain reversals using the uN obtained from the previous step and is then incremented by 0.5 for the
current step.
γtvp is the shear strain value below which reversals will not generate excess pore water pressure.

f is used to account for loading in multiple dimensions. f = 1 is used for 1D motion. f = 2 is used
for 2D motion. Note that assigning a value of f = 2 does not double the excess pore water pressure,
because f is included in both the numerator and denominator of the equation.
F, s, and p are the curve fitting parameters and can be obtained from laboratory tests.
The degradation parameter, v, is discussed in further detail in section 4.3.6
4.3.1.2 Suggested Values:

Carlton (2014) presents empirical correlations for the curve fitting parameters F and s for sands.
The best data fit is shown in Figure 4.1 and have the following functional forms:
(−1.55)
𝐹𝐹 = 3810 ∗ 𝑉𝑉𝑠𝑠 (4.11)
𝑠𝑠 = (𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 + 1)0.1252 (4.12)
where Vs is the shear wave velocity in m/s and FC is the percentage of fines content. The fit is
produced using the data from Table 4.3.
Table 4.3 shows that the values of p range within +-7.1% of 1 for different types and relative
densities of sands. For practical purposes, p = 1 is often assumed in the absence of laboratory data.

Carlton (2014)
Available Data (Point)
Available Data (Range)
0 0.8
1
1.2
F parameter
s parameter
s = (FC + 1)0.1252
2
F = 3810 x Vs-1.55
1.6
2
0 100 200 300 400 0 20 40 60 80 100
Vs (m/sec) FC (%)
Figure 4.1 a) Carlton (2014), best fit correlating Vs (m/sec) to parameter F of Dobry pore water pressure
model for sands. b) Carlton (2014), best fit correlating FC (%) to parameter s of Dobry pore water pressure
model for sands

Table 4.3: Material Parameters for Low Plasticity Silts and Sands for the Matasovic and Vucetic (1993)
pore pressure generation model (From Carlton, 2014)
Pore Water Pressure Model Parameters
k
Material Reference γtv
(ft/sec) v f p F s
(%)
Warrenton, Oregon Silt
recovered from 130 to 248 ft
b.g.s; 73%<fines<99%;
Dickenson not
32.9%<water content<37.3%; 1 1 1 0.493 1.761 0.06
(2008) reported
86.3<γdry< 88.9 pcf;882<
Vs<1086 fps; OCR = 1.0; PI =
10, LL = 37
Stillaguamish River Silt,
Washington; recovered from
Anderson et not not
30 to 95 ft b.g.s; 60%< fines< 2 1.05 0.3 1.5 0.02
al. (2010) reported reported
90%; 600ft<Vs<900 ft/s; PI=8-
10; LL=31-32
Bangding Sand (BS); poorly-

graded commercially avaliable Dobry et al.
5.5x10-4 1 1 1 10.9 1 0.017
sane; Dγ＝40%；Dγ＝0.19； (1985)
Cc＝0.9；Cu＝1.4；γd,min =
90pcf;γd,max=106pcf
Wildlife Site Sand A(WSA);
Vucetic and
void ratio 0.84 to 0.85; 37% 9.8x10-4 1 2 1.04 2.6 1.7 0.02
Dobry (1988)
fines; N≈5;Vs≈350ft/s
Wildlife Site Sand B(WSB);
void ratio 0.74 to 0.76; 25% Vucetic and
6.6x10-3 1 2 1.04 2.6 1.7 0.02
fines; N≈6 to 13;Vs ≈ 450 to Dobry (1988)
500 ft/s
Heber Road Site Sand PB; void
Vucetic and
ratio 0.7; 15% fines; Vs ≈ 500 1.4x10-4 1 2 1.05 1.706 1.09 0.024
Dobry (1989)
to 600 ft/s
Heber Road Site Sand PB; void
Vucetic and
ratio 0.7; 22% fines; Vs ≈ 400 3.9x10-5 1 1 1.071 1.333 1.08 0.022
Dobry (1990)
to 466 ft/s

