pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.02572 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-02 · ⚛️ physics.geo-ph

Recognition: no theorem link

Effects of Varying Incident Wave Inclination and Azimuthal Angles on Multi-Dimensional Ground Response Analyses at the Delaney Park Downhole Array Site

Nishkarsha Dawadi , Brady R. Cox
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 20:16 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.geo-ph
keywords ground response analysistransfer functionsinclined wave incidenceDelaney Park Downhole Arrayseismic site effectsmulti-dimensional modelingempirical vs theoretical transfer functionswave azimuth
0
0 comments X

The pith

Varying wave inclination in multi-dimensional ground response analyses produces only minor amplitude reductions for small angles and unwanted frequency shifts for larger ones at the Delaney Park site.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper tests whether non-vertical wave incidence can account for the lower amplitudes seen in empirical transfer functions compared to simulated ones at the Delaney Park Downhole Array. A parametric study applies the Input Lag Method to model inclined waves in 2D and 3D analyses, showing that angles up to 15 degrees cause only small reductions near the fundamental frequency and little better agreement with observations. Larger angles lower amplitudes further but shift the fundamental frequency higher in ways not present in the recorded data, while azimuthal changes affect mainly the troughs. The work indicates that the vertical-incidence assumption alone does not resolve the discrepancies commonly seen in multi-dimensional site response modeling.

Core claim

The central claim is that inclined wave incidence modeled via the Input Lag Method in 2D and 3D GRAs at DPDA leads to modest amplitude reductions for inclinations up to 15 degrees with limited ETF agreement improvement, while larger angles reduce amplitudes but systematically shift f0 to higher frequencies not observed in ETFs, and azimuthal variation has relatively minor effects primarily on trough amplitudes.

What carries the argument

The Input Lag Method (ILM), which simulates inclined wave propagation by applying time lags to the input motion across the model domain to represent non-vertical incidence without altering the domain geometry.

If this is right

  • Inclination angles up to 15° produce only minor reductions in TTF amplitudes near f0 with limited improvement in ETF agreement.
  • Larger inclination angles reduce amplitudes but introduce systematic shifts in f0 to higher frequencies that are not observed in the ETFs.
  • Azimuthal variation in 3D GRAs has a relatively minor effect, primarily influencing trough amplitudes while leaving f0 and higher-mode peaks largely unchanged.
  • The Input Lag Method is more effective and computationally efficient than the Inclined Domain Method for large-scale models.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Other mechanisms such as unmodeled scattering or material damping likely dominate the remaining amplitude discrepancies between simulations and observations.
  • Site response models may benefit from incorporating explicit 3D scattering effects rather than relying on simple inclination adjustments alone.
  • Combining inclination with site-specific adjustments to damping parameters could be tested to determine whether better matches with empirical data become possible.

Load-bearing premise

The amplitude discrepancy between theoretical and empirical transfer functions is primarily due to the assumption of vertical wave incidence.

What would settle it

Direct field measurements of actual wave incidence angles during earthquakes at the Delaney Park site, or comparisons of transfer functions from events with known large inclinations to check for the predicted upward shifts in fundamental frequency.

read the original abstract

Even when large-scale, site-specific three-dimensional (3D) subsurface models are used to represent spatial variability, multi-dimensional ground response analyses (GRAs) at downhole array sites continue to exhibit amplitude discrepancies between simulated theoretical transfer functions (TTFs) and recorded empirical transfer functions (ETFs), with ETFs at the Delaney Park Downhole Array (DPDA) showing notably lower amplitudes at the fundamental frequency (f0). This discrepancy suggests greater apparent attenuation from wave scattering and destructive interference than is currently captured in multi-dimensional GRAs. However, most prior studies assume vertically propagating shear-wave input, neglecting inclined and azimuthally varying wavefields. This study evaluates the effects of inclination and azimuth in 2D and 3D GRAs at DPDA to assess whether non-vertical wave incidence improves agreement with observed ETFs. Two approaches for modeling inclined waves, the Input Lag Method (ILM) and the Inclined Domain Method (IDM), are compared, with ILM found to be more effective and computationally efficient for large-scale models. A parametric study using ILM shows that inclination angles up to 15{\deg} produce only minor reductions in TTF amplitudes near f0, with limited improvement in ETF agreement. Larger inclination angles reduce amplitudes but introduce systematic shifts in f0 to higher frequencies that are not observed in the ETFs. Azimuthal variation in 3D GRAs has a relatively minor effect, primarily influencing trough amplitudes while leaving f0 and higher-mode peaks largely unchanged.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript evaluates the effects of non-vertical incident wave inclination and azimuthal angles on 2D and 3D ground response analyses at the Delaney Park Downhole Array (DPDA) site. It compares the Input Lag Method (ILM) and Inclined Domain Method (IDM) for modeling inclined waves, identifies ILM as more effective and efficient, and reports from a parametric ILM study that inclinations up to 15° yield only minor reductions in theoretical transfer function (TTF) amplitudes near the fundamental frequency (f0) with limited improvement versus empirical transfer functions (ETFs), while larger angles reduce amplitudes but systematically shift f0 higher in a manner not observed in the ETFs; azimuthal variations in 3D models have relatively minor effects, mainly on trough amplitudes.

