USE OF V S30 TO REPRESENT LOCAL SITE CONDITIONS

Similar documents
SMSIM Calibration for the SCEC Validation Project NGA-East Workshop Berkeley 12/11/12

Ground Motion Simulations Validation process and summary of status

Ground Motion Simulations Validation process and summary of status

Hanging-Wall and Directivity Effects on the Near-Fault Ground Motions

Summary of Traditional Sigma (Ergodic) from GMPEs

Effects of Surface Geology on Seismic Motion

DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL HARD ROCK ATTENUATION RELATIONS FOR CENTRAL AND EASTERN NORTH AMERICA, MID-CONTINENT AND GULF COAST AREAS

Selection of ground motion time series and limits on scaling

ELASTIC DISPLACEMENT RESPONSE SPECTRA

NGA-West2 models for ground-motion directionality

NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF SHAKING TABLE TESTS ON DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF DRY SAND

ProShake 2.0. The first step in this tutorial exercise is to start the ProShake 2.0 program. Click on the ProShake 2.0 icon to start the program.

PEER Directivity End-Users Panel

DIRECTIVITY CENTERING OF GMPES AND OF DIRECTIVITY MODELS

Example Applications of A Stochastic Ground Motion Simulation Methodology in Structural Engineering

ProShake Ground Response Analysis Program Version 2.0 User s Manual

Rocking Component of Earthquake Induced by Horizontal Motion in Irregular Form Foundation

USING NEURAL NETWORK FOR PREDICTION OF THE DYNAMIC PERIOD AND AMPLIFICATION FACTOR OF SOIL FOR MICROZONATION IN URBAN AREA

Transactions, SMiRT-22 San Francisco, California, August 18-23, 2013 Division 5

9 FREE VIBRATION AND EARTHQUAKE ANALYSIS OF A BUILDING

Seismic Fragility Assessment of Highway Bridge

Verification and Validation for Seismic Wave Propagation Problems

Orientation dependence of ground motion and structural response of reinforced concrete space frames

FREE VIBRATION AND EARTHQUAKE ANALYSIS OF A BUILDING

ProShake. User s Manual. Ground Response Analysis Program. Version 2.0. Copyright by EduPro Civil Systems, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Comparison of 3D and 1D Wave Propagation Effects in the San Francisco Bay Area

FREE VIBRATION AND EARTHQUAKE ANALYSIS OF A BUILDING

3D GROUND MOTION SIMULATION IN BASINS

A comparison between large-size shaking table test and numerical simulation results of subway station structure

VALIDATION OF SASSI2010 SOLUTION METHODS THROUGH INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION USING SAP2000 FOR DEEPLY EMBEDDED STRUCTURES WITH LARGE FOOTPRINTS

Effects and Multi Directional Seismic Ground Motion

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A GENERATOR ON AN ELASTIC FOUNDATION

Appendix H. WSliq User s Manual

Updated Sections 3.5 and 3.6

Analysis of Vertical Ground Motion / Phase Motion Near Fault Records in JAPAN and Its Application to Simulation of Vertical Ground Motion

Liquefaction Analysis in 3D based on Neural Network Algorithm

DATA REPORT. SASW Measurements at the NEES Garner Valley Test Site, California

Comparative Analysis on Earthquake Response of Subway Tunnels between Numerical Simulation and Shaking Table Test

Work Plan for Scenario Earthquake Simulations (SEQ.1)

Study of constitutive models for soils under cyclic loading

SHAKE2000 A Computer Program for the 1-D Analysis of Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering Problems

SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION ANALYSIS FOR BURIED STRUCTURES IN SOFT, SLOPING SOILS - BART SAN FRANCISCO TRANSITION STRUCTURE

An Improved Algorithm for Selecting Ground Motions to Match a Conditional Spectrum

PEER Report Addendum.

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and

Report on Progress at the Center for Engineering Strong Motion Data (CESMD)

A METHOD TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE GMPEs FOR A SELECTED SEISMIC PRONE REGION

Effects of multi-scale velocity heterogeneities on wave-equation migration Yong Ma and Paul Sava, Center for Wave Phenomena, Colorado School of Mines

3D PHYSICS-BASED NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS: ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS OF A NEW FRONTIER TO EARTHQUAKE GROUND MOTION PREDICTION.

