Topic05a SeismicHazardAnalysisHandouts

SEISMIC HAZARD AND SEISMIC RISK Seismic Activity > M5 Since 1980
ANALYSIS
• Seismotectonics Mid-Atlantic Ridge
• Fault mechanics
Alpide Belt
Ring of Fire
• Ground motion considerations for design

• Deterministic and probabilistic analysis
Alpide Belt
• Estimation of ground motions
• Scaling of ground motions and design
and analysis tools (i.e., NONLIN) Figure from USGS
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA 451, Design Examples Hazard & Risk Analysis 15-3 - 1 Instructional Material Complementing FEMA 451, Design Examples Hazard & Risk Analysis 15-3 - 2
Crustal Plate Boundaries

Convection Drives the Plates
Figure credit: USGS.

Figure from USGS
Oceanic and Crustal Plates Continental-Continental Collision

(orogeny)
Continental Plate (light)

thick lithosphere
beneath continents
Oceanic Plate (heavy) (~ 100 km)
continental crust
oceanic crust thin lithosphere
under oceans
( ~ 50 km)
solid mantle
asthenosphere
partially melted
~ 500 km
mantle
FEMA 451B Topic 15-3 Handouts Seismic Hazard Analysis 1

Oceanic-Continental Collision Types of Earthquakes
(subduction)
About 90% of the earth's seismicity occurs
at plate boundaries on faults directly
forming the interface between two plates.
These are called plate-boundary or
interplate earthquakes.
The other 10% occur away from the plate

boundary, in the interior of plates. These
are called intraplate earthquakes.
Plate-boundary Earthquakes San Andreas Fault – Well Known Plate

Boundary
A plate-boundary (interplate) earthquake
is an earthquake that occurs along a fault
associated with an active plate boundary.
An example of this type of boundary is the
San Andreas Fault in California.
⇒ Frequent occurrence, relatively well

understood behavior, as per plate tectonic
theory.
Photo courtesy of: USGS.
Intraplate Earthquakes Historical Large Intraplate Earthquakes
An intraplate earthquake is an earthquake

that occurs along a fault within the stable
region of a plate's interior (SICR). Examples
are the 1811-12 Madrid, MO earthquakes, the
1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake, New Madrid
1811, M > 8.0
and, more recently, the Bhuj, India, Charleston
earthquake in 2001. 1886, M > 7.0
⇒ Infrequent occurrence, poorly understood,

difficult to study. * Largest historical earthquakes in contiguous United States occurred east of the Mississippi!!

Why Intraplate Earthquakes?
Why Intraplate Earthquakes?
• Ancient “Rifts” – very old fractures in crust
related to previous episodes of continental Example of 700 million
spreading. year old rift zone:
• “Weak Spots” – heating up and thinning of

lower crust such that the brittle-ductile
transition (molten rock/crust boundary)
migrates to a higher level. Because the Figures from USGS
overlying crust becomes thinner, stresses

Rift allows stress
become more concentrated in the crust. concentrations
Why Intraplate Earthquakes? Seismicity of North America

• Thermal destabilization -- sinking of mafic North American
rock mass (rock mass of heavy minerals) Plate
into underlying molten rock. As mafic block
sinks, stresses are concentrated in
overlying crust. Process thought to be due
to rock density anomalies combined with
thermal processes.
Pacific
• Other localized mechanisms? (meteor
Plate
impact craters, etc.)
California Seismicity Pacific Northwest – Cascadia

Subduction Zone
Seismicity relatively
well understood
Ultimate magnitude potential?
Figure Credit:
Figure credit: USGS. USGS

Idaho, Utah, Wyoming Central US Seismic Zones
• Who really knows

for sure?
Recurring events
along Wasatch
• The Reelfoot Rift is
Fault associated with
many events in this
region.
Figure credit: USGS. Figure credit: USGS.
Reelfoot Rift Associated with

Central US Earthquakes
Isoseismal Map
from New Madrid
Earthquake,
Dec. 16, 1811
Figure credit: USGS. Figure credit: USGS.
1811-12 New Madrid Earthquakes (three M8+)

How Big is the CEUS Problem?
New Madrid Seismic Zone
Isoseismal Map -- Dec. 16, 1811
Reelfoot Lake, Tennessee, was • Highest hazard in the US outside the WUS
created due to subsidence and • M1-2 every other day (200 per year)
tectonic change
• M3 every year (felt)
• M4 every 1.5 years (local minor damage)
• M5 every 10 years (damaging event)
• M6 every 80 years (last one in 1895)
• M8+ every 400-600 years? (last one in 1812)
• M6-7.5 has 25-40% chance in 50 years

• M8+ has 4-10% chance in 50 years
Figure and photo credit: USGS.

How Big Is the CEUS Problem? Southeastern Seismicity
• A recurrence of the New Madrid earthquake, • Tennessee relatively active
postulated with a 4-10% probability in the next 50 • 1886 South Carolina event
years, has been estimated to cause a total loss not fully explained
potential of $200 billion with 26 states affected. • Magnetic signature from
North Carolina to Georgia
similar to Charleston area;
• Approximately 2/3 of the projected losses will be same potential?
due to interruptions in business operations and
the transport of goods across mid-America.
Figure credit: VTSO
• This economic loss is of the same order as that

caused by the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001 (NRC, 2003). Epicenters of earthquakes (M > 0.0) in the
southeastern US from 1977 through 1999.
Isoseismal Map from the Isoseismal Map for the Giles County, Virginia,
1886 Charleston Earthquake Earthquake of May 31, 1897; M ≈ 6?
Recent Paleoseismological Studies Isoseismal Map from the

1886 Charleston Earthquake
• Studies in the central and southeastern
United States indicate recurring large
prehistoric earthquakes – this has
increased hazard
• Studies in Pacific Northwest debatable

1886 Charleston Earthquake
1886 Liquefaction Feature
Photo credit: USGS

Photo credit: USGS.
Prehistoric Sand Crater in Trench Wall

Schematic of Ancient Sand Crater
~ 1 meter
original ground surface
Dark
material is
organic
soil and
liquefied matter
sands vented
from below outline of crater
and eroded
crater Photo credit: S. Obermeier
Figure from Obermeier, 1998.
Ages of Earthquake-induced Liquefaction

Features Found in Charleston Region* Virginia Tech Paleoliquefaction Studies
600 ybp
1250 ybp PUGET SOUND REGION
WABASH VALLEY
3250 ybp SEISMIC ZONE
5150 ybp CHARLESTON &

NEW MADRID COASTAL SOUTH
SEISMIC ZONE
> 5150 ybp CAROLINA
* Study led to increased seismic design values in South Carolina.

Artesian Condition? Types of Faults
(a) Strike-slip
fault
(b) Normal fault

(b) normal fault
(c)reverse
(c) Reverse fault
fault
Elastic Rebound Theory Time = 40 Years

(strain building)
Time = 0 Years
Fault
Fault
New
Road
New
Fence Old Fence
San Andreas Fault, San Francisco, 1906

Time = 41 Years
(strain energy released)
Fault
Fence offset
New from
Road fault movement
Old Fence Fault

trace
Photo credit: USGS.