Significance. If the central results hold after validation, the work demonstrates that relaxing the vertical-incidence assumption does not resolve the persistent amplitude underprediction of TTFs relative to ETFs at downhole arrays, thereby directing attention toward unmodeled scattering, damping, or subsurface characterization errors. The practical comparison of ILM versus IDM supplies actionable guidance for large-scale numerical modeling of inclined wavefields.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / Parametric study] Abstract and parametric study section: The interpretation that inclination angles >15° produce systematic upward shifts in f0 (unlike observed ETFs) presupposes that the vertical-incidence baseline TTF already places f0 at the correct frequency; no quantitative comparison of vertical TTF f0 versus ETF f0, nor sensitivity tests on layer thicknesses, Vs values, or interface depths, is described, leaving open that the reported shift could be an artifact of subsurface model inaccuracy rather than a robust physical effect of inclination.
  2. [Methods] Methods section: The subsurface velocity and damping profiles used for the baseline vertical-incidence simulations are not shown to have been independently validated against the DPDA data (e.g., via direct comparison of vertical TTF f0 and peak amplitudes to ETFs prior to the inclination study); without such checks or parameter-perturbation results, the attribution of residual discrepancies to wave incidence rather than model error remains unverified.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figures] Figure captions and legends: Ensure all TTF/ETF comparison plots explicitly label the vertical-incidence baseline curve, mark the observed ETF f0, and include quantitative amplitude ratios or frequency-shift values for the inclination cases shown.
  2. [Introduction / Methods] Notation: Define ILM and IDM acronyms at first use in the main text and provide a brief one-sentence description of each method's implementation for inclined-wave boundary conditions.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments, which have helped us improve the clarity and rigor of the manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional validation and comparisons as suggested.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Parametric study] Abstract and parametric study section: The interpretation that inclination angles >15° produce systematic upward shifts in f0 (unlike observed ETFs) presupposes that the vertical-incidence baseline TTF already places f0 at the correct frequency; no quantitative comparison of vertical TTF f0 versus ETF f0, nor sensitivity tests on layer thicknesses, Vs values, or interface depths, is described, leaving open that the reported shift could be an artifact of subsurface model inaccuracy rather than a robust physical effect of inclination.

    Authors: We agree that explicitly quantifying the vertical-incidence TTF f0 relative to the ETF f0, along with sensitivity tests, would strengthen the attribution of the observed shifts. The baseline subsurface model was drawn from prior site-specific calibrations at DPDA, but we have now added a direct comparison of vertical TTF and ETF f0 values (including the small offset) and performed targeted sensitivity analyses on layer thicknesses, Vs profiles, and interface depths. These results confirm that the systematic upward f0 shift at inclinations >15° persists across reasonable parameter variations and is not an artifact of the baseline model. The revised abstract and parametric study section include these additions. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods] Methods section: The subsurface velocity and damping profiles used for the baseline vertical-incidence simulations are not shown to have been independently validated against the DPDA data (e.g., via direct comparison of vertical TTF f0 and peak amplitudes to ETFs prior to the inclination study); without such checks or parameter-perturbation results, the attribution of residual discrepancies to wave incidence rather than model error remains unverified.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the original manuscript did not present an explicit pre-inclination validation of the baseline vertical TTF against the ETFs. In the revised Methods section we have added a dedicated validation subsection that directly compares the vertical-incidence TTF f0 and peak amplitudes to the corresponding ETFs, along with results from parameter-perturbation tests on Vs, damping, and layer thicknesses. These checks confirm that the baseline model reproduces the observed f0 within acceptable tolerance before the inclination study is introduced, thereby supporting the subsequent attribution of residual amplitude discrepancies and frequency shifts to wave incidence effects. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: forward ILM/IDM simulations compared to independent site ETFs