A FIXED-BASE MODEL WITH CLASSICAL NORMAL MODES FOR SOIL- STRUCTURE INTERACTION SYSTEMS

OpenSees2DPS (Beta 0.1): 2D Plane Strain Analysis

URS Washington Division, Princeton, NJ, USA. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Kobe, Japan

Challenges and Tools for Non-Linear SSI Analysis

Plans for the Demonstrations of the Efficacy of the BBP Validation Gauntlets for Building Response Analysis Applications 2016 SCEC Project

SCALING OF EARTHQUAKE ACCELEROGRAMS FOR NON-LINEAR DYNAMIC ANALYSES TO MATCH THE EARTHQUAKE DESIGN SPECTRA. Y. Fahjan 1 and Z.

How to correct and complete discharge data Main text

A STUDY ON THE INFLUENCE OF BOUNDARY CONDITIONS ON THREE DIMENSIONAL DYNAMIC RESPONSES OF EMBANKMENTS

Broadband Platform Release Overview

Prediction of Liquefaction Resistance Using a Combination of CPT Cone and Sleeve Resistances - It s really a Contour Surface

DEVELOPMENT OF PROTOTYPE OF INTEGRATED EARTHQUAKE DISASTER SIMULATOR USING DIGITAL CITY AND STRONG GROUND MOTION SIMULATOR WITH HIGH-RESOLUTION

A Study of Deriving Fragility Curves by Using GPS Data at Control Points before and after Chi-Chi Earthquake

6 SITE RESPONSE ANALYSIS AND SEISMIC INPUT

Developer s Tip. An Introduction to the Theory of Planar Failure. Concepts of Planar Rock Slope Failure

3D Analysis of the Influence of Varying Rock/Soil Profiles on Seismic NPP Response

Broadband Pla+orm Valida/on Exercise for Pseudo- Spectral Accelera/on: Review Panel Summary

Sloshing reduction effect of splitting wall in cylindrical tank

SSR Polygonal Search Area

Dispersion Curve Extraction (1-D Profile)

NGA Ground Motion Database

REMI and SPAC: A Comparison

We B3 12 Full Waveform Inversion for Reservoir Characterization - A Synthetic Study

FLOW VISUALISATION AROUND A SOLID SPHERE ON A ROUGH BED UNDER REGULAR WAVES

Limitations of Rayleigh Dispersion Curve Obtained from Simulated Ambient Vibrations

PS wave AVO aspects on processing, inversion, and interpretation

Numerical Modelling of Engineering Structures subjected to Dynamic Seismic Loading

Anisotropic 3D Amplitude Variation with Azimuth (AVAZ) Methods to Detect Fracture-Prone Zones in Tight Gas Resource Plays*

ACCURACY OF THE SUBTRACTION MODEL USED IN SASSI

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON DETERMINING DAMPING RATIO OF STEEL BRIDGES

Analysis of Pile Behaviour due to Damped Vibration by Finite Element Method (FEM)

LATERALLY LOADED PILE GROUPS

Moment-rotation Behavior of Shallow Foundations with Fixed Vertical Load Using PLAXIS 3D

SeismoSoil User Manual, v1.3

Spectral-element Simulations of Elastic Wave Propagation in Exploration and Geotechnical Applications

Anisotropic 3D Amplitude Variation with Azimuth (AVAZ) Methods to Detect Fracture Prone Zones in Tight Gas Resource Plays

Multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW) active and passive methods

Abstract. Introduction

Modeling Foundations in RS

User Manual and Tutorial. Version 3.7 Beta July 27, 2009

FLAC/Slope User s Guide Contents - 1

PS User Guide Series Dispersion-Data Display

PLAXIS 3D Benchmark for Suction Anchor Bearing Capacity. Richard Witasse Plaxis bv

Methodology for Prediction of Sliding and Rocking of Rigid Bodies Using Fast Non-Linear Analysis (FNA) Formulation

GMS 8.0 Tutorial UTEXAS Dam Profile Analysis Use UTEXAS to find the critical failure surface for a complex earth dam