Moment Magnitude Earthquake Source and Seismic Waves
•Seismic Moment = MO = μ A D [Units = Force x Distance]
where:
μ = modulus of rigidity (~ 3.5x1011 dynes/cm2 typical)
A = fault rupture area (W x L); where typical L for
big earthquake ≈ 100 km, and W ≈ 10 to 20 km Fault
rupture
D = fault displacement (typical ≈ 2 m for big quake)
P and
S
waves
•Moment magnitude: MW= 2/3(Log10 MO/1.5) 10.7 • Body waves are generated at the source and they radiate in all directions.
• As they go through layers, they are reflected, refracted and transformed.
Seismic Wave Forms (Body Waves) Seismic Wave Forms (Surface Waves)
D
D Pr irec
Pr irec op tio
ag n D
op tio
ag n o at of Di Pr irec
at f io
n Pr rect op tio
ag n o
io op ion at f
n ag
at o f ion
ion
Compression eave Shear wave

(P wave) (S wave) Love wave Rayleigh wave
Earthquake Source and Seismic Waves Seismic Waves
Particle Motions
Direction of wave
propagation
P
Vertical Section
SV
SH
Direction of wave
SH SV P Waves bend upwards as they propagation
Plan View
approach the ground surface
because of less competent material
P – Primary waves
near the surface – Snell’s Law
SH – Horizontally polarized S waves
SV – Vertically polarized S waves
Rayleigh Love SV SH P

Ground Motion Estimation
Reflection and Refraction at Boundary
Site A Site B
SV
P SV SH ?
?
Vs a > Vs b
P
b b b
rock
soil
a a a
P
P P SV SV SH SH
SV
fault
Incoming P Incoming SV Incoming SH
What ground motions at Site A and B? Two steps:
• Amplitude and direction of reflected and refracted waves with respect to the
1. Define earthquake scenario
incoming wave is given by Snell’s Law
• Earth’s crust is layered, with seismic velocities increasing with depth; therefore as 2. Estimate site response and ground motions
waves approach ground surface wave path will get near-vertical
⇒ Must be done in context of structure, type of analysis
Different Structures, Responses, Analyses, and Issues

Ground Motion Estimation
• No “universal” set of ground motions for

any region.
• Uncertainties are inherent to the process
and will cause differences in results.
• Judgment is required, even with
probability.
• Inconsistency among governing agencies.
Ground Motion Estimation Structure/System Considerations

• Two analyses using same models and basic
ACCELERATION Sa
ACCELERATION Sa
parameters can give different answers (EPRI vs.

NRC/LLNL studies in 1980s).
SPECTRAL
SPECTRAL
• Where time and effort are focused during the

process is function of structure/system being
PERIOD T PERIOD T
analyzed.
• Not possible to predict actual motion that will
occur at a site; mainly concerned with capturing Primary concern for: Primary concern for:
characteristics important to performance of
project.
• Seismologist and engineers must have
continuous feedback!

Consider Performance of Entire System
Structure/System Issues
• Place emphasis on issues
important to the specific project.
Example: If this
is not an
important part of
the spectrum,
SA
do not spend Internal systems Site effects, liquefaction, etc.
extra time and
effort on issues
that affect this.
Period
• Also, think in terms of system
performance.
Structure/System Considerations Seismic Hazard and Seismic Risk

• Type of structure (building, embankment dam, etc.) Seismic hazard evaluation⇒ involves establishing
• Type and purpose of analysis – (linear elastic? time earthquake ground motion parameters for use in
history? liquefaction?) evaluating a site/facility during seismic loading. By
• Parameters that are important (pga? duration?) assessing the vulnerability of the site and the
facility under various levels of these ground motion
• Typical process: seismologist ⇒ geotech engineer ⇒ parameters, the seismic risk for the site/facility can
structural engineer
then be evaluated.
• Seismologists and end user must be closely involved
with continuous feedback • Seismic hazard – the expected occurrence of
• Selection of earthquake scenario is most important future seismic events
task – (do not want precise analysis of inaccurate • Seismic risk – the expected consequences of
model)
future seismic events
Approaches to Seismic Hazard Analysis Deterministic Hazard Analysis
Deterministic: • Identify and characterize source zones that

“The earthquake hazard for the site is a peak may produce significant ground shaking at
ground acceleration of 0.35 g resulting from an the site
earthquake of magnitude 7 on the Woodstock • Determine the distance from each source
Fault at a distance of 18 miles from the site. ” zone to the site
Probabilistic: • Select the controlling earthquake scenario(s)
“The earthquake hazard for the site is a peak
• Calculate the ground motions at the site
ground acceleration of 0.25 g, with a 2 percent
using a regional attenuation relationship
probability of being exceeded in 50 years.”

Steps in Deterministic Seismic Hazard Analysis
Example Deterministic Analysis (Kramer, 1996)
1) Sources* 2) Controlling earthquake
Source 3
Site
Woodstock Source 2
Ashley
Fault Fixed Distance R*
River
Fault
D3
Fixed Magnitude M* D2
Area D1
Source Source 1
Site Source M D PGA
(km) (g)
3) Ground motion attenuation 4) Hazard at site 1 7.3 23.7 0.42
Magnitude M “The earthquake hazard for the 2 7.7 25.0 0.57
Peak Acceleration
site is a pga of 0.35 g resulting 3 5.0 60.0 0.02

from an earthquake of M7 on the
Woodstock Fault at a distance of Maximum on source
18 miles from the site. ” Closest distance
___________ From attenuation relationship
Distance *Can use probability to help define these.
Advantages of Deterministic Approach Disadvantages of Deterministic Approach

• Does not consider inherent uncertainties in
• Analysis is relatively “transparent”; seismic hazard estimation (i.e., maximum
effects of individual elements can be magnitude, ground motion attenuation).
understood and judged more readily. • Relative likelihood of events not considered
(EUS vs. WUS); therefore, inconsistent levels
• Requires less expertise than of risk.
probabilistic analysis. • Does not allow rational determination of
scenario design events in many cases.
• Anchored in reality.
• More dependent upon analyst.
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis Steps in Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis

1) Sources 2) Recurrence
⇒ Considers where, how big, and how often.
Site
Log # Quakes > M
Ashley Woodstock
• Identify and characterize source zones that may River Fault
Fault
produce significant ground shaking at the site including
the spatial distribution and probability of eq’s in each (Uncertainty in
Area
zone. Source
locations of
sources & Ms
• Characterize the temporal distribution and probability of considered). Magnitude M
earthquakes in each source zone via a recurrence 3) Ground motion 4) Probability of exceedance
relationship and probability model.
Probability of Exceedance
Peak Acceleration
• Select a regional attenuation relationship and Considers

uncertainty
associated uncertainty to calculate the variation of
ground motion parameters with magnitude & distance. M1
• Calculate the hazard by integrating over magnitude and M3
M2
distance for each source zone. Distance

Ground Motion Parameter

Empirical Gutenberg-Richter Uncertainties Included in
Recurrence Relationship Probabilistic Analysis
1000
log λm = a − bm
λm
100
Attenuation Laws
Mean Annual Rate of Exceedance
10
λm = mean rate of Recurrence Relationship
recurrence
1
(events/year)
Distance to Site
0.1
0.01
1 / λm = return period
0.001
NS NM NR
0.0001
a and b to be deter- λ y* = ∑∑∑ vi P[Y > y * m j , rk ] P[ M = m j ] P[ R = rk ]
0 2 4 6 8 10 mined from data; b i =1 j =1 k =1
Magnitude
is typically about 1.0
We Commonly Use Two Approaches to

