Simulation of Synthetic Ground Motions for Specified Earthquake and Site Characteristics

Sanaz Rezaeian (Doctoral Candidate) Armen Der Kiureghian (PI) University of California, Berkeley
Sponsor: State of California through Transportation Systems Research Program of Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center

Objective:
Our Goal: Earthquake and site characteristics Suite of simulated design time-histories
(F, M, Rrup, Vs30 ,)
Site Controlling Fault F: Faulting mechanism M: Moment magnitude Vs30: Shear wave velocity of top 30m Rrup: Closest distance to ruptured area

What we have done so far: Developed a stochastic site-based model for far-field strong ground motions. Developed empirical predictive equations for the model parameters. Compared elastic response spectra (median and variability) to NGA relations.

Ongoing activity and what we plan to accomplish by May 2010: Simulate orthogonal horizontal ground motion components. Extend the model to near-field ground motions. Scrutinize the simulated motions for inelastic structural responses.

Ground Motion Model:

Acceleration Time modulating function Controls temporal nonstationarity Unit-variance process Controls spectral nonstationarity

Time, sec

10

15

20

Time, sec

10

15

20

10

15

20

High-pass Filtering

Time, sec

10

15

20

Ground Motion Model Parameters:

Let:

t0

tn

tn

: Arias intensity : Time at the middle of strong shaking : Effective duration

0 tn

Ground Motion Model Parameters:

Let:

t0

tn

tn

: Arias intensity : Time at the middle of strong shaking : Effective duration

0 tn

If the model parameters are given, time-histories can be simulated.

Applications in Practice:
Simulate a given accelerogram:
0.15 0.15

0 -0.25

Recorded
-0.25 0

Time, sec

40

Match statistical characteristics Representing: Intensity Frequency Bandwidth

Acceleration, g

Identify model parameters

Ia, tmid, D5-95

model formulation

0.15 0

-0.25 0.15 0

mid, ,

-0.25

Simulations
0

40

Simulate a suite of ground motions for a given design scenario:

0.1 0

Given predictive Earthquake/Site characteristics equations (design scenario) F, M, Rrup, Vs30

Generate model several possible sets of formulation model parameters

-0.1 0.1 0 -0.1 0.1 0 -0.1 0

Ia, tmid, D5-95

mid, ,

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Simulations

Applications in Practice:
Simulate a given accelerogram:
0.15 0.15

0 -0.25

Recorded
-0.25 0

Time, sec

40

Match statistical characteristics Representing: Intensity Frequency Bandwidth

Acceleration, g

Identify model parameters

Ia, tmid, D5-95

model formulation

0.15 0

-0.25 0.15 0

mid, ,

-0.25

Simulations
0

40

Done for many records to get observational data for predictor and response variables

Simulate a suite of ground motions for a given design scenario:

0.1 0

Given Generate predictive model Earthquake/Site characteristics several possible sets of equations formulation (design scenario) model parameters Regression Ia, tmid, D5-95 F, M, Rrup, Vs30 Predictor variables

-0.1 0.1 0 -0.1 0.1 0 -0.1 0

mid, ,

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Simulations

Response variables

Ground Motion Database (far-field):

Earthquake
1 ImperialValley 2 Victoria,Mexico 3 Morganhill 4 Landers 5 BigBear 6 Kobe,Japan 7 Kocaeli,Turkey 8 Duzce,Turkey 9 Sitka,Alaska 10 Manjil,Iran 11 HectorMine 12 Denali,Alaska 13 SanFernando 14 Tabas,Iran 15 Coalinga 16 NPalmSprings 17 LomaPrieta 18 Northridge 19 ChiChi,Taiwan

#ofrecords
2 2 10 4 10 4 4 2 2 2 16
Moment Magnitude
8.0

Shallow crustal earthquakes in tectonically active regions Vs30 > 600 m/sec
Strike-slip

Two horizontal components

Strike-slip Reverse

4 14 2 2 12 28 38 48

7.5

7.0

Reverse

6.5

6.0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Rrup , km

Total: 206 Accelerograms

Predictive Equations (Regression):

Distributions assigned to the model parameters:
0.4 0.08

Normalized Frequency (Total:206)

0.3 0.2 0.1 0 -7.5 -5.5

Normal

0.06 0.04 0.02

Beta

0.06 0.04 0.02

Beta

Observed Data Fitted PDF

ln(Ia, sec.g)

-3.5

-1.5

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

D5-95, sec

10 15 20 25 30 35 40

tmid, sec

0.16 0.12 0.08 0.04 0 0 5 10 15 20 25

Gamma

3 2 1 0 -2

Two-Sided Exponential

3 2 1

Beta

mid/(2), Hz

-1.5

'/(2), Hz/sec

-1

-0.5

0.5

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Regression model (for jth earthquake and kth record of that earthquake):