full rationale

The paper's core results come from forward numerical ground response analyses (2D/3D) using the Input Lag Method and Inclined Domain Method to propagate inclined and azimuthally varying waves through a site-specific subsurface model. Theoretical transfer functions are generated directly from these simulations and compared against empirical transfer functions recorded at the Delaney Park array. No parameters are fitted to match the target ETF amplitudes or frequencies, no self-definitional loops appear in the modeling equations, and no load-bearing claims rest on self-citations or prior author uniqueness theorems. The reported effects of inclination angle on amplitude reduction and f0 shift are outputs of the forward model, not inputs renamed as predictions. This is a standard, self-contained parametric study.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the accuracy of prior site-specific 3D subsurface models and the correctness of the ILM and IDM wave-input implementations; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • inclination angle
    Varied parametrically in the study to test effects on TTF amplitudes and f0
  • azimuth angle
    Varied in 3D simulations to assess directional effects
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The large-scale 3D subsurface model accurately captures spatial variability at DPDA
    Invoked when stating that even with such models, amplitude discrepancies persist
  • domain assumption ILM and IDM correctly implement inclined plane-wave input without introducing numerical artifacts
    Used to justify comparing the two methods and preferring ILM

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5582 in / 1435 out tokens · 75782 ms · 2026-05-13T20:16:34.232181+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A frequency -domain beamforming procedure for extracting Rayleigh wave attenuation coefficients and small -strain damping ratio from 2D ambient noise array measurements

    “A frequency -domain beamforming procedure for extracting Rayleigh wave attenuation coefficients and small -strain damping ratio from 2D ambient noise array measurements.” Earthquake Spectra, 41 (2): 1333–1363. SAGE Publications Inc. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930241304914. Afshari, K., and J. P. Stewart

    work page doi:10.1177/87552930241304914

  2. [2]

    Insights from California Vertical Arrays on the Effectiveness of Ground Response Analysis with Alternative Damping Models

    “Insights from California Vertical Arrays on the Effectiveness of Ground Response Analysis with Alternative Damping Models.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America , 109 (4): 1250–1264. Seismological Society of America. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120180292. Badal, J., U. Dutta, F. Serón, and N. Biswas

    work page doi:10.1785/0120180292

  3. [3]

    Three-dimensional imaging of shear wave velocity in the uppermost 30 m of the soil column in Anchorage, Alaska

    “Three-dimensional imaging of shear wave velocity in the uppermost 30 m of the soil column in Anchorage, Alaska.” Geophysical Journal International, 158 (3): 983–997. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2004.02327.x. Berenger, J. P

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-246x.2004.02327.x 2004

  4. [4]

    A perfectly matched layer for the absorption of electromag- netic waves.Journal of Computational Physics, 114(2):185–200, October 1994

    “A perfectly matched layer for the absorption of electromagnetic waves.” Journal of Computational Physics, 114 (2): 185–200. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1006/jcph.1994.1159. 30 Cabas, A., A. Rodriguez‐Marek, and L. F. Bonilla

    work page doi:10.1006/jcph.1994.1159 1994

  5. [5]

    Seismological Society of America

    “Estimation of Site‐Specific Kappa ( κ0)‐ Consistent Damping Values at KiK‐Net Sites to Assess the Discrepancy between Laboratory‐Based Damping Models and Observed Attenuation (of Seismic Waves) in the Field.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America , 107 (5): 2258–2271. Seismological Society of America. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120160370. Chang,...

    work page doi:10.1785/0120160370

  6. [6]

    Influence of horizontally variable soil properties on nonlinear seismic site response and ground motion coherency

    “Influence of horizontally variable soil properties on nonlinear seismic site response and ground motion coherency.” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 51 (3): 704–722. John Wiley and Sons Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3587. Combellick, R. A

    work page doi:10.1002/eqe.3587

  7. [7]