Santa Monica Beach
Sand(SMB); clean uniform
Matasovic
beach sand similar to Monterey 3.3x10-1 3.8 1 1 0.73 1 0.02
(1993)
No. 0; void ratio = 0.56; zero
fines; dense; Vs ≈ 867 ft/s
Owi Island Sand at depths
Thilakaratne
from 6 to 14 m b.g.s.; silty fine
and 6.6x10-3 1 2 1.005 3 1.8 0.025
sand placed as hydraulic fill;
Vucetic(1987)
18% <fines<35%
Owi Island Sand at depths of 6 Thilakaratne
m; placed as hydraulic fill; and 9.8x10-4 1 2 0.95 2.5 1.6 0.015
50% <fines<85% Vucetic(1988)
Mei et al. (2015) developed correlation for the curve fitting parameter F using 123 cyclic shear test
results compiled from literature. Two soil index properties, relative density (Dr) and uniformity
coefficient (Cu) are used in the correlation and it is applicable to sub-angular to sub-rounded clean
sands.
2
C
Parameter, F
U
2.8
2.6
2.4
1 2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Relative density, D
r
Figure 4.2 Proposed correlation to estimate curve-fitting parameter F (Mei et al. 2015)

4.3.2 Matasovic and Vucetic Model for Clays
Matasovic and Vucetic (1995) propose the following equation for the excess pore water pressure
generation for clays:
𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟
𝑢𝑢𝑁𝑁 = 𝐴𝐴𝑁𝑁𝑐𝑐 −3𝑠𝑠�𝛾𝛾𝑐𝑐−𝛾𝛾𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 � + 𝐵𝐵𝑁𝑁𝑐𝑐 −2𝑠𝑠�𝛾𝛾𝑐𝑐 −𝛾𝛾𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 � + 𝐶𝐶𝑁𝑁𝑐𝑐 −𝑠𝑠�𝛾𝛾𝑐𝑐−𝛾𝛾𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 � + 𝐷𝐷 (4.13)
Table 4.4 Description of Matasovic and Vucetic Model Parameters

uN Normalized excess pore pressure (ru)
Neq Equivalent number of cycles
γc The most recent reversal shear strain.
γtvp Threshold shear strain value.
r Curve fitting parameter.
s Curve fitting parameter.
A Curve fitting coefficients
B Curve fitting coefficients
C Curve fitting coefficients
D Curve fitting coefficients
4.3.2.1 Remarks:
The uN parameter is the same as in normalized excess pore water pressure ratio (ru = u’ / σv’)
Neq is the equivalent number of cycles calculated for the most recent strain reversal. For uniform
strain cycles, the equivalent number of cycles is the same as the number of loading cycles. For
irregular strain cycles, since the cycle number does not increase uniformly, and Neq is calculated
using the uN obtained from previous step and is then incremented by 0.5 for the current step.
γtvp is the threshold shear strain value below which reversals will not generate excess pore water
pressure.

Carlton (2014) presents empirical correlations for the curve fitting parameters s, r, A, B, C, and D.
Table 4.5 and Figure 4.3 (solid black lines) are used in the correlations. The parameter t in the
figure corresponds to s*(γc - γtvp)r. The empirical correlations take the following functional forms:
𝑠𝑠 = 1.6374 𝑥𝑥 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 −0.802 𝑥𝑥 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 −0.417 (4.14)
𝑟𝑟 = 0.7911 𝑥𝑥 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 −0.113 𝑥𝑥 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂−0.147 (4.15)
7.6451 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 < 1.1 (4.16)

𝐴𝐴 = �
15.641 𝑥𝑥 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂−0.242 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 ≥ 1.1
−14.714 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 < 1.1 (4.17)
𝐵𝐵 = �
−33.691 𝑥𝑥 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 −0.33 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 ≥ 1.1
6.38 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 < 1.1 (4.18)
𝐶𝐶 = �
21.45 𝑥𝑥 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 −0.468 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 ≥ 1.1
0.6922 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 < 1.1 (4.19)
𝐷𝐷 = �
−3.4708 𝑥𝑥 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 −0.857 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 ≥ 1.1
where OCR is the over consolidation ratio, and PI is the plasticity index.
Figure 4.3 Comparison of the curves given by Matasovic (1993) and Vucetic (1992) (solid black lines)
for t, for different values of PI and OCR and the correlations presented (dotted red lines). (Carlton, 2014)
Table 4.5 Material parameters for the Matasovic and Vucetic (1995) clay pore pressure generation model
(From Carlton, 2014)