Model parameter transformed to the standard normal space

Predicted mean conditioned on earthquake and site characteristics

Independent Normally-distributed errors

Regression Results (Predictive Equations):

Formulation: if

if

Maximum Likelihood Estimation:

Standard deviation of

1.844 6.195 5.011 2.253 2.489 0.258

0.071 0.703 0.345 0.081 0.044 0.477

2.944 6.792 4.638 1.810 2.408 0.905

1.356 0.219 0.348 0.211 0.065 0.289

0.265 0.523 0.185 0.012 0.081 0.316

0.27 0.46 0.51 0.69 0.13 0.68

0.59 0.57 0.41 0.72 0.95 0.76

0.65 0.73 0.66 1.00 0.96 1.02

Regression Results (Correlations):

Transformed model parameters:

0.36 1

0.01 0.67 1

0.15 0.13 0.28 1

0.13 0.16 0.20 0.20 1

0.01 0.20 0.22 0.28 0.01 1

Symmetric

(given the earthquake and site characteristics)

Example 1 : Acceleration
4 simulated motions and 1 real recording for the given design scenario: F = 1 (Reverse) M = 7.35 Rrup =14 km VS30 = 660 m/sec
RealizaVonsofmodelparameters:
Ia sec.g D5-95 sec tmid sec mid /(2) Hz /(2) Hz/sec
Acceleration, g
0.2 0.1

Simulated
0 -0.1

10

15

20

25

30

35

0.2 0 -0.2 0 5 10 15

Recorded (1978 Tabas at Dayhook)

20 25 30 35

0.01217.236.276.880.010.14

Simulated
0 -0.2 0.1

0.14512.306.785.900.120.26

10

15

20

25

30

35

Simulated

0.05514.227.224.480.160.38

0 -0.1

0.01414.076.3110.750.240.26

10

15

20

25

30

35

0.1

Simulated

0.03614.878.324.360.150.03

0 -0.1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Time, sec

Example 1 : Velocity
4 simulated motions and 1 real recording for the given design scenario: F = 1 (Reverse) M = 7.35 Rrup =14 km VS30 = 660 m/sec
RealizaVonsofmodelparameters:
Ia sec.g D5-95 sec tmid sec mid /(2) Hz /(2) Hz/sec
Velocity, m/sec
0.2 0.05 0 -0.05 0 0.2 0 -0.2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Simulated

10

15

20

25

30

35

Recorded

0.01217.236.276.880.010.14

Simulated
0 -0.2 0 0.1

0.14512.306.785.900.120.26

10

15

20

25

30

35

Simulated

0.05514.227.224.480.160.38

0 -0.1

0.01414.076.3110.750.240.26

10

15

20

25

30

35

0.1 0 -0.1

Simulated

0.03614.878.324.360.150.03

10

15

Time, sec

20

25

30

35

Example 1 : Displacement
4 simulated motions and 1 real recording for the given design scenario: F = 1 (Reverse) M = 7.35 Rrup =14 km VS30 = 660 m/sec
RealizaVonsofmodelparameters:
Displacement, m
0.05 0 -0.05 0.1 0 -0.1

Simulated

10

15

20

25

30

35

Recorded

Ia sec.g

D5-95 sec

tmid sec

mid /(2) Hz

/(2) Hz/sec

0 0.1 0 -0.1 0 0.05

10

15

20

25

30

35

0.01217.236.276.880.010.14

Simulated

0.14512.306.785.900.120.26

10

15

20

25

30

35

Simulated

0.05514.227.224.480.160.38

0 -0.05 0 0.05 0

0.01414.076.3110.750.240.26

10

15

20

25

30

35

Simulated

0.03614.878.324.360.150.03

-0.05 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Time, sec

Example 2 :
If desired, a fixed value may be assigned to one or more of the model parameters: F = 1 (Reverse) M = 7.35 Rrup =14 km VS30 = 660 m/sec
RealizaVonsofmodelparameters:
Ia sec.g D5-95 sec tmid sec mid /(2) Hz /(2) Hz/sec
Acceleration, g
0.5

Recorded
0

-0.5 0.5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Simulated
0 -0.5 0.5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0.14512.306.785.900120.26

Simulated
0

0.14512.799.867.480.520.13

-0.5 0.5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Simulated
0.14522.1116.248.050.090.12
0

-0.5

0.1458.145.317.340.020.30

0 0.5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Simulated
0

0.14511.0110.304.430.120.29
-0.5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Time, sec

Example 3 : Response Spectrum (5% damped)

2 horizontal components of a recorded motion (1994 Northridge at LA Wonderland Ave) Vs. 50 simulated motions Corresponding to earthquake and site characteristics: F = 1 (Reverse) M = 6.69 Rrup = 20.3 km VS30 = 1223 m/sec
10
1