Poisson Model
Predict the Likelihood of Earthquakes
• The simplest, most used model for
earthquake probability.
• Time-independent (Poisson Model) • It is a time-independent model -- the
probability that an earthquake will occur in
• Time-dependent Models an interval of time starting from now does
not depend on when "now" is, because a
Poisson process has no "memory."
Poisson Distribution (general form) Poisson Distribution (for one event)
P (X = k) = (λt)k e-(λt) P = 1 - e-λt

k!
where λ = rate (events/year) where λ = rate (events/year) ⇐ key!!

t = exposure interval t = exposure interval
k = no. of events 1/λ = return period

Poisson Model
• Note that the probabilistic earthquake risk level can
Example- Poisson Model
be put in the form of an earthquake return interval:
Is a 2%/50-year event the same as a 10%/250-
Earthquake Return Period = t/-ln(1-PE) year event?
Return – For 2%/50 years, we have 50/(-ln(1-0.02))=

PE t Period 2,475 year return period
10% 50 yrs. 475
5% 50 yrs. 975 – For 10%/250 years, we have 250/(-ln(1-0.10))=
2% 50 yrs. 2475 2,372 year return period
Note that when the exponent of the equation, λt, is ⇒ These events (probabilities) are not exactly
small, then P ≈ λt. equal, but are “equal” from design standpoint.
Example Probabilistic Analysis (Kramer)

Time-Dependent Models
Source 3
• Used less than simpler Poisson model Source 2
• Time-dependent means that the probability of D3 D2=?

a large earthquake is small immediately after D1=?
Source 3
the last, and then grows with time. Source 1
Site M3=?
A3=?
Source 2
• Such models use various probability density
functions to describe the time between
earthquakes including Gaussian, log-normal, Source 1
M2=?
and Weibull distributions. Site A2=?
M1=?
A1=?
Result of Probabilistic Hazard Analysis Use of PGA Seismic Hazard Curve

Source 3
SEISMIC HAZARD CURVE

Source 2
10-1
10-0
10-1
SEISMIC HAZARD CURVE 10% Probability in 50 years 10-2
10-1 Return Period = 475 years

10-3
Source 1 Site 10-0
Rate of Exceedance = 1/475=0.0021
10-4
10-1 All Source Zones 10-5
10-2 10-6
10-3 10% in 50 Year 10-7
Acceleration, g
Source 2 0.8 Elastic Response

10-4 10-8
10-5 Source 1 0.6 Spectrum 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
10-6 Source 3 Peak Horizontal Acceleration (g)

0.4
10-7
10-8 0.2 PGA = 0.33g
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Peak Horizontal Acceleration (g)
Period, T (sec)

Use of 0.2 Sec. Seismic Hazard Curve 10% in 50 year Elastic
Response Spectrum (UHS)

SEISMIC HAZARD CURVE
10-1
10-0
10-1
10% Probability in 50 years 10-2
Return Period = 475 years 0.8
10-3
Rate of Exceedance = 1/475=0.0021
Acceleration, g
10-4
0.6
10-5
10-6
10% in 50 year 0.4
10-7
Elastic Response
Acceleration, g
0.8
10-8
Spectrum 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
0.6 0.2
0.2 Sec Spectral Acceleration (g)
0.4
0.0 0.5
0.2 0.2 Sec accn = 0.55g 1.0 1.5
Period, T (sec)
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Period, T (sec)
Uniform Hazard Spectrum (UHS) Uniform Hazard Spectrum

Response
• Developed from probabilistic analysis.
Uniform Hazard Spectrum
• Represents contributions from small local and
large distant earthquakes.
• May be overly conservative for modal response
Large Distant spectrum analysis.
Earthquake
Small Nearby
• May not be appropriate for artificial ground
Earthquake motion generation, especially in CEUS.
Period
Advantages of Probabilistic Approach Disadvantages of Probabilistic Approach

• Analyses are not transparent; the effects of individual
• Reflects true state of knowledge and lack parameters cannot be easily recognized and understood.
thereof.
• Consider inherent uncertainties in seismic • “Quantitatively seductive” -- encourages use of precision
that is out of proportion with the accuracy with which the
hazard estimation (i.e., maximum magnitude, input is known.
ground motion attenuation).
• Considers likelihood of events considered; • Requires special expertise.
basis for consistent levels of risk established.
• May provide unrealistic scenarios (i.e., probabilistic design
• Allows more rationale comparison among event could correspond to location where actual fault does
not exist).
many scenarios and to other hazards.
• Less dependent upon analyst. • Analyst still has big influence (methods, etc.).

Deaggregation of the PSHA
Probabilistic vs. Deterministic
• Each bar represents an event that exceeds a specified
ground motion at 1 Hz – Washington, DC, example.; note
• Results of probabilistic and deterministic mean and modal values.
analyses are often similar in the WUS;
not true for CEUS.
• Deterministic scenarios typically very
difficult to define in CEUS.
• Best to use integrated or hybrid method
that combines both approaches.
Hazard Scenario – Example 1,950 Year Uniform Hazard Spectrum for Site
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS 6
4
PSA (m/s )
For 5% damping
2
Project
Project 3
Site
Site
2
0
0.1 1
Period (sec)
Deaggregation Plots for 1,950 Year Event (5%/100 yr)

T= 0.05 sec Stochastic Simulations of Ground Acceleration for
Scenarios A & B M = 6.0 at 25 km (Scenario A)
M6@25 km & M7.5 @101 km
Scenarios A & B
M6@25 km & M7.5 @101 km T= 0.1 sec
Scenarios A, B, & C?
M6@25 km, M7.5 @101 km,
and M7.5@ 200 km
⇒ Scenarios A & B
selected based on T of
structure (< 1.0 sec.) T= 1.0 sec From the top, vertical, North-South and East-West components

Stochastic Simulations of Ground Acceleration for
M = 7.5 at 101 km (Scenario B) Discussion of Selected Scenarios A & B
• What kind of analysis to be performed?

• Is duration important, or just pga?
• Basic question: “Does it matter which
event caused motions to be exceeded?”
• Seismologist and end user should be
closely linked from the beginning!!
Vertical, fault normal and fault parallel refer to finite fault calculations, and
show 3-orthogonal components of motion, oriented with respect to source
National Seismic Hazard Maps

Earthquake Probability Levels
• Developed by U.S. Geological Survey.
• Note that the term “2500 year earthquake”
does not indicate an event that occurs once
• Adopted (almost exactly) by building codes and every 2,500 years!
reference standards (i.e., IBC2003) and, therefore, very
important!!!
• Rather, this term reflects a probability, that is,
the earthquake event that has a probability of 1
• Based on probability ⇒ maps show contours of in 2500 of occurring in one year.
maximum expected ground motion for a given level of
certainty (90%, 98%, etc.) in 50 years; or, said differently, • For instance, the “100-year flood” can actually
contours of ground motions that have a common given occur several years in a row or even several
probability of exceedance, PE, in 50 years (10%, 2%, times in one year (as occurred in the 1990s in
etc.). Virginia).
USGS PROBABILISTIC HAZARD MAPS

(2002/2003 versions most recent )* USGS PROBABILISTIC HAZARD MAPS
(and NEHRP Provisions Maps)
2.5
Earthquake Spectra
Spectral Response Acceleration (g)
2.0
1.5 Theme Issue : Seismic Design Provisions