Analysis of the UTexas1 Passive Linear Surface Wave Dataset

Implementing Machine Learning in Earthquake Engineering

Modelling of Clay Behaviour in Pile Loading Test using One-Gravity Small-Scale Physical Model

Bridge Software Institute 2

PAT MEYERS R-WAVE EIGENFUNCTION ANALYSIS [REDUX]

Uploading Data for TPV8 and TPV9 February 6, 2007

3D vs 1D vs 3x1D Ground Motions and the Earthquake Soil Structure Interaction

Transcription:

USE OF V S30 TO REPRESENT LOCAL SITE CONDITIONS Presented by I. M. Idriss, Professor Emeritus University of California at Davis e-mail: imidriss@aol.com Presented at the Session 6 on The V s30 Dialog How We Can & Cannot use V s30 in Site Response Estimation? 4 th IASPEI / IAEE International Symposium Effects OF Surface Geology on Strong Ground Motion Santa Barbara, California August 26, 2011

Wave propagation theory suggests that ground motion amplitude should depend on the density and shear wave velocity, V s, of the near surface material (e.g., Bullen, 1965; Aki & Richards, 1980). Density does not vary very much with depth; hence V s becomes the logical choice for representing site conditions. The essential issue then becomes in how to express this dependence.

Two methods have been proposed over the past 30 years.

Method No. 1 1. The "average" velocity over the depth range corresponding to ¼ wavelength of the period of interest (Joyner et al, 1981).

300 200 Average Vs = 1100 m/s Average Vs = 800 m/s Average Vs = 400 m/s 100 Average Vs = 200 m/s 1/4 Wave Length (m) 60 30 20 10 6 3 2 1 1 10 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 2 3 4 6 8 20 30 Frequency (Hz)

Method No. 2 2. The use of V s30 (Borcherdt, 1994), who recommended the use of Vs30 as a means for classifying Site Categories for building codes.

* * n V V f5 PGA 1100,VS30 a10ln bln PGA1100 c bln 1100 for V V VLIN V LN I * S30 S30 ( ) = ( + ) + PGA + cln S30 < L * * V S30 f5( PGA 1100,VS30) = ( a10 + bn) Ln for VS30 V VLIN LIN IN V = V * S30 S30 for V < V S30 1 V = V * S30 1 for V S30 V 1 V 1 = 1500 m/s for T 0.50 sec ( 1 ) V1 = exp 8.0 0.795Ln T 0.2 for 0.50 sec < T 1 sec V1 = exp 6.76 0.297Ln ( T ) for 1 sec < T < 2 sec V = 700 m/s for T 2 sec 1 From Abrahamson & Silva (2008)

More recently, four of the five NGA relationships used V s30 as an independent parameter to explicitly represent local site conditions. Amplification [w.r.t. V S30 = 1100 m/s] 3 2 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 100 1000 V S30 (m/s) Linear PGA1100 = 0.1 g PGA1100 = 0.3 g PGA1100 = 0.5 g V 1 Example of the V S30 scaling for T = 0.2 sec From Abrahamson & Silva (2008)

1.4 PGA for V s30 / PGA for V s30 = 1100 m/s 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 PGA Abrahamson & Silva (2008) Boore & Atkinson (2008) 0.2 Campbell & Bozorgnia (2008) Chiou & Youngs (2008) Average 0.0 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 Shear wave velocity, V s30 (m/s)

PSA for V s30 / PSA for V s30 = 1100 m/s 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 PSA for T = 1sec Abrahamson & Silva (2008) Boore & Atkinson (2008) Campbell & Bozorgnia (2008) Chiou & Youngs (2008) Average 0.0 200 400 600 800 1000 Shear wave velocity, V s30 (m/s)

NGA DATA 2011 FLATFILE

From Flatfile 8 Earthquake magnitude, M 7 6 5 4 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Closest distance, R (km)

From Flatfile 8 Earthquake magnitude, M 7 6 5 4 80 100 150 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 1000 1500 2000 V s30 (m/s)

From Flatfile 1 Best estimate for R 160 km 0.1 PGA (g) 0.01 Best estimate for R > 160 km 0.001 Tottori; M = 6.6; Mech 0 Dist, R 160 km Dist, R > 160 km PGA values adjusted to V s30 = 580 m/s 10 100 1000 Closest distance, R (km)

