Overview of GMSM Methods Nicolas Luco 1 st Workshop on Ground Motion Selection and Modification (GMSM) for Nonlinear Analysis – 27 October 2006.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
PEER 2002 PEER Annual Meeting PEER 2002 Annual Meeting uHelmut Krawinkler Seismic Demand Analysis.
Advertisements

Ground Motions Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering: Steve Kramer
Response Spectrum Analysis as per Indian IS: 1893 (Part 1)-2002
Nirmal Jayaram Nilesh Shome Helmut Krawinkler 2010 SCEC Annual Meeting A statistical analysis of the responses of tall buildings to recorded and simulated.
TBI Committee Members Y. Bozorgnia C.B. Crouse J.P. Stewart
NGA Site Response Study Joseph Sun, Tom Shantz, Zhi-Liang Wang.
EERI Seminar on Next Generation Attenuation Models SCEC GMSV Workshop: Summary of Other Validation Methodologies/Applications Nicolas Luco, Research Structural.
Deterministic Seismic Hazard Analysis Earliest approach taken to seismic hazard analysis Originated in nuclear power industry applications Still used for.
GMSM Mission and Vision Jennie Watson-Lamprey October 29, 2007.
PEER Jonathan P. Stewart University of California, Los Angeles May 22, 2002 Geotechnical Uncertainties for PBEE.
Inelastic Displacement Surface Method Tom Shantz CALTRANS- Division of Research and Innovation.
GMSM Methodology and Terminology Christine Goulet, UCLA GMSM Core Members.
1 Workshop on GMSM for Nonlinear Analysis, Berkeley CA, October 26, 2006 ATC-63 Selection and Scaling Method Charles Kircher Curt B. Haselton Gregory G.
Quantifying risk by performance- based earthquake engineering, Cont’d Greg Deierlein Stanford University …with contributions by many 2006 IRCC Workshop.
Ground Motion Intensity Measures for Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Hemangi Pandit Joel Conte Jon Stewart John Wallace.
The use of risk in design: ATC 58 performance assessment procedure Craig D. Comartin.
Demand and Capacity Factor Design: A Performance-based Analytic Approach to Design and Assessment Sharif University of Technology, 25 April 2011 Demand.
Characterization of Ground Motion Hazard PEER Summative Meeting - June 13, 2007 Yousef Bozorgnia PEER Associate Director.
Yousef Bozorgnia, Mahmoud Hachem, Kenneth Campbell PEER GMSM Workshop, UC Berkeley October 27, 2006 Attenuation of Inelastic Spectra and Its Applications.
Yousef Bozorgnia PEER Associate Director PEER GMSM Workshop, UC Berkeley October 27, 2006 PEER Ground Motion Selection & Modification (GMSM) Workshop.
Review of GMSM Solicitation and Methods Nicolas Luco, On behalf of The PEER GMSM Program 2 nd Annual PEER Ground Motion Selection & Modification (GMSM)
First a digression The POC Ranking the Methods Jennie Watson-Lamprey October 29, 2007.
Assessing Effectiveness of Building Code Provisions Greg Deierlein & Abbie Liel Stanford University Curt Haselton Chico State University … other contributors.
S a (T 1 ) Scaling Nilesh Shome ABS Consulting. Methodology Developed in 1997 (Shome, N., Cornell, C. A., Bazzurro, P., and Carballo, J. (1998), “Earthquake,
Project Review and Summary of NGA Supporting Research Norm Abrahamson NGA Workshop #6 July, 2004.
A Genetic Algorithm Solution for the Problem of Selection and Scaling of Ground Motion Records Arzhang Alimoradi and Farzad Naeim John A. Martin & Associates.
1 Structural Responses – Preliminary Results and Observations PEER GMSM Program Workshop, Richmond CA, October 29, 2007 Curt B. Haselton, PhD, PE Assistant.
1 Welcoming Remarks & Today's Task PEER GMSM Program Workshop, Richmond CA, October 29, 2007 Nicolas Luco Research Structural Engineer USGS, National Seismic.