1.0
and Guidelines
Volume 16, Number 1
0.5
0.0
0 0.5 1 1.5
Period (sec)
2 2.5
February, 2000
2% in 50 years 10% in 50 years
Uniform Hazard Spectra

____________________________
*2002 versions revised April 2003
HAZARD MAP

USGS SEISMIC HAZARD MAP (PGA) USGS SEISMIC HAZARD MAP OF US (0.2 sec)
2% in 50 years
2% in 50 years
USGS SEISMIC HAZARD MAP OF US (1.0 sec) USGS Website: ZIP CODE Values
http://eqint.cr.usgs.gov/eq/html/zipcode.html
The input zip-code is 80203. (DENVER)

ZIP CODE 80203
LOCATION 39.7310 Lat. -104.9815 Long.
DISTANCE TO NEAREST GRID POINT 3.7898 kms
NEAREST GRID POINT 39.7 Lat. -105.0 Long.
Probabilistic ground motion values, in %g, at the Nearest Grid
point are:
10%PE in 50 yr 5%PE in 50 yr 2%PE in 50 yr

PGA 3.299764 5.207589 9.642159
0.2 sec SA 7.728900 11.917400 19.921591
0.3 sec SA 6.178438 9.507714 16.133711
1.0 sec SA 2.334019 3.601994 5.879917
2% in 50 years
National Seismic Hazard Maps Uses:

USGS Seismic Hazard Maps
• can illustrate relative probability of a given level of
• Hazard in some areas increased relative to earthquake ground motion of one part of the country
previous maps due to recent studies. relative to another.
• Maps developed for motions on B-C soil • illustrate the relative demand on structures in one region
boundary (soft rock). relative to another, at a given probability level.
• Maps do not account for regional geological • as per building codes, use maps as benchmark to
effects such as deep profiles of determine the resistance required by buildings to resist
unconsolidated sediments– this is big effect damaging levels of ground motion.
in CEUS (i.e., in Charleston ~1 km thick). • with judgment and sometimes special procedures, use
• New 2002 versions of maps revised in April maps to determine the input ground motions for
2003. geotechnical earthquake analyses (liquefaction,etc.)

USGS Seismic Hazard Curves for Various Cities
How Does CEUS and WUS Seismic Risk
Compare?
Note differences
between 500-yr
and 2,500-yr EQ’s
Large
earthquake
s frequent vs. Large
earthquakes
rare
1886 Charleston Earthquake Felt Over EUS!

WUS vs. CEUS Attenuation
Chicago > 700 mi.
compare
St. Louis > 650 mi. New York >600 mi.
compare
Charleston
California Seismicity Well Understood

US Population Density
Seismicity relatively
well understood

Seismically Weak Infrastructure in CEUS
WUS and CEUS Risk Comparison
• CEUS has potential for recurring large
earthquakes
• Attenuation lower in CEUS
• Weak structures not “weeded out” in CEUS
• “Adolescent” seismic practice in CEUS
• “Human inertia” in CEUS
• Much more uncertainty in CEUS
• Bottom line ⇒ seismic risk in CEUS and WUS is

comparable!
Example of Inadequately Reinforced,

Nonductile Structure, 1989 Loma Prieta EQ
Cypress Overpass

This Type of Non-Ductile Infrastructure

is Common in CEUS!

WUS and CEUS Risk Comparison Summary Issues To Think About
• CEUS has potential for recurring large EQs
• Good analogy ⇒ Kobe is to Tokyo, as
• Attenuation lower in CEUS
CEUS is to the WUS
• Abundance of weak, non-ductile structures in CEUS;
weakest not “weeded out”
• Kobe M6.9 (> $120 billion losses);
• Immature seismic practice in CEUS
weaker infrastructure, poor soil conditions
• “Human inertia” in CEUS; little awareness
• Much more uncertainty in CEUS • Remember ⇒ most expensive US natural
• Areas with poor soils in CEUS disaster (Northridge, EQ ∼$30 billion) was
• Bottom line ⇒ seismic risk in CEUS and WUS is moderate earthquake on minor fault on
comparable! fringe of Los Angeles
Estimation of Ground Motions Estimation of Ground Motions

We typically need one or more of these:
• Peak ground motion parameters (peak ground
accelerations, peak velocities); or, duration.
• Spectral parameters (response spectra,
fault Fourier spectra, uniform hazard spectra)
rupture
• Time history of acceleration, velocity, etc. ⇒
P and S needed for advanced and/or specialized
waves analyses.
• We typically need these parameters for
ground surface
Ground Motions at a Site Are Related To: Source Conditions Include:

• Stress drop
• Source conditions– amount of energy • Source depth
released,nature of fault rupture,etc. • Size of the rupture area
• Slip distribution (amount and distribution of
• Path effects – anelastic attenuation, static displacement on the fault plane)
geometrical spreading,etc. • Rise time (time for the fault slip to
complete at a given point on the fault
• Site effects – site response, soil plane)
amplification, etc. • Type of faulting
• Rupture directivity

Transmission Path Includes: Site Conditions Include:
• Rock properties beneath the site to
• Crustal structure
depths of up to about 2 km (hard
• Shear-wave velocity (or Q) and crystalline rock)
damping characteristics of the
crustal rock • Local soil conditions at the site to
depths of up to several hundred feet
(typically)
• Topography of the site
Effects of Magnitude Effects of Magnitude
From USACE, 2000 From USACE, 2000
Effects of Distance Effects of Distance
From USACE, 2000
From USACE, 2000

Regional Effects Effect of Local Site Conditions
0.1 Period, secs. 1.0 From USACE, 2000

Figure adapted from Seed and
Idriss (1984); EERI.
Special Near-source Effects Important Near-Fault Effects

“Near-source” can be interpreted differently. For
many engineering applications, a zone within Two Causes of large velocity pulses:
about 20 km of the fault rupture is considered
near-source. Other cases near-source is • Directivity
considered within a distance roughly equal to the
ruptured length of the fault; 20 to 60 km typical • Fling
Near-source effects:
• Directiviity
• Fling
• Radiation pattern
Causes of Velocity Pulses Velocity Pulses

Directivity: • Directivity
• Related to the direction of the rupture – Two-sided velocity pulse due to constructive
front interference of SH waves from generated from
parts of the rupture located between the site and
– Forward directivity: rupture toward the site epicenter; affects fault-normal component
(site away from the epicenter) – Occurs at sites located close to the fault but away
– Backward directivity: rupture away from the site from the epicenter
(site near the epicenter) • Fling
Fling: – One-sided velocity pulse due to tectonic
deformation; affects fault-parallel component
• Related to the permanent tectonic
– Occurs at sites located near the fault rupture
deformation at the site independent of the epicenter location

Preliminary Model for Fling Vibratory Ground Motion + Fling
0.1
a
G
Q 0.9
Acc(g)
Acc(g)
0 0
-0.1 -0.9
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (sec) Time (sec)
80 200
40
Vel (cm/s)
Vel (cm/s)
0
0
-40
-80
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -200
Time (sec) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (sec)
150
200
Disp (cm)
Disp (cm)
0
0
-150
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -200
Time (sec) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (sec)
TCU052 (1999 Chi-Chi)