Total No. of Entries 8163 Non-FF 426 Mag not listed 201 Mechanism not listed 139 Distance not listed 92 Vs30 not listed 17 PSA not listed 63 Mag < 4.5 173 Distance > 160 km 1890 Others 136 Total No. of FF Entries to be used 5026

FF Records; Dist 160 km; M 4.5 8 Earthquake magnitude, M 7 6 5 4 0.1 1 10 100 Closest distance, R (km)

FF Records; Dist 160 km; M 4.5 8 Earthquake magnitude, M 7 6 5 4 100 1000 150 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 1500 2000 V s30 (m/s)

FF Records; Dist 160 km; M 4.5 8 Earthquake magnitude, M 7 6 5 4 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 PGA (g)

FF Records; Dist 160 km; M 4.5 8 Earthquake magnitude, M 7 6 5 4 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 PGV (cm/s)

DATA SET Stations having V s30 450 m/s and R 160 km Total Number of records used = 1288 [147 recordings (Vs30 450 m/s) from the Chi-Chi main shock were excluded] 4.5 M 7.9 0.9 km R 160 km 450 m/s V s30 2016 m/s [only 10 recordings at site with V s30 > 1200 m/s]

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) g x( - 45 ) Ln y = a + a M - b + b M Ln R + 10 + R + V 0 + ff 1 2 1 2 s30 M > 6.75 Period (sec) α 1 α 2 β 1 β 2 γ φ 0.01 (PGA) 5.5107-0.3530 2.9832-0.2339-0.00125 0.12 ξ -0.00033 M 6.75 Period (sec) α 1 α 2 β 1 β 2 γ φ ξ 0.01 (PGA) 3.5858-0.0678 2.9832-0.2339-0.00125 0.12-0.00033 Range of M ==> 4.5 to 8 Range of R ==> 0 to 160 km Range of Vs30 ==> 450 to 2100 m/s IMI_2011

3.0 1.5 Individual recording Overall trend Discrete averages over M, R, or V s30 bins Residual 0.0-1.5-3.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 Earthquake magnitude, M

3.0 1.5 Residual 0.0-1.5-3.0 0 30 60 90 120 150 Closest distance, R (km)

3.0 1.5 Residual 0.0-1.5-3.0 400 500 600 700 800 900 V s30 (m/s)

3.0 1.5 Residual 0.0-1.5-3.0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 V s30 (m/s)

1 PGA (g) 0.1 M = 7.5 0.01 2011 relationship V s30 = 450 m/s 2011 relationship V s30 = 900 m/s 2008 relationship 450 m/s V s30 900 m/s M = 5.5 1 10 100 Closest distance, R (km)

1.4 PGA for V s30 / PGA for V s30 = 1100 m/s Based on IMI_2011 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 PGA Abrahamson & Silva (2008) Boore & Atkinson (2008) 0.2 Campbell & Bozorgnia (2008) Chiou & Youngs (2008) Average 0.0 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 Shear wave velocity, V s30 (m/s)

PSA for V s30 / PSA for V s30 = 1100 m/s 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 PSA for T = 1sec Abrahamson & Silva (2008) Boore & Atkinson (2008) Campbell & Bozorgnia (2008) Chiou & Youngs (2008) Average Based on IMI_2011 0.0 200 400 600 800 1000 Shear wave velocity, V s30 (m/s)

WHAT DO THE NGA DATA SHOW?