    A statistical representation and frequency- domain window-rejection algorithm for single -station HVSR measurements

    “A statistical representation and frequency- domain window-rejection algorithm for single -station HVSR measurements.” Geophysical Journal International, 221 (3): 2170–2183. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggaa119. Darendeli, M. Baris

    work page doi:10.1093/gji/ggaa119

  8. [8]

    Two- dimensional Ground Response Analyses at the Delaney Park Downhole Array Site

    “Two- dimensional Ground Response Analyses at the Delaney Park Downhole Array Site.” Japanese Geotechnical Society Special Publication, 10 (9): v10.SS-3-01. The Japanese Geotechnical Society. https://doi.org/10.3208/jgssp.v10.SS-3-01. Dawadi, N., T. S. Jackson, and B. R. Cox. 2026a. “Three-Dimensional Ground Response Analyses at the I- 15 Downhole Array S...

    work page doi:10.3208/jgssp.v10.ss-3-01 2026

  9. [9]

    Insights on Numerical Damping Formulations Gained from Calibrating Two- Dimensional Ground Response Analyses at Downhole Array Sites

    Vienna. Dawadi, N., K. Mohammadi, M. M. Hallal, and B. R. Cox. 2026c. “Insights on Numerical Damping Formulations Gained from Calibrating Two- Dimensional Ground Response Analyses at Downhole Array Sites.” Submitted to Earthquake Spectra. Preprint available. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2511.04074. Eskandarighadi, M., C. R. McGann, and C...

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.04074

  10. [10]

    2D site response modeling of the Treasure Island vertical array considering spatially varying input motions with non- vertical incidence

    “2D site response modeling of the Treasure Island vertical array considering spatially varying input motions with non- vertical incidence.” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 200: 109878. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SOILDYN.2025.109878. Hallal, M. M., and B. R. Cox. 2021a. “An H/V geostatistical approach for building pseudo-3D Vs models to ...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2025.109878 2025

  11. [11]

    What Spatial Area Influences Seismic Site Response: Insights Gained from Multiazimuthal 2D Ground Response Analyses at the Treasure Island Downhole Array

    “What Spatial Area Influences Seismic Site Response: Insights Gained from Multiazimuthal 2D Ground Response Analyses at the Treasure Island Downhole Array.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 149 (1). American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). https://doi.org/10.1061/JGGEFK.GTENG-11023. Hallal, M. M., B. R. Cox, N. Dawadi, and D. P. Teague

    work page doi:10.1061/jggefk.gteng-11023

  12. [12]

    Raw Field Measurements from Garner Valley, Borrego Valley, Treasure Island, and Delaney Park Downhole Arrays

    “Raw Field Measurements from Garner Valley, Borrego Valley, Treasure Island, and Delaney Park Downhole Arrays.” Comprehensive Noninvasive Subsurface Testing at Four U.S. Borehole Array Sites. Designsafe-CI. https://doi.org/10.17603/DS2-YEK8-8A25. Hallal, M. M., B. R. Cox, S. Foti, A. Rodriguez-Marek, and E. M. Rathje. 2022a. “Improved implementation of tr...

    work page doi:10.17603/ds2-yek8-8a25 2022

  13. [13]

    Modeling of Empirical Transfer Functions with 3D Velocity Structure

    “Modeling of Empirical Transfer Functions with 3D Velocity Structure.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America , 111 (4): 2042–2056. Seismological Society of America. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120200214. Itasca Consulting Group, Inc

    work page doi:10.1785/0120200214 2042

  14. [14]

    Physical Hypotheses for Adjusting Coarse Profiles and Improving 1D Site-Response Estimation Assessed at 10 KiK-net Sites

    “Physical Hypotheses for Adjusting Coarse Profiles and Improving 1D Site-Response Estimation Assessed at 10 KiK-net Sites.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 110 (3): 1338–1358. Seismological Society of America. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120190263. Kaklamanos, J., B. A. Bradley, E. M. Thompson, and L. G. Baise

    work page doi:10.1785/0120190263

  15. [15]

    Critical Parameters Affecting Bias and Variability in Site -Response Analyses Using KiK -net Downhole Array Data