0.5 Effects of Fling
Acc (g
0.25
0 fling • Not currently known which types of
TCU05 structures are sensitive to fling ground
-0.25
Dis (cm) Vel (cm/s)
30 35 40 45 50 55 6 motions.
100
50 • Preliminary results indicate some long-
0
-50 fling span structure may be sensitive to fling.
-100
-150 TCU05
-200
30 35 40 45 50 55 60
100 • Need to evaluate various types of
0 fling structures to ground motions with and
-100 TCU05
-200 without fling to determine the effect.
-300
-400
-500
30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Time (sec)
Forward directivity
Rupture direction Effect of Directivity on Response Spectra
To Receiver
Ground Displacement
Backward directivity
Towards
Rupture direction
To Receiver
The areas under the far-field displacement

Away
pulses are equal, but the amplitudes
and durations differ. This has major
effects on the ground velocity and acceleration. From USACE, 2000

Effect of Directivity Effects of Fling and Directivity
• Directivity can cause amplification of
motions for sites close to the fault
rupture.
• Unclear as to engineering significance

of fling.
• Current attenuation relations do not

From USACE, 2000 include these effects.
SH Radiation Pattern for Vertical Strike-slip

Other Important Effects
Fault normal component
In the direction of forward
• Also, vertical motions tend to be higher
Fault normal component
directivity.
than 2/3 maximum horizontal motions
Finite Source when near-source.
Point Source
rupture direction
• Subduction zone EQs vs. shallow EQs
• Topographical effects (especially
basins).
Fault parallel component • Surface waves may be important for
certain long-span structures (relative
motion among supports).
Fault Plane
• Others…
Three Classes of Methods for Generalized, Simplified (i.e., IBC 2003)

Ground Motion Estimates
• Simple to use.
• Based on probabilistic maps.
• Generalized, simplified (i.e., IBC2003)⇐ • Does not account for regional geological effects
(maps assume standard depth for B-C boundary
and profile layering) ⇒ in WUS, B-C boundary
• Site-specific, simplified (i.e., attenuation is shallow bedrock, but in some CEUS areas the
curves, site amplification factors) B-C boundary is deep as 1 km.
• Accounts for local site effects in general
manner– cannot handle special site conditions.
• Site-specific, rigorous (time history • Not well-suited to many geotechnical analyses
analysis) (no magnitude, UHS approach, etc.).

IBC 2003 - Overview IBC 2003 – General Procedure
• Developed from a combination of three legacy • Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) based on
model codes (UBC, BOCA, & SBC). 2002/2003 USGS probabilistic hazard maps (deterministic
• Based largely on FEMA 368 and 369, NEHRP limits used in high seismicity areas – here hazard can be
driven by tails of distributions).
Recommended Provisions and Commentary.
• Maps provide and spectral accelerations for T = 0.2 sec
• Adopted in 45 states (as of July 2004) and by
(Ss), and T = 1.0 sec (S1) for B-C boundary.
the DoD.
• Local soil conditions considered using site coefficients (Fa
• Incorporates most recent (2002/2003) USGS and Fv)
seismic hazard maps; USGS map values • Develop design spectrum using S and F values
capped in some areas by IBC 2003.
IBC 2003 – General Procedure IBC 2003 – General Procedure

• Determine Ss and S1 from the maps • Determine site class based on top 30 m:
Ss (0.2 sec) map S1 (1.0 sec) map
IBC 2003 – General Procedure NEHRP Provisions Site Amplification

• Determine Fa & Fv values from Ss, S1 and site class: for Site Classes A through E
3.00
A
Site Class
2.50 B
C
Amplification Fa
2.00 D
E
1.50
1.00
0.50
4.00
0.00 3.50 A
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50
Site Class
B
3.00
Amplification Fv
Short Period Ss (sec) C

2.50 D
E
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50
Long Period S1 (sec)

Example: 2% in 50 Year Spectrum Modified for
Site Class D (5% Damping)
IBC 2003 - General Procedure
1.05
SMS=FASS=1.2(0.75)=0.9g • Adjust MCE values of Ss and S1 for
local site effects:
Spectral Acceleration, g.
0.84
Basic
0.63
SM1=FVS1=1.8(0.30)=0.54g
SMS = Fa•Ss SM1 = Fv•S1
0.42
for D site • Calculate the spectral design values
0.21
Base curve Site Amplified SDS and SD1:
0.00 (B site)
0 1 2 3 4 5 SDS = 2/3•SMS SD1 = 2/3•SM1
Period, sec.
Scaling of Spectra by 2/3 for “Margin of Performance”

IBC2003 – General Procedure
• Design with current 2%/50-yr. maps but scale by 2/3.
• From SDS and SMS, develop the design response spectrum • Buildings designed according to current procedures
assumed to have margin of collapse of 1.5.
SDS
• Judgment of “lower bound” margin of collapse given by
current design procedures.
SPECTRAL RESPONSE
ACCELERATION Sa
Sa=SD1/ T
• Results in 2/3 x 1.5 = 1.0 deterministic earthquake
SD1 (where applicable).
• 2/3 (2500-yr. EQ) = 500-year motions in WUS, but
2/3 (2500-yr. EQ) ≈ 1600-year motions in EUS
To Ts 1.0
PERIOD T • 2/3 factor not related to geotechnical performance!
DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM
Three Classes of Methods for Site-Specific, Simplified

• Relatively simple (chart-based procedures).
• Generalized, simplified (i.e., IBC 2003) • Based on probabilistic motions or deterministic
scenarios.
• Can account for regional geological effects
• Site-specific, simplified (i.e., attenuation (within 2 km of surface; USGS maps assume
curves, site amplification factors) ⇐ standard depth for B-C boundary and hard
rock).
• Accounts for local site (within few hundred feet
• Site-specific, rigorous (time history of surface) effects in simplified, but more
analysis) specific manner.
• Better-suited to many geotechnical analyses.

Site-Specific, Simplified: Comments Site-Specific Simplified Procedures
Typical deterministic scenario:
• Note IBC 2003 limits site-specific
1. Knowing fault location and earthquake magnitude,
“benefit” (in terms of reduced design) estimate ground motion parameter (i.e, pga or
motions to 20% for A-E sites. spectral values) for hard rock from attenuation
relationships.
• Site-specific analysis in some CEUS
2. If appropriate, correct for regional geological
area less than probabilistic maps conditions such as deep unconsolidated sediments
values; opposite may be true in WUS. (Vs >700m/s and typically within 2 km of surface)
3. Modify motions for near-surface soils (Vs < 700 m/s
and within few hundred of surface)*
*covered in detail in a following lecture.
1. Estimating Motions on Hard Rock Ground Motion Attenuation

Basic Empirical Relationships
• Typically use region-specific attenuation
curve (but can use probabilistic maps also). ln Yˆ = ln b1 + f1 ( M ) + ln f 2 ( R ) + ln f 3 ( M , R ) + ln f 4 ( Pi ) + ln ε
Yˆ Ground Motion Parameter (e.g. PGA)
• Curves developed from empirical data from
recorded motions in most regions. b1 Scaling factor
• Curves in CEUS developed from few small f1 ( M ) Function of Magnitude
EQs, plus stochastic simulations using
methods developed in WUS but with CEUS f 2 ( R ) Function of Distance
geological parameters (Q, stress drop, etc.). f 3 ( M , R) Function of Magnitude and Distance
• Most curves provide PGA, PGV, and spectral f 4 ( Pi ) Other Variables
values.
ε Error Term
Ground Motion Attenuation Ground Motion Attenuation