10

Recorded Simulated

10

-1

Deformation Response Spectrum, m

-1 0 0

Pseudo-Acceleration Response Spectrum, g

10

10

-1

10

-2

10

-2

10

-3

10

-3

10

10

510

10

-4

Period, sec

10

-1

10

510

Period, sec

Comparison with NGA Models:

10
0

Selected NGA Models: Campbell-Bozorgnia (z2.5 = 1km) Abrahamson-Silva (z1.0 = 34m) Chiou-Youngs (z1.0 = 24m) Boore-Atkinson

NGA Parameters: Rupture width = 20km Rupture depth = 1km

10

-1

10

-2

5% Damped Pseudo-Acceleration Response Spectrum, g

M=6.0, R=20km
10 10
-3

M=7.0, R=10km

Avg NGA Median +1 logarithmic stdv. Median Median 1 logarithmic stdv.

500 Simulations

10

-1

10

-2

F = 0 (Strike-Slip) Vs30 = 760 m/sec

M=7.0, R=20km M=7.0, R=20km

10

-3 0

10

Note: Models based on different subsets of NGA database. Observe: Except for M=6.0 (lower bound of database), deviations are much smaller than the variability present in the NGA prediction equations. Synthetics are in close agreement with NGA.
1.0 5.0

10

-1

10

-2

M=8.0, R=20km
10
-3

M=7.0, R=40km

0.1

1.0

5.0 0.1

Period, sec

Period, sec

Current & Future Developments:

Simulating correlated orthogonal horizontal ground motion components.
Component 1: Component 2:

Motions in the database are rotated to the principal axes so that w1() and w2() are statistically independent. Model is fitted to the rotated database to estimate correlations:

1, 2

and

1, 2

Current & Future Developments:

Simulating near-field ground motions.
Separately model and superimpose: 1) The directivity pulse Long period pulse in the velocity time-series of the fault-normal component. Develop prediction equations for characteristics of the pulse in terms of earthquake/site parameters. Collaboration with Jack Baker: Using wavelet analysis, directivity pulse extracted from a database of near-field motions, this database will be used to develop prediction equations. 2) The fling step Permanent displacement may exist in the fault-parallel component. Incorporate the available seismological models (e.g., Somerville 1998, Abrahamson 2001). 3) The residue motion The total motion minus the directivity pulse and the fling step. Model by a modified version of the far-field stochastic ground motion process.

Current & Future Developments:

Scrutinize the simulated motions for inelastic structural responses.
Compare inelastic response spectra (for given ductility ratios) of synthetic motions with real recordings and existing prediction equations (e.g., Bozorgnia et. al., 2010). Case Study: Compare inelastic response of a multi-degree-of-freedom structure to simulated and recorded motions.

Related Publications:
Rezaeian, S. and A. Der Kiureghian, "A stochastic ground motion model with separable temporal and spectral nonstationarities," Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, July 2008, Vol. 37, pp. 1565-1584. Rezaeian, S. and A. Der Kiureghian, "Simulation of synthetic ground motions for specified earthquake and site characteristics," Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 2009. Submitted.

MATLAB software to be made available Current abilities: Fitting the stochastic model to a target accelerogram. Simulating far-field strong motions on firm-ground for specified F, M, Rrup, Vs30. Will be added by May 2010: Two component simulation. Near-field simulation.

Thank You

Features of target accelerogram

0.03

0 5

0.025

10

Cumulative energy

0.02

Cumulative energy

0.015

0.01

0.005

15

20

Cumulative number of zero -level up- crossings

160

Cumulative number of zero-level up crossings a measure of dominant frequency

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

25 30 35 40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 140

120

Cumulative number of positive minima and negative maxima a measure of bandwidth

100

80

60

40

20

0 5

Cumulative number of negative maxima and positive minima

10

15 20 25 30 35 40

Time, sec

Response spectrum
1

10

A(g)

10

-1

After high-pass filtering

10

10

10

-1

10
-1

A(g)

10

-1

-2

-2

10

10

10

-3

10

10

10

-3

10

10

10

T (sec)

T (sec)

Post-processing is needed for long -period range. A critically damped oscillator is used as a high-pass filter.

Discretized white noise (input) Linear time-varying filter

Unit-variance process with spectral nonstationarity Time modulation

corner frequency

Fully non-stationarity process High-pass filter

Simulated ground motion (output)

Northridge earthquake
0.1
0.2 0 -0.1 -0.2

Recorded motion
5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Acceleration, g

0.2

Simulation
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

-0.2

0.2 0.1

0 -0.1 -0.2

Simulation
5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Time (sec)

Kobe earthquake

Recorded motion

Acceleration, g

Simulation

Simulation

Time (sec)