Pore Water Pressure and Degradation Model
γtvp
Material Reference Parameter
(%)
s r A B C D
Marine
Matasovic
Clay
and Vucetic 0.1 0.075 0.495 7.6451 -14.7174 6.3800 0.6922
(OCR =
(1995)
1.0)
Marine Matasovic
Clay and Vucetic 0.1 0.064 0.520 14.62 -30.5124 18.4265 -2.5343
(OCR = (1995)
1.4)
Marine Matasovic
Clay and Vucetic 0.1 0.054 0.480 12.95 -26.3287 15.3736 -1.9944
(OCR = (1995)
2.0)
Marine Matasovic
Clay and Vucetic 0.1 0.042 0.423 11.263 -21.4595 11.2404 -1.0443
(OCR = (1995)
4.0)
4.3.3 GMP (Green, Mitcher and Polito) Model for Cohesionless Soil
The GMP model (Green et al. 2000) is an energy-based pore pressure generation model. The
excess pore pressure is calculated as follows:
𝑊𝑊𝑠𝑠
𝑟𝑟𝑢𝑢 = 𝛼𝛼� (4.20)
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
Table 4.6 Description of GMP Model Parameters

ru Normalized excess pore pressure.
Ws Normalized dissipated energy per unit volume of soil.
PEC Pseudo energy capacity.
α Scale factor.
4.3.3.1 Remarks:
The dissipated energy, 𝑊𝑊𝑠𝑠 , is calculated as the area beneath the current stress-strain path and has
the following functional form:
𝑛𝑛
1
𝑊𝑊𝑠𝑠 = ′ �(𝜏𝜏𝑖𝑖+1 + 𝜏𝜏𝑖𝑖 ) ∗ (𝛾𝛾𝑖𝑖+1 − 𝛾𝛾𝑖𝑖 ) (4.21)
2𝜎𝜎0
𝑖𝑖=1
In DEEPSOIL, a scale factor “α” is introduced to allow for scaling of the generated excess pore
water pressure to match laboratory or field data.
The GMP model is a special case of the Berrill and Davis model (Berrill and Davis, 1985) that has
the form ru = α x Wsβ. In GMP model, α and β values are replaced by (1/PEC)0.5 and 0.5
respectively.
The degradation parameter is as described by Matasovic (1993) and uses the same functional form
as defined in the Matasovic model for sands (see section 4.3.6).

The determination of the 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 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 the analysis as it requires the
construction of the graphical procedure outside of the site response analysis software.
Polito et al. (2008) derived an empirical relationship between 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃, relative density (𝐷𝐷𝑟𝑟 ), 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 the nonlinear site response analysis software by removing the need to find the
value of 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 through graphical procedures. The empirical relationship is defined as:

𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 < 35%: 𝑒𝑒 0.0139𝐷𝐷𝑟𝑟 − 1.021
ln(𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃) = � (4.22)
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 ≥ 35%: − 0.597 ∗ 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 0.312 + 𝑒𝑒 0.0139𝐷𝐷𝑟𝑟 − 1.021
4.3.4 Generalized Energy-based PWP Generation Model
This model allows for a user-defined excess pore water pressure generation model based on the
framework adopted from Berrill and Davis (1985) and Green et al. (2000). The model is energy-
based and the excess pore water pressure is calculated as follows:
β
𝑟𝑟𝑢𝑢 = α ∗ 𝑊𝑊𝑠𝑠 (4.23)
The model is a generalized form of GMP model, and uses the same general functional form
presented in the Berrill and Davis (1985) formulation. α and β are curve fitting parameters and can
be extracted from laboratory tests. Ws is the dissipated energy and is calculated using the
formulation defined in the GMP model.
Table 4.7 Description of Generalized Model Parameters

