Comparative Analysis of Two Seismic Response Analysis Programs in the Actual Soft Field

Document Type : Original Article


School of Architecture Engineering, Binzhou University, Binzhou, China


SHAKE2000 and DEEPSOIL are the two most important programs to calculate the response analysis of soil layer. In order to analyze the similarities and differences between them, and to guide the improvement of the method and program of seismic response analysis of soil layer, 25 KiK net seismic records from 9 stations were selected as the research objects in this paper, from the aspects of surface acceleration, acceleration response spectrum and maximum shear strain of the surface. SHAKE2000 and DEEPSOIL are used to calculate the soft soil site.The results showed that when the soil nonlinearity is not obvious, most of the differences of PGA results calculated by SHAKE2000 and DEEPSOIL can be ignored. The error of the maximum value of soil shear strain calculated by SHAKE2000 and DEEPSOIL is less than 20%. When the soil nonlinearity is obvious, only a few of the differences of PGA results can be ignored, and the error of the maximum value of soil shear strain calculated by SHAKE2000 and DEEPSOIL is less than 20%. In most cases, the acceleration response spectra calculated by SHAKE2000 and DEEPSOIL are not different. Based on the measured records, there are great differences between the calculated results of SHAKE2000 and DEEPSOIL and the measured records, but generally, the calculation method of SHAKE2000 is better than DEEPSOIL and SHAKE2000 is closer to the strong earthquake records.


1. Yang, L., Iman, H. and Alec, M.M., “Performance-based Seismic
Design of Flexible-Base Multi-Storey Buildings Considering
Soil-Structure Interaction ”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 108,
(2016), 90-103.  
2. Yaghmaei-Sabegh, S., “A wavelet-based procedure for mining of
pulse-like ground motions features in response spectra”,
International Journal of Engineering, Transactions A: Basics,
Vol. 25, No. 1, (2012), 39-50.  
3. Emeka, A. E., Chukwuemeka, A. J. and Okwudili, M. B.,
“Deformation behaviour of erodible soil stabilized with cement
and quarry dust”, Emerging Science Journal, Vol. 2, No. 6,
(2018), 383-387.  
4. Gamil, Y., Bakar, I. and Ahmed, K., “Simulation and
development of instrumental setup to be used for cement grouting
of sand soil”, Emerging Science Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1, (2017),
5. Sun, L., “Effect of Variable Confining Pressure on Cyclic Triaxial
Behaviour of K0-consolidated Soft Marine Clay”, Civil
Engineering Journal, Vol. 4, No. 4, (2018), 755-765.  
6. Karkush, M. and Jabbar, A., “Improvement of Soft Soil Using
Linear Distributed Floating Stone Columns under Foundation
Subjected to Static and Cyclic Loading”, Civil Engineering
Journal, Vol. 5, No. 3, (2019), 702-711.  
7. Do, H. D., Nguyen, T. P. K. and Phan, K. H., “Physical Model
Test for Soft Soil with or Without Prefabricated Vertical Drain
with Loading”, Civil Engineering Journal, Vol. 4, No. 8, (2018),
8. Qi, W., Bo, J., Liu, D., and Liu, H., (2005). “A test for three
programs of soil layer seismic response analysis by strong
earthquake record”, Journal of Earthquake Engineering and
Engineering Vibration, Vol. 25, No. 5, (2005), 30-33.  
9. Li, X., “Study on the Contrast between Two Seismic Response
Analysis Programs of Soil Layer”, International Journal of
Engineering, Transactions A: Basics, Vol. 32, No. 1, (2019), 4653.

10. Li, X., Sun, R. and Yuan, X., “Comparative study on existing
equivalent linear response analysis program based on KiK-net”,
China Earthquake Engineering Journal, Vol. 37, No. 1, (2015),
11. Ordonez, G.A., "Shake2000: A computer program for the 1d
analysis of geotechnical earthquake engineering problems",
Geomotions, LLC, USA, (2000). 
12. Hashash, Y., and Duhee, P., “Non-linear one-dimensional seismic
ground motion propagation in the Mississippi embayment”,
Engineering Geology, Vol. 62, No. 1-3, (2001), 185-206.  
13. Mehdi, T. and Ganji, B.A., “Modelling of resonance frequency of
MEMS corrugated diaphragm for capacitive acoustic Sensors”,
International Journal of Engineering, Transactions C: Aspects,
Vol. 27, No. 12, (2014), 1850-1854.  
14. Habib, S., Changiz, G. and Amir, S., “Numerical and
experimental study of soil-structure interaction in structures
resting on loose soil using laminar shear box”, International
Journal of Engineering, Transactions B: Applications, Vol. 30,
No. 11, (2017), 1654-1663.  
15. Zhan, J., Chen, G., and Liu, J., (2013). “Analysis of nonlinear
seismic effects of large - scale deep soft site under far-field large 
earthquake”, Rock and Soil Mechanics, Vol. 34, No. 11, (2013),
16. Chen, J., Chen, G., and Shi, G., (2004). “Research on Seismic
Response Characteristics of Sites with Deep and Soft Soils”,
Journal of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation Engineering,
Vol. 24, No. 2, (2004), 444-450.  
17. Qi, W., Wang, z., and Bo, J., (2010). “Development and
verification of a method for analysing the nonlinear seismic
response of soil layers”, Journal of Harbin Engineering
University, Vol. 31, No. 4, (2010), 444-450.  
18. Wang, L., “The research of soil layer seismic characteristic based
on Kik-Net strong-motion network”, Institute of Engineering
Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration, Harbin, (2014). 
19. GB50011, C.S., “Code for seismic design of buildings”, China
Building Industry Press, Beijing, (2010). 
20. GB/T 17742, C.S., “Chinese seismic intensity scale”, Chinese
Standard Press, Beijing, (2008). 
21. Sun, R., Chen, H. and Yuan, X.M, “Uncertainty of non-linear
dynamic shear modular ratio and damping ratio of soils”, Chinese
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 32, No. 8, (2010),
22. Annie, O. L. K., Jonathan, P. S. and Youssef, M. A. H.,
“Nonlinear ground-response analysis of turkey flat shallow stiffsoil
site to strong ground motion”, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol.98,No.1,(2008),331-343.