Examination in terms of the ratio of: PGV/V s30 which may be considered as a "proxy" for shear strain induced by the earthquake ground motions Plotting PGA versus this ratio can then be examined as if it were a "stress- strain" relationship

1 V s30 based on measured V s 0.1 PGA (g) 0.01 Range & number of V s30 values 0.001 800 to 900 m/s; 29 900 to 1000 m/s; 12 1000 to 1200 m/s; 16 1200 to 1400 m/s; 8 1500 to 2000 m/s; 4 0.0001 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Shear strain (%)

1 V s30 based on measured V s 0.1 PGA (g) 0.01 480 recordings Range & number of V s30 values 0.001 450 to 500 m/s; 129 500 to 550 m/s; 151 550 to 600 m/s; 89 600 to 700 m/s; 64 700 to 800 m/s; 131 0.0001 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Shear strain (%)

1 0.1 PGA (g) 0.01 47 recordings 16 recordings 22 recordings 0.001 V s30 based on measured V s 0.0001 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.2 0.3 0.1 Shear strain (%) Range & number of V s30 values 450 to 500 m/s; 129 500 to 550 m/s; 151 550 to 600 m/s; 89 600 to 700 m/s; 64 700 to 800 m/s; 131

1.0 0.8 0.6 G/G max 0.4 0.2 Comp rock Weathered rock Clay; PI = 30 0.0 0.001 0.01 0.1 Shear strain (%)

1 0.1 PGA (g) 0.01 Range & number of V s30 values 0.001 225 to 250 m/s; 101 250 to 300 m/s; 186 300 to 350 m/s; 170 350 to 400 m/s; 144 V s30 based on measured V s 400 to 450 m/s; 131 0.0001 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Shear strain (%)

1.0 0.8 0.6 G/G max 0.4 0.2 Sand layers over depth range of 500 ft 120 to 250 ft 50 to 120 ft 20 to 50 ft 20 ft 0.0 0.001 0.01 0.1 Shear strain (%)

1 0.1 PGA (g) 0.01 0.001 0.0001 V s30 based on measured V s 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Shear strain (%) Range & number of V s30 values 100 to 140 m/s; 10 140 to 180 m/s; 27 180 to 200 m/s; 132 200 to 210 m/s; 74

Examination in terms of : Variations of PGA and PSA, at T = 1 sec, with Distance For various bins of V s30 Chi-Chi main shock data

1 Peak horizontal acceleration (g) 0.1 0.01 pga V 30 (m/s) = 440-450 420-440 400-420 380-400 360-380 340-360 320-340 300-320 280-300 260-280 240-260 220-240 200-220 Chi Chi main shock 180-200 M = 7.6; Mechanism 3 0.1 1 10 100 Closest distance to rupture surface (km)

1 Peak horizontal acceleration (g) 0.1 0.01 pga Regression curve for V s30 (m/s) = 420-440 V s30 (m/s) = 400-420 V s30 (m/s) = 220-240 V s30 (m/s) = 200-220 Chi Chi main shock M = 7.6; Mechanism 3 0.1 1 10 100 Closest distance to rupture surface (km)

0.6 0.4 0.2 PGA (g) 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 100 PGA calculated at a Distance = 3 km Distance = 30 km Distance = 100 km 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 V S30 (m/s)

PSA (T = 1 s) for V s30 PSA (T = 1 s) for V s30 = 450 m/s 2 1.5 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 Dist = 1 km Dist = 3 km Dist = 10 km Dist = 30 km Dist = 100 km 0.4 150 200 250 300 400 450 V s30 (m/s) Based on Chi-Chi Recordings

Based on recorded data from other than the Chi-Chi earthquake

Range of V s30 Landers earthquake, M = 7.28 0.1 400 to 450 m/s (10) 350 to 400 m/s (8) 300 to 350 m/s (34) 250 to 300 m/s (13) 200 to 250 m/s (5) PGA (g) Range of V s30 Sierra el Mayor earthquake, M = 7.2 400 to 450 m/s (27) 350 to 400 m/s (32) 300 to 350 m/s (46) 250 to 300 m/s (56) 200 to 250 m/s (22) 0.01 Range of V s30 Hector Mine earthquake, M = 7.13 400 to 450 m/s (5) 350 to 400 m/s (34) 300 to 350 m/s (32) 250 to 300 m/s (33) 200 to 250 m/s (6) 0.1 1 10 100 Closest distance (km)

Recorded values at sites with range of V s30 = 400 to 450 m/s Regressed curve 0.1 PGA (g) 0.01 Landers earthquake, M = 7.28 Sierra el Mayor earthquake, M = 7.2 Hector Mine earthquake, M = 7.13 10 100 Closest distance (km)