α Curve fitting coefficient
β Curve fitting parameter
Ws Normalized dissipated energy per unit volume of soil
4.3.5 Park and Ahn Model for Sand
The Park and Ahn (2013) model is a stress-based excess pore water pressure generation model that
uses the concept of a damage parameter to account for the accumulation of stress. The excess pore
water pressure is calculated as follows:
1
( )
2 𝐷𝐷 2𝛽𝛽
(4.24)
𝑟𝑟𝑢𝑢 = arcsin � �
𝜋𝜋 𝐷𝐷𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟=1.0

where the damage parameter D at each time step can be calculated as:
𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖+1 = 𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖 + ∆𝐷𝐷 (4.25)
∆𝐷𝐷 = 2(𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑖𝑖+1 − 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑡𝑡 )𝛼𝛼 (4.26)
In an incremental form, the generation model becomes:

1 1
2 𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖+1 2𝛽𝛽 2 𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖 2𝛽𝛽
𝑑𝑑𝑟𝑟𝑢𝑢 = (𝑟𝑟𝑢𝑢 )𝑖𝑖+1 − (𝑟𝑟𝑢𝑢 )𝑖𝑖 = 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 �� − 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 �� (4.27)
𝜋𝜋 𝐷𝐷𝑟𝑟𝑢𝑢=1.0 𝜋𝜋 𝐷𝐷𝑟𝑟𝑢𝑢=1.0
Table 4.8 Description of Park and Ahn Model Parameters

ru Normalized excess pore pressure.
D Damage parameter.
Dru = 1.0 Damage parameter at the initiation of liquefaction
CSRt Threshold shear stress ratio value.
α A calibration parameter
β Empirical constant

4.3.5.1 Remarks:
CSRt is the threshold shear stress ratio below which reversals will not generate excess pore water
pressure.

α is a calibration parameter that can be calculated using the following formulation with the CSR-
N curve obtained from laboratory tests:
𝑀𝑀−1
1
𝛼𝛼𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = ∗ � ( log (𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖 /𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖+1 )/(log(𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑖𝑖+1 − 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑡𝑡 ) − log(𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑖𝑖 − 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑡𝑡 )) (4.28)
𝑀𝑀
𝑖𝑖=1
where M is the total number of data points in CSR-N curve.
β is an empirical constant and for clean sands, a value of 0.7 is suggested.
Dru=1.0 is the value of damage parameter, D, at initiation of liquefaction and can be calculated from
CSR-N curves that are obtained from laboratory tests using the following formula:
𝐷𝐷𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟=1.0 = 4𝑁𝑁(𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 − 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑡𝑡 )𝛼𝛼 (4.29)
4.3.6 Porewater Pressure Degradation Parameters
Matasovic (1993) represents the degradation of the shear strength and shear stiffness of the soil
within the MKZ model by inclusion of two degradation indices. These degradation parameters
have also been implemented (and have similar effects) within the GQ/H model. The degradation
parameters are defined as:
𝛿𝛿𝐺𝐺 = √1 − 𝑢𝑢∗ (4.30)
𝛿𝛿𝜏𝜏 = 1 − (𝑢𝑢∗ )𝑣𝑣 (4.31)
Where 𝛿𝛿𝐺𝐺 is the shear modulus degradation function, 𝛿𝛿𝜏𝜏 is the shear stress degradation function, 𝑢𝑢∗
is the excess porewater pressure normalized by initial effective overburden stress, and 𝑣𝑣 is a curve-

fitting parameter to better model the degradation of shear strength with excess pore pressure
generation.
These degradation parameter formulations are implemented for all soil models except the
Matasovic and Vucetic model for clays. The degradation parameters for the Matasovic and Vucetic
model for clays are defined by Matasovic (1995) as:
𝛿𝛿𝐺𝐺 = 𝛿𝛿𝜏𝜏 = 𝑁𝑁 −1 (4.32)
Where 𝛿𝛿𝐺𝐺 is the shear modulus degradation function, 𝛿𝛿𝜏𝜏 is the shear stress degradation function,
and 𝑁𝑁 is the number of equivalent cycles.
4.3.7 Porewater Pressure Dissipation
The pore water pressure dissipation model is based on Terzaghi 1-D consolidation theory:
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕 2 𝑢𝑢
= 𝐶𝐶𝑣𝑣 � 2 � (4.33)
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝑧𝑧
where Cv is the coefficient of consolidation.
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.