Relationships for Different Conditions Relationships
• Central and Eastern US
• Subduction Zone Earthquakes
• Shallow Crustal Earthquakes Seismological Research Letters
• Near-Source Attenuation
• Extensional Tectonic Regions Volume 68, Number 1
• Many Others January/February, 1997
• Most are for hard rock, some for “soil”
May be developed for any desired quantity
(PGA, PGV, Spectral Response)

Attenuation Relation for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes Attenuation Relation for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes
(Sadigh, Chang, Egan, Makdisi, and Youngs; for Rock and “Soil”) (Sadigh, Chang, Egan, Makdisi, and Youngs)
ln(y) = C1 + C2M + C3 (8.5 − M) + C4 ln(rrup + exp(C5 + C6M)) + C7 (rrup + 2)
T C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7
PGA -0.624 1.000 0.000 -2.100 1.296 0.250 0.000
0.07 0.110 1.000 0.006 -2.128 1.296 0.250 -0.082
0.1 0.275 1.000 0.006 -2.148 1.296 0.250 -0.041
0.2 0.153 1.000 -0.004 -2.080 1.296 0.250 0.000
0.3 -0.057 1.000 -0.017 -2.028 1.296 0.250 0.000
0.4 -0.298 1.000 -0.028 -1.990 1.296 0.250 0.000
0.5 -0.588 1.000 -0.040 -1.945 1.296 0.250 0.000
0.75 -1.208 1.000 -0.050 -1.865 1.296 0.250 0.000
1 -1.705 1.000 -0.055 -1.800 1.296 0.250 0.000
1.5 -2.407 1.000 -0.065 -1.725 1.296 0.250 0.000
2 -2.945 1.000 -0.070 -1.670 1.296 0.250 0.000
3 -3.700 1.000 -0.080 -1.610 1.296 0.250 0.000
4 -4.230 1.000 -0.100 -1.570 1.296 0.250 0.000
Table for Magnitude <= 6.5

Attenuation Relation for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes Attenuation Relation for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes
(for Western US on rock; from Sadigh et al., 1997 ) (Western US, rock conditions; Sadigh et al., 1997)
1
0.2 Second Acceleration 1.0 Second Acceleration

Peak Ground Acceleration, G
Magnitude 10 10
0.1
0.2 Sec. Spectral Acceleration, G
1.0 Sec. Spectral Acceleration, G

4 Magnitude Magnitude
5 1 1
6 4 4
7 5 5
0.1 6 0.1 6
0.01 8
7 7
8 8
0.01 0.01
0.001 0.001
0.001 1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000
1 10 100 1000 Distance, KM Distance, KM
Distance, KM
• typically use mean or 84th percentile (+1σ) values
2. Adjustment for Regional Geology Example: CEUS Geological Condition

Requiring Adjustment:
In some regions, the presence of deep
unconsolidated sediments (“soil” to geologists, 0
“soft rock” to engineers; Vs ≈ 700 m/s) require

100
200 Soil
correction of hard rock values for these
Depth below ground surface (ft)
300
conditions. Can use: 400
• Regional correction curve to adjust hard 500
rock curve; or, 600

Soft Rock
700
~12000 ft/s
• A “soil” attenuation curve in Step 1 that 800
already includes the effect of the “soil” as 900
soil attenuation curve. In this case, the 1000 Hard Rock
correction here for Step 2 is not required. 1100

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Shear wave velocity (ft/s)

EUS Hard Rock Response Spectrum Regional “Soil” Amplification Factors
(adjust with regional soil amplification curve) (use to adjust hard rock curve)
101
2.2
2.0 • Amplification with respect to

hard rock
Spectral Acceleration (g)
1.8
10 0
• Deep soil profile
Spectral Amplification
1.6
representative of Site Class
C soil profile
1.4
10-1 1.2
Atkinson and Boore (1995) Model 1.0
Mw = 7.3 R = 14.1 km
0.8
10-2 10-1 100
10-2 10-1 100 101 Period (sec)

Atkinson and Boore (1997)
Period (sec)
Adjusted Curve for Regional Geology “Soil” Attenuation Relationships

• Can use these directly where appropriate and available in
101 lieu of two-step procedure:
104 104
T = 0.2 sec T = 1.0 sec

Spectral Acceleration (g)
0
10
103
102
M=8
Sa (cm/s2)
Sa (cm/s2)
102 M=7
10-1
M=6
M=8 100
M=5
101 M=7
M=6
10-2
10-2 10-1 100 101 M=5
100 10-2
Period (sec) 101 102 103 101 102 103
EPRI (1993) rhypo (km) rhypo (km)
Boore and Joyner (1991)
3. Adjustment for near-surface soil 3. Adjustment for local soil conditions

conditions (within ~30 m depth) • spectral adjustment using amplification factors
• pga adjustment using amplification factors

Typical Earthquake Acceleration Time History Set
Three Classes of Methods for 600
Horizontal Acceleration (E-W), cm/sec2

400
200
-2 0 0
• Generalized, simplified (i.e., IBC 2003)

-4 0 0
-6 0 0 2
0 5
-463 cm/sec
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
600
400
Horizontal Acceleration (N-S), cm/sec2
• Site-specific, simplified (i.e., attenuation 200
curves, site amplification factors) -2 0 0
-4 0 0
-6 0 0 2
0 5
-500 cm/sec
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
6 00
• Site-specific, rigorous (time history 4 00
2 00
Vertical Acceleration (E-W), cm/sec2
analysis) ⇐
0
-2 00
-4 00
-6 00
0 5
-391
10
cm/sec21 5 20 25 30 35 40 45
T im e (s e c )
Time, Seconds
Loma Prieta Earthquake
Time History analyses Obtaining Time Histories

• Allows best possible analysis (usually)
• Increasing in usage Conditions for which there are few records
available:
• Time histories can be obtained from:
Databases of recorded motions such as • Moderate to large earthquakes in CEUS
– National and state data catalogs (NSMDS) • Large-magnitude (8+) shallow crustal events
– USGS web page
– other sources (i.e., NONLIN) • Near-source, large-magnitude (7.5+) events
By developing the motions using
– modified recorded motions
– synthetic motions
Process for selecting/modifying time histories:

Time History Analysis
• Objective: develop a set or sets of time-
histories, usually acceleration time histories,
that are representative of site ground motions
for the design earthquake(s)* and that are
appropriate for the type of analyses planned.
• Will not be able to predict actual motions,
rather interested in representing
characteristics most important for design.
__________________
* Discussed earlier. The design earthquake can be from deterministic or
probabilistic analysis; but, if probabilistic, the uniform hazard spectrum
should probably not be used as the target spectrum. Rather,
deterministic scenarios should be developed from deaggregation of the
PSHA. From: (USACE, 2000)

How many time histories are needed for a 1. Selecting time histories – key factors:
typical analysis?
Most logical procedure is to select available time
• For linear analysis, typically 2 or 3 histories from databases that are reasonably
(linear system is more influenced by consistent with the design parameters and
frequency-domain aspects of motion) conditions. Factors to consider include in selection:
• tectonic environment (subduction, shallow crustal,
intraplate,etc.)
• For non-linear analysis, typically 4 or 5
• earthquake magnitude and fault type
(non-linear systems more influenced by time-
• distance from recording site to fault rupture – want
domain aspects of record- shape and
distances within a factor of 2
sequences of pulses, etc.)
1. Selecting time histories – key factors: 2. Modifying and scaling time histories:
• site conditions at recording site (want similar)
What is the motion at D?
• response spectra of motions (want similar shape
and level to design spectra; also, want to achieve Recorded ?
reasonable match by scaling by factor ≤ 2.0
A D
(especially if scaling record motions to higher
deconv.
level)
site response
Soil Soil
Rock
• duration of strong shaking B
• if site is near-field (within about 15 km) then attenuation, frequency shift C

acceleration record should contain strong motion
pulse similar to that caused directivity, etc.
2. Modifying and scaling time histories: Simple Scaling to Match Design (Target) Spectrum
0.5
(a) Simple scaling – scale motions by 0.4 Target design spectrum
single factor to match target spectrum; Spectrum of scaled real record

PSA (g)
0.3
again limiting the scaling factor to 2.0.