Recorded values at sites with range of V s30 = 350 to 400 m/s Regressed curve 0.1 PGA (g) 0.01 Landers earthquake, M = 7.28 Sierra el Mayor earthquake, M = 7.2 Hector Mine earthquake, M = 7.13 10 100 Closest distance (km)

Recorded values at sites with range of V s30 = 300 to 350 m/s Regressed curve 0.1 PGA (g) 0.01 Landers earthquake, M = 7.28 Sierra el Mayor earthquake, M = 7.2 Hector Mine earthquake, M = 7.13 10 100 Closest distance (km)

Recorded values at sites with range of V s30 = 250 to 300 m/s Regressed curve 0.1 PGA (g) 0.01 Landers earthquake, M = 7.28 Sierra el Mayor earthquake, M = 7.2 Hector Mine earthquake, M = 7.13 10 100 Closest distance (km)

Recorded values at sites with range of V s30 = 200 to 250 m/s Regressed curve 0.1 PGA (g) 0.01 Landers earthquake, M = 7.28 Sierra el Mayor earthquake, M = 7.2 Hector Mine earthquake, M = 7.13 10 100 Closest distance (km)

Regressed curves Range of V s30 = 400 to 450 m/s Range of V s30 = 350 to 400 m/s Range of V s30 = 300 to 350 m/s Range of V s30 = 250 to 300 m/s Range of V s30 = 200 to 250 m/s 0.1 PGA (g) 0.01 Landers earthquake, M = 7.28 Sierra el Mayor earthquake, M = 7.2 Hector Mine earthquake, M = 7.13 10 100 Closest distance (km)

Recorded values at sites with range of V s30 = 300 to 350 m/s Regressed curve 0.1 PGA (g) 0.01 Loma Prieta earthquake, M = 6.9 Iwate earthquake, M = 6.9 Chuetsu-Oki earthquake, M = 6.8 Kobe earthquake, M = 6.9 10 100 Closest distance (km)

Regressed curves Range of V s30 = 400 to 450 m/s Range of V s30 = 350 to 400 m/s Range of V s30 = 300 to 350 m/s Range of V s30 = 250 to 300 m/s Range of V s30 = 200 to 250 m/s 0.1 PGA (g) 0.01 Loma Prieta earthquake, M = 6.9 Iwate earthquake, M = 6.9 Chuetsu-Oki earthquake, M = 6.8 Kobe earthquake, M = 6.9 10 100 Closest distance (km)

WHAT DO THE NGA DATA SHOW? The data generally do not fully support the "published" trends.

Site Response Studies

Shear wave velocity, V s (m) 0 Layer 1 0 200 400 600 800 0 Depth below ground surface (m) 20 40 60 80 100 Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4 Layer 5 Layer 6 20 40 60 80 100 Profile abc V s30 = 220 m/s 120 Halfspace V s = 1100 m/s 120 Profile abc

Shear wave velocity, V s (m) Depth below ground surface (m) 0 20 40 60 80 100 Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4 Layer 5 Layer 6 0 200 400 600 800 0 20 40 60 80 100 Profile cba Vs30 = 220 m/s 120 Halfspace V s = 1100 m/s 120

CONCLUDING REMARKS ü V s30 is not a fundamental geotechnical parameter ü V s30 is not a unique geotechnical parameter ü Since G/G max is material-dependent ü V s30 is neither necessary nor sufficient to describe or accommodate nonlinear effects

CONCLUDING REMARKS ü The contributions of the soil profile below 30 m to site response, cannot be accommodated with the use of V s30 with or without including the depth to V s = 1 km/s or to V s = 2.5 km/s (even if these depths are known for a sufficient number of sites). ü Sites with "identical" V s30, but differing layering, can have significantly different response

CONCLUDING REMARKS ü Additional work is needed before V s30 should be used as a continuous independent parameter in earthquake ground motions attenuation relationships. ü The use of a range of V s30 to describe a generalized "site category" for building code purposes, is reasonable.

CONCLUDING REMARKS ü Site-specific response calculations (with at least 7 rock outcrop input motions) are preferable for assessing local site effects this requires high quality site response calculations. ü Distance dependence can be critical further studies are in progress, incorporating V s30 in estimating the slope of the attenuation relationship.