5 Randomization of Site Profile Properties
This section is under development.

6 Database Output Structure
DEEPSOIL versions until V7.0 are designed to provide site response analysis results as text file(s).
In the case of single analysis, one text file output is generated as including results of each selected
layer in separate tables of (i) acceleration, strain and stress ratio (shear stress/effective vertical
stress) time histories, (ii) spectral accelerations at 113 oscillator periods from 0.01 to 10.0s, (iii)
Fourier amplitude spectrum (FAS) and Fourier amplitude ratio computed as FASsurface/FASinput,
and (iv) calculated PGA, minimum and maximum displacements at the top of each layer, and max.
strain, max. stress ratio and effective vertical stress at the mid-depth of each layer. The results of
a batch analysis, in which one site profile can be exposed to several input motions, are stored in
subfolders with motion names, and a unique text file is created for each table given in one text file
for every single analysis.
After the introduction of randomization of site profile properties, as VS and dynamic curve
randomization in DEEPSOIL V7.0, users have the ability to run large numbers of analyses (such
as parametric studies) through the interface, and this necessitates handling large amount of output
with complicated structure. Thus, SQLite database structure has been introduced to store the
analysis results in DEEPSOIL V7.0. The transition from using text files for the analysis results to
database files happened for mainly two reasons: (i) databases can handle querying and indexing of
more sophisticated output structure, and (ii) significant reduction of output size (1.5 ≈ 2.0 times)
can be achieved.
The next section gives further details on the database output structure for DEEPSOIL V7.0.
6.1 Database Structure for Analyses Output
Figure 6.1 shows the database structure for DEEPSOIL V7.0 output. It is composed of mainly 6
components as:
(i) Fourier Amplitude Spectra (FAS):

FAS data includes the frequency array (Frequency), FAS of input motion
(Input_Motion_FAS), FAS of computed motions at selected layers (Layer#_FAS), and
ratio of FAS of computed motions at selected layers to that of input motion.

(ii) DEEPSOIL Input:
Input file created by the interface is provided as BLOB data in database output.
(iii) Profile Data:
Profile Data is composed of (a) total PGA (PGA_Total), relative PGA -which is defined
as the difference between the computed PGA and the PGA of bedrock motion
(PGA_Relative)-, minimum and maximum relative displacement (Min_DISP_Relative
& Max_DISP_Relative) at top depth (Depth_Layer_Top) of each layer, (b) initial
effective stress (Initial_Effective_Stress), maximum strain (Max_Strain), and
maximum stress ratio (Max_Stress_Ratio), which is the ratio of shear stress and
effective vertical stress at mid-depth (Depth_Layer_Mid) of each layer.
(iv) Response Spectra (RS):
Response spectrum of input motion (Input_Motion_RS) and calculated RS at selected
layers (Layer#_RS) are provided at 113 periods.
(v) Time Histories:
Calculated acceleration (Layer#_Accel), velocity (Layer#_Vel), displacement
(Layer#_Disp), Arias intensity (Layer#_Arias), strain (Layer#_Strain) and stress
(Layer#_Stress) time history are provided.
(vi) Velocity and Displacement Time Histories:
Velocity time history as relative (Layer#_Vel_Relative) and total (Layer#_Vel_Total),
and displacement time history as relative (Layer#_Disp_Relative) and total
(Layer#_Disp_Total) are provided under this table.

Output Structure
Fourier Amplitude DEEPSOIL Profile Response Time Vel&Disp

Spectra (FAS) Input Data Spectra (RS) Histories Time H.
• Frequency • Period • Time

• Input_Motion_FAS • Input_Motion_RS • Layer#_
• Layer#_FAS • Layer# RS Vel_Tot
• Layer#_FAS_Ratio al
• Layer#_
• Depth_Layer_Top • Time
• PGA_Total • Layer#_Accel
• PGV_Relative • Layer#_Vel
• Min_DISP_Relative • Layer#_Disp
• Max_DISP_Relative • Layer#_Arias
• Depth_Layer_Mid • Layer#_Strain
• Initial_Effective_Stress • Layer#_Stress
• Max_Strain
• Max_Stress_Ratio
Figure 6.1 DEEPSOIL V7.0 Output Structure

3.1 Analysis Definition: Step 1 of 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3.1 Analysis Definition: Step 1 of 5

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3.1 Analysis Definition: Step 1 of 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3 Analysis Flow

3.1 Analysis Definition: Step 1 of 5

Figure 3.1. Step 1/5: Choose type of analysis.