0.2
0.1
Real record shown (Sierra point
from 1989 LPE) in plot was
0.0
scaled up from 0.06g to 0.16g
0.01 0.1 1 10
(target) using factor of 2.8-- too
• The required degree–of-fit to target spectrum Period (sec)
high ideally, but was deemed
is project-dependent, but typically want suite of 0.15
acceptable because of
0.10
acceleration (g)
candidate spectra to have average visual fit to 0.05

reasonable spectral match in
period range of interest (∼ 1
target. More important to have conservative fit 0.00
sec.) and a lack of other
-0.05
in period range of interest. -0.10
scaled time history
recordings.
-0.15
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
time (sec)

Degree-of-fit for Suite of Motions:
2. Modifying and scaling time histories –
• Required degree of fit is project dependent and often mandated
(b) Spectrum matching– adjustments made in

either time domain or frequency domain to
change characteristics of the motions:
• Want to maintain time-domain character of
recorded motion
• Best to begin with candidate motion that has
spectral shape similar to target spectrum
• Best to first scale motion to approximate level
From USACE, 2000
of target spectrum before modification
Spectrum Matching Methods Spectrum Matching Methods

(i) Time-Domain Approach: (Lilhanand and (ii) Frequency-Domain Approach: (Gasparini and
Tseng, 1988; Abrahamson, 1992). Vanmarcke 1976; Silva and Lee 1987; Bolt and
• Matching accomplished by adding (or subtracting) Gregor 1993).
finite-duration wavelets to (or from) the initial time-
history. • Adjusts only the Fourier amplitudes while the Fourier
• Normally provides a close fit to the target. Best to phases are kept unchanged.
being with candidate motion has spectral shape • Procedure equivalent to adding or subtracting
similar to target spectrum. sinusoids (with the Fourier phases of the initial time-
• Best to first scale motion to approximate level of history) in the time domain.
target spectrum before modification. • Does not always provide as close a fit as time-
domain approach.
Spectra of spectrum-matched time histories:

Spectrum-matched Time Histories
From USACE, 2000
From USACE, 2000

Other corrections… 3. Modification for local site conditions
• Ensure records are instrument and • Dynamic site response analysis is best
base-line corrected, etc. approach (discussed in following
lecture).
Real vs. Synthetic Time Histories Synthetic Time Histories – Pros and Cons
• What is considered a “real”record? (i.e., how • One main concern: Is true character of real motion
much modification is allowed?) present?
• One main advantage: Can develop motions to match

• Un-scaled record motion vs. scaled recorded regional and site conditions (i.e., motion recorded on
motion vs. synthetic. outcrops actually have surface wave energy included
but we commonly input this to base).
• Synthetic motions developed using Fourier – there are many data gaps in database of motions (no
phase spectra from real earthquake probably strong motions for CEUS)
“real” in most important ways. – certainly better to have reasonable region-specific synthetic
motion than inappropriate real motion
Developing Synthetic Motions Synthetic Ground Motion Development
The computational model for generating synthetic

• Process should be performed by expert, seismograms consists of:
typically seismologist.
• Seismologists typically develop a suite of time • The seismic source process;
histories for hard rock or B-C (soft rock) • The process of seismic wave propagation
boundary.
from the source region to the design site; and
• Geotechnical engineers typically generate top-
of-profile motions using site response • Shallow site response (site response is
analysis. discussed later).

Synthetic Ground Motion Development Synthetic Ground Motion Generation
Source Parameters Required • To model complexity of seismogram, randomness

(stochastic model) is often introduced, either in the source
• Rupture velocity, rupture initiation point, and slip-
process or in the wave propagation.
time functions over the ruptured area are the
primary source parameters needed. – very erratic, irregular high-frequency waves from rupture
process usually characterized as a “stochastic” process
Propagation (Path) Parameters Required that must be modeled with randomness
• Average propagation usually developed with – deterministic process often used for low-frequency
Green’s functions -- requires knowledge of the portion of motion
crustal parameters such as the P and S-wave
• Hybrid models combine deterministic with random process.
velocities, density, and damping factor (or seismic Q
factor, where Q = 0.5/damping ratio).
Synthetic Ground Motion Methods

Synthetic Ground Motion Generation
(1) Boore (1983): developed Band-Limited-White-Noise model
for stochastic simulation of high-frequency ground motions.
• With fault slip model and Green’s functions, ground
motions are computed using the representation theorem • This simulation procedure does not use stochastic slip
(deconvolution process); see Aki and Richards 1980; model.
Hartzell, Frazier, and Brune 1978.
• Procedure generates random white noise, multiplies it by a
window function appropriate for the expected source
• Simulation procedure simply sums a suite of Green’s
duration, and then filters the windowed white noise to obtain
functions lagged in time (delay caused by the rupture
a time-history having a band-limited Fourier amplitude
propagation plus the time needed for the seismic waves
spectrum specified by the ω2-source Brune (1970) model.
to travel from the corresponding point source to the site).
• Incorporates wave propagation effects of a homogeneous
⇒ Green’s Function is heart of the process. crust with 1/R geometrical attenuation.
Boore (1983) – Illustration of Concept*:

Synthetic Ground Motion Methods
(2) Silva and Lee (1987): method uses formulation for

the Fourier amplitude spectrum similar to Boore, but the
phase spectrum from a natural time-history to generate
the synthetic time-history.
(3) Publicly available computer codes: Some public

domain simulation codes are: RASCAL (Silva and Lee
1987) and SMSIM (Boore 1996).
Boore (1983):
⇒ The above methods (1 through 3) are well-

established.
*Figure adapted from Kramer (1996)

Example: Synthetic Motion development with RASCAL Source Modeling for Synthetic Motions
a) Pseudo Spectral Acceleration for 5% oscillator damping
0.40
0.35
1) Point source models (i.e., Brune source spectrum):
0.30
0.25 • Simple model where the source is represented by a point.

PSA (g)
• Assumes “stationary” signal; provides average component.

