3.1 Analysis Definition: Step 1 of 5
3.1 Analysis Definition: Step 1 of 5
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).
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.
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.
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 (%).
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 (%)
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
A complete explanation of the extended Rayleigh damping formulation is presented in Park and
Hashash, 2004.
𝐺𝐺 ∗ = 𝐺𝐺 (1 − 𝜉𝜉 2 + 𝑖𝑖2𝜉𝜉) (3.6)
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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:
(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:
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
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.
4.2.2.1 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:
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:
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.
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
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
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 -
(%)
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.
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
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, s, and p are the curve fitting parameters and can be obtained from laboratory tests.
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.
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
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)
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)
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.
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)
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
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).
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.
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 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
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:
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:
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-
Where 𝛿𝛿𝐺𝐺 is the shear modulus degradation function, 𝛿𝛿𝜏𝜏 is the shear stress degradation function,
and 𝑁𝑁 is the number of equivalent cycles.
The pore water pressure dissipation model is based on Terzaghi 1-D consolidation theory:
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕 2 𝑢𝑢
= 𝐶𝐶𝑣𝑣 � 2 � (4.33)
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝑧𝑧
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 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.
Figure 6.1 shows the database structure for DEEPSOIL V7.0 output. It is composed of mainly 6
components as:
• 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