DEEPSOIL User Manual V 7.0 Page 34 of 170 November 26, 2020

Figure 3.2. Choose the Default Working Directory.

Under Analysis Method the following options are available

DEEPSOIL User Manual V 7.0 Page 35 of 170 November 26, 2020

DEEPSOIL User Manual V 7.0 Page 36 of 170 November 26, 2020

Figure 3.3. Input Summary window.

DEEPSOIL User Manual V 7.0 Page 37 of 170 November 26, 2020

3.1.3 Deconvolution via Frequency Domain Analysis

To perform the deconvolution,

DEEPSOIL User Manual V 7.0 Page 38 of 170 November 26, 2020

Figure 3.4. Deconvolution analysis parameters.

The output from a deconvolution analysis is a set of DEEPSOIL-formatted motions. Regardless

DEEPSOIL User Manual V 7.0 Page 39 of 170 November 26, 2020

Figure 3.5. Complementary Equivalent Linear-Frequency Domain analysis.

3.2 Soil Profile Definition: Step 2 of 5

DEEPSOIL User Manual V 7.0 Page 40 of 170 November 26, 2020

DEEPSOIL User Manual V 7.0 Page 41 of 170 November 26, 2020

Figure 3.7. Layer Properties Tab.

DEEPSOIL User Manual V 7.0 Page 42 of 170 November 26, 2020

3.2.1 Single Element Test

3.2.2 Maximum Frequency (for Time Domain Analysis only)

DEEPSOIL User Manual V 7.0 Page 43 of 170 November 26, 2020

Figure 3.9. Soil Profile Plot.

DEEPSOIL User Manual V 7.0 Page 44 of 170 November 26, 2020

3.2.4 Halfspace Definition (Bedrock)

DEEPSOIL User Manual V 7.0 Page 45 of 170 November 26, 2020

Figure 3.10. Halfspace Definition – “Bedrock”.

DEEPSOIL User Manual V 7.0 Page 46 of 170 November 26, 2020

Figure 3.11. Input Motion Selection.

DEEPSOIL User Manual V 7.0 Page 47 of 170 November 26, 2020

DEEPSOIL User Manual V 7.0 Page 48 of 170 November 26, 2020

Figure 3.12. Dropdown tools menu.

Figure 3.13. Viscous/Small-Strain Damping Definition.

DEEPSOIL User Manual V 7.0 Page 49 of 170 November 26, 2020

3.4.2.1 Modes/frequencies selection

3.4.2.2 Verification of the selected modes/frequencies

DEEPSOIL User Manual V 7.0 Page 50 of 170 November 26, 2020

3.5 Step 5 of 5: Analysis Control Definition

Figure 3.14. Analysis Control Definition.

DEEPSOIL User Manual V 7.0 Page 51 of 170 November 26, 2020

3.5.1.1 Number of Iterations

3.5.1.2 Effective Shear Strain Definition

3.5.1.3 Complex Shear Modulus

• Frequency Independent Complex Shear Modulus (Kramer, 1996):

DEEPSOIL User Manual V 7.0 Page 52 of 170 November 26, 2020

• Frequency Dependent Complex Shear modulus (Udaka, 1975)

𝐺𝐺 ∗ = 𝐺𝐺 (1 − 2𝜉𝜉 2 + 𝑖𝑖2�1 − 𝜉𝜉 2 (3.5)

• Simplified Complex Shear modulus (Kramer, 1996)

3.5.2 Time domain analysis

3.5.2.1 Flexible Step

3.5.2.2 Fixed Step

DEEPSOIL User Manual V 7.0 Page 53 of 170 November 26, 2020

3.5.2.3 Integration Method

3.5.2.4 Time-history Interpolation Method

3.5.2.5 Output Settings

DEEPSOIL User Manual V 7.0 Page 54 of 170 November 26, 2020