0.20
0.15
0.10
synthetic motion (from RASCAL)
SRS target spectrum
• Need Magnitude, stress drop Δσ, density, crust modulus.
0.05
0.00 2) Finite fault models – modeling the actual rupture:

0.01 0.1 1 10
Period (sec)
• Fault is divided into segments and each segment ruptures
after another simulating energy release.
b) Synthetic motion
0.15
0.10 • Energy radiation from each segment is modeled using

0.05 Green’s Function.
acceleration (g)
0.00
• Motion from all segments added up to generate motion at
-0.05
a point from the fault.
-0.10
-0.15
• It models directivity, radiation, and non-stationarity.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
time (sec)
1) Point Source Modeling – Brune Model Modeling Source – Brune Model
Mo ω2
Source (ω) = ⋅
M=8
4π ⋅ ρ ⋅ β 3 ⎛ω ⎞
2
1+ ⎜ ⎟ M=7
⎝ ωc ⎠
acceleration amplitude
M=6
Mo : seismic moment Mo ω2
⋅
4π ⋅ ρ ⋅ β 3 ⎛ω ⎞
2
ρ : mass density of earth’s crust M=5

1+ ⎜ ⎟
⎝ ωc ⎠
β : shear wave velocity of earth’s crust 1
⎛ Δσ ⎞ 3
ωc : corner frequency (2πfc) fc = 4.91×106 β ⎜ ⎟
⎝ Mo ⎠ 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
frequency (Hz)
• Source spectrum for different magnitude earthquakes

• Corner frequency (ωc) decreases for larger magnitudes (duration α
1/ωc)
Modeling Path Effects Modeling Path Effects
−
π ⋅ f ⋅r
β ⋅Q ( f )
r = 50 km
1
Path (ω) = ⋅e
r r = 100 km
r : distance to the source

path effect
f : frequency
β : shear wave velocity of earth’s crust
−
π ⋅ f ⋅r
Q : quality factor (1/2D, D = damping ratio) 1 β ⋅Q( f )
⋅e
Eastern US
Western US
Q = 200 – Western US f0.2 r
Q = 680 f0.34 – Eastern US 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

frequency (Hz)
• Frequency dependent attenuation

• Smaller attenuation for Eastern US

Combined Source and Path Effects 2) Finite Fault Model
Total far-field S displacement is constructed by summation of
displacement pulses for a large number of sub-faults, randomly
distributed on the fault plane.
acceleration amplitude
• Approach taken is similar to that described originally by Zeng et al.,

Geophysical Research Letters, 1994.
r = 50 km
r = 100 km
• Can model some near-field effects, provides 3 components
Eastern US
Western US Important Input Parameters:
1) Total Seismic Moment
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 2) Fault dimensions
frequency (Hz)
3) Maximum and minimum (circular) sub-fault radii
• Wider band spectrum for Eastern US 4) Sub-fault stress drop (not necessarily the static stress drop)
• Larger high frequency components for Eastern US even at large distances 5) Rupture velocity (spatially constant, etc.)
The sub-faults are allowed

to overlap spatially. Superposition To Receiver
of the radiated pulses from the sub-faults
models the spatial and temporal variability
of fault slip velocity.
Sub-fault far-field displacement The area under the radiated

pulse is radiated when the pulse depends upon the
rupture front reaches the Sub-fault moment, which in Path effects are calculated using
center of the sub-fault. turn depends upon the radius a reduced number of SV and SH
(random) and the stress drop SV
(constant).
Greens functions corresponding
Expanding Rupture Front to the center points of a number
of fault grid elements.
SH
These are combined with the

Fault Plane
summation of source
pulses from sub-faults lying
within each grid element.
Sub-fault
Modeling Considerations – CEUS
s p • Recurrence rates lower and uncertainties in

source mechanisms, locations in CEUS.
As ( f ) = Sources ( f ) Pathsbase ( f ) Pathssed ( f )
s
As = Sources Φ base
s exp( −πk sbase f )Φ sed
s exp(−πk s f ).
sed
• Stronger crustal structure in CEUS,
(2πf ) 2
therefore less attenuation.
s exp(−πk s f ).
Φ sed sed
As = C
1 + ( f / fc )2
Ln
As
(2πf ) 2
= b − πk s f + ε , • Stress drop?
Asp
Ln = b − πk p f + ε .
(2πf )2
Ln ( As / Asp ) = b − π ( k s − k p ) f + ε .
• Too few strong motion recordings.
n
i
Ln(Y ) = ∑ b j G j − aπf .
j =1

Topic05a SeismicHazardAnalysisHandouts

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Topic05a SeismicHazardAnalysisHandouts

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

SEISMIC HAZARD AND SEISMIC RISK Seismic Activity > M5 Since 1980

• Ground motion considerations for design

Crustal Plate Boundaries

Figure credit: USGS.

Oceanic and Crustal Plates Continental-Continental Collision

Continental Plate (light)

Figure credit: USGS.

FEMA 451B Topic 15-3 Handouts Seismic Hazard Analysis 1

The other 10% occur away from the plate

Plate-boundary Earthquakes San Andreas Fault – Well Known Plate

⇒ Frequent occurrence, relatively well

Intraplate Earthquakes Historical Large Intraplate Earthquakes

An intraplate earthquake is an earthquake

⇒ Infrequent occurrence, poorly understood,

FEMA 451B Topic 15-3 Handouts Seismic Hazard Analysis 2

• “Weak Spots” – heating up and thinning of

overlying crust becomes thinner, stresses

Why Intraplate Earthquakes? Seismicity of North America

California Seismicity Pacific Northwest – Cascadia

Ultimate magnitude potential?

FEMA 451B Topic 15-3 Handouts Seismic Hazard Analysis 3

• Who really knows

Figure credit: USGS. Figure credit: USGS.

Reelfoot Rift Associated with

Figure credit: USGS. Figure credit: USGS.

1811-12 New Madrid Earthquakes (three M8+)

• M6-7.5 has 25-40% chance in 50 years

FEMA 451B Topic 15-3 Handouts Seismic Hazard Analysis 4

• This economic loss is of the same order as that

Figure credit: USGS.

Figure credit: USGS.

Recent Paleoseismological Studies Isoseismal Map from the

Figure credit: USGS.

FEMA 451B Topic 15-3 Handouts Seismic Hazard Analysis 5

Photo credit: USGS

Prehistoric Sand Crater in Trench Wall

original ground surface

Ages of Earthquake-induced Liquefaction

5150 ybp CHARLESTON &

* Study led to increased seismic design values in South Carolina.

FEMA 451B Topic 15-3 Handouts Seismic Hazard Analysis 6

(b) Normal fault

Elastic Rebound Theory Time = 40 Years

San Andreas Fault, San Francisco, 1906

Old Fence Fault

Photo credit: USGS.

FEMA 451B Topic 15-3 Handouts Seismic Hazard Analysis 7

•Seismic Moment = MO = μ A D [Units = Force x Distance]

Compression eave Shear wave

Earthquake Source and Seismic Waves Seismic Waves

FEMA 451B Topic 15-3 Handouts Seismic Hazard Analysis 8

Different Structures, Responses, Analyses, and Issues

• No “universal” set of ground motions for

Ground Motion Estimation Structure/System Considerations

parameters can give different answers (EPRI vs.

• Where time and effort are focused during the

FEMA 451B Topic 15-3 Handouts Seismic Hazard Analysis 9

Structure/System Considerations Seismic Hazard and Seismic Risk

Approaches to Seismic Hazard Analysis Deterministic Hazard Analysis

Deterministic: • Identify and characterize source zones that

FEMA 451B Topic 15-3 Handouts Seismic Hazard Analysis 10

site is a pga of 0.35 g resulting 3 5.0 60.0 0.02

Advantages of Deterministic Approach Disadvantages of Deterministic Approach