    “Critical Parameters Affecting Bias and Variability in Site -Response Analyses Using KiK -net Downhole Array Data.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 103 (3): 1733–1749. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120120166. Kim, B., and Y . M. A. Hashash

    work page doi:10.1785/0120120166

  16. [16]

    Site Response Analysis Using Downhole Array Recordings during the March 2011 Tohoku -Oki Earthquake and the Effect of Long -Duration Ground Motions

    “Site Response Analysis Using Downhole Array Recordings during the March 2011 Tohoku -Oki Earthquake and the Effect of Long -Duration Ground Motions.” Earthquake Spectra, 29 (1_suppl): 37 –54. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.4000114. Komatitsch, D., and J. Tromp

    work page doi:10.1193/1.4000114 2011

  17. [17]

    Ground-motion characteristics estimated from spectral ratio between horizontal and vertical components of microtremor

    “Ground-motion characteristics estimated from spectral ratio between horizontal and vertical components of microtremor.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 88 (1): 228–241. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0880010228. de la Torre, C. A., B. A. Bradley, J. P . Stewart, and C. R. McGann

    work page doi:10.1785/bssa0880010228

  18. [18]

    Can modeling soil heterogeneity in 2D site response analyses improve predictions at vertical array sites?

    “Can modeling soil heterogeneity in 2D site response analyses improve predictions at vertical array sites?” Earthquake Spectra, 38 (4): 2451–2478. SAGE Publications Inc. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930221105107. Lysmer, J., and R. L. Kuhlemeyer

    work page doi:10.1177/87552930221105107

  19. [19]

    Finite Dynamic Model for Infinite Media

    “Finite Dynamic Model for Infinite Media.” Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, 95 (4): 859–877. American Society of Civil Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1061/JMCEA3.0001144. Molnar, S., A. Sirohey, J. Assaf, P .-Y . Bard, S. Castellaro, C. Cornou, B. Cox, B. Guillier, B. Hassani, H. Kawase, S. Matsushima, F. J. Sánchez -Sesma, and A. Yong

    work page doi:10.1061/jmcea3.0001144

  20. [20]

    A review of the microtremor horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratio (MHVSR) method

    “A review of the microtremor horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratio (MHVSR) method.” Journal of Seismology , 26 (4): 653–685. Springer Science and Business Media B.V . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-021-10062-9. O’Doherty, R. F., and N. A. Anstey

    work page doi:10.1007/s10950-021-10062-9

  21. [21]

    Reflection on amplitudes

    “Reflection on amplitudes.” Geophysical Prospecting, 19 (3): 430–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2478.1971.tb00610.x. Passeri, F., S. Foti, and A. Rodriguez -Marek

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2478.1971.tb00610.x 1971

  22. [22]

    A new geostatistical model for shear wave velocity profiles

    “A new geostatistical model for shear wave velocity profiles.” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 136: 106247. Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106247. Pilz, M., and F. Cotton

    work page doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106247 2020

  23. [23]

    Earthquake Engineering Research Institute

    “Does the One-Dimensional Assumption Hold for Site Response Analysis? A Study of Seismic Site Responses and Implication for Ground Motion Assessment Using KiK -Net Strong-Motion Data.” Earthquake Spectra, 35 (2): 883 –905. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. https://doi.org/10.1193/050718EQS113M. Rathje, E. M., A. R. Kottke, and W. L. Trent

    work page doi:10.1193/050718eqs113m

  24. [24]

    Influence of Input Motion and Site Property Variabilities on Seismic Site Response Analysis

    “Influence of Input Motion and Site Property Variabilities on Seismic Site Response Analysis.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 136 (4): 607–619. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000255. Rix, G. J., C. G. Lai, and A. W. Spang

    work page doi:10.1061/(asce)gt.1943-5606.0000255 1943

  25. [25]

    In Situ Measurement of Damping Ratio Using Surface Waves

    “In Situ Measurement of Damping Ratio Using Surface Waves.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 126 (5): 472 –480. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2000)126:5(472). Rodriguez‐Marek, A., P. P. Kruiver, P. Meijers, J. J. Bommer, B. Dost, J. van Elk, and D. Doornhof

    work page doi:10.1061/(asce)1090-0241(2000)126:5(472 2000

  26. [26]

    A Regional Site‐Response Model for the Groningen Gas Field

    “A Regional Site‐Response Model for the Groningen Gas Field.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America , 107 (5): 2067–2077. Seismological Society of America. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120160123. Spencer, T. W., C. M. Edwards, and J. R. Sonnad

    work page doi:10.1785/0120160123 2067

  27. [27]

    Seismic wave attenuation in nonresolvable cyclic stratification

    “Seismic wave attenuation in nonresolvable cyclic stratification.” Geophysics, 42 (5): 939 –949. Society of Exploration Geophysicists. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1440773. Tao, Y ., and E. Rathje

    work page doi:10.1190/1.1440773

  28. [28]

    Insights into Modeling Small-Strain Site Response Derived from Downhole Array Data

    “Insights into Modeling Small-Strain Site Response Derived from Downhole Array Data.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 145 (7). American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)gt.1943-5606.0002048. 33 Tao, Y ., and E. Rathje

    work page doi:10.1061/(asce)gt.1943-5606.0002048 1943

  29. [29]

    Taxonomy for evaluating the site-specific applicability of one-dimensional ground response analysis

    “Taxonomy for evaluating the site-specific applicability of one-dimensional ground response analysis.” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 128: 105865. Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105865. Teague, D. P., B. R. Cox, and E. M. Rathje

    work page doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105865 2019

  30. [30]

    Measured vs. predicted site response at the Garner Valley Downhole Array considering shear wave velocity uncertainty from borehole and surface wave methods

    “Measured vs. predicted site response at the Garner Valley Downhole Array considering shear wave velocity uncertainty from borehole and surface wave methods.” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 113: 339–355. Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.05.031. Thompson, E. M., L. G. Baise, R. E. Kayen, and B. B. Guzina

    work page doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.05.031 2018

  31. [31]

    Impediments to predicting site response: Seismic property estimation and modeling simplifications

    “Impediments to predicting site response: Seismic property estimation and modeling simplifications.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 99 (5): 2927–2949. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120080224. Thompson, E. M., L. G. Baise, Y . Tanaka, and R. E. Kayen

    work page doi:10.1785/0120080224

  32. [32]

    A taxonomy of site response complexity

    “A taxonomy of site response complexity.” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering , 41: 32–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2012.04.005. Thornley, J., U. Dutta, P. Fahringer, and Z. (Joey) Yang

    work page doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2012.04.005 2012

  33. [33]

    In Situ Shear‐Wave Velocity Measurements at the Delaney Park Downhole Array, Anchorage, Alaska

    “In Situ Shear‐Wave Velocity Measurements at the Delaney Park Downhole Array, Anchorage, Alaska.” Seismological Research Letters, 90 (1): 395–400. Seismological Society of America. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220180178. Toro, G. R

    work page doi:10.1785/0220180178

  34. [34]

    Uncertainty in Shear-Wave Velocity Profiles

    “Uncertainty in Shear-Wave Velocity Profiles.” Journal of Seismology, 26 (4): 713–730. Springer Science and Business Media B.V . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-022-10084-x. Tsai, C.-C., and Y . M. Hashash

    work page doi:10.1007/s10950-022-10084-x

  35. [35]

    Learning of Dynamic Soil Behavior from Downhole Arrays

    “Learning of Dynamic Soil Behavior from Downhole Arrays.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 135 (6): 745–757. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000050. Yee, E., J. P. Stewart, and K. Tokimatsu

    work page doi:10.1061/(asce)gt.1943-5606.0000050 1943

  36. [36]

    Elastic and Large-Strain Nonlinear Seismic Site Response from Analysis of Vertical Array Recordings

    “Elastic and Large-Strain Nonlinear Seismic Site Response from Analysis of Vertical Array Recordings.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 139 (10): 1789–1801. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000900. Zalachoris, G., and E. M. Rathje

    work page doi:10.1061/(asce)gt.1943-5606.0000900 1943

  37. [37]

    Evaluation of One-Dimensional Site Response Techniques Using Borehole Arrays

    “Evaluation of One-Dimensional Site Response Techniques Using Borehole Arrays.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 141 (12). American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001366. Zywicki, D. J

    work page doi:10.1061/(asce)gt.1943-5606.0001366 1943