Selection of Time Series for Seismic Analyses
Roberto PAOLUCCI Department of Structural Engineering
Ground Motion Parameters Measured by triaxial accelerographs 2 orthogonal horizontal components 1 vertical component Digitized to time step of
Seismic LRFD for Pile Foundation Design
Preliminary Investigations on Post-earthquake Assessment of Damaged RC Structures Based on Residual Drift Jianze Wang Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Kaoshan.
Elastic and inelastic relations..... mx+cx+Q(x)= -ma x Q x Q Q=kx elasticinelastic.
Comparison of Recorded and Simulated Ground Motions Presented by: Emel Seyhan, PhD Student University of California, Los Angeles Collaborators: Lisa M.
CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE SEISMIC ANALYSIS USING ARTIFICIAL ACCELEROGRAMS
PEER EARTHQUAKE SCIENCE-ENGINEERING INTERFACE: STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH PERSPECTIVE Allin Cornell Stanford University SCEC WORKSHOP Oakland, CA.
GROUND MOTION INTENSITY MEASURES THAT CORRELATE TO ENGINEERING DEMAND PARAMETERS Jonathan Bray and Thaleia Travasarou University of California, Berkeley.
IMPLEMENTATION OF SCEC RESEARCH IN EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING ONGOING PROJECTS SCEC PROPOSAL TO NSF SCEC 2004 RFP.
The kinematic representation of seismic source. The double-couple solution double-couple solution in an infinite, homogeneous isotropic medium. Radiation.
University of Palestine
EERI Seminar on Next Generation Attenuation Models Role of SCEC Ground Motion Simulation Validation Technical Activity Group (GMSV TAG) in SEISM Project.
Next Generation Attenuation Models for Central & Eastern US (NGA-East) Stakeholder Workshop: Introduction March 7, 2008 Yousef Bozorgnia, Ph.D., P.E. PEER.
SCEC Workshop on Earthquake Ground Motion Simulation and Validation Development of an Integrated Ground Motion Simulation Validation Program.
Probabilistic Ground Motions for Scoggins Dam, Oregon Chris Wood Seismotectonics & Geophysics Group Technical Service Center July 2012.
NEEDS FOR PERFORMANCE-BASED GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
Presented by: Sasithorn THAMMARAK (st109957)
Nonlinear Performance and Potential Damage of Degraded Structures Under Different Earthquakes The 5 th Tongji-UBC Symposium on Earthquake Engineering “Facing.
Epistemic Uncertainty on the Median Ground Motion of Next-Generation Attenuation (NGA) Models Brian Chiou and Robert Youngs The Next Generation of Research.
Jennie Watson-Lamprey COSMOS Annual Meeting Technical Session November 9, PEER GMSM Program: Recommendations for Selection and Scaling of Ground.
Engineering Perspective on Application of Simulated Ground Motions Jonathan P. Stewart & Emel Seyhan University of California, Los Angeles Robert W. Graves.
GROUND MOTION VARIABILITY: COMPARISON OF SURFACE AND DOWNHOLE GROUND MOTIONS Adrian Rodriguez-Marek, Washington State University, USA Fabrice Cotton, LGIT,
Ground motion simulations in the Pollino region (Southern Italy) for Mw 6.4 scenario events.
Response of MDOF structures to ground motion 1. If damping is well-behaving, or can be approximated using equivalent viscous damping, we can decouple.
1J. Baker Jack Baker Civil & Environmental Engineering Stanford University Use of elastic & inelastic response spectra properties to validate simulated.
Effects of Strong Motion Processing Procedures on Time Histories, Elastic and Inelastic Spectra By Paolo Bazzurro, Brian Sjoberg,
Near Fault Ground Motions and Fault Rupture Directivity Pulse Norm Abrahamson Pacific Gas & Electric Company.
Ground Motions and Liquefaction – The Loading Part of the Equation
CyberShake and NGA MCER Results Scott Callaghan UGMS Meeting November 3, 2014.
NGA Project Review and Status Norm Abrahamson NGA Workshop #5 March, 2004.
Novel Approach to Strong Ground Motion Attenuation Modeling Vladimir Graizer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Erol Kalkan California Geological Survey.
SCEC UGMS Committee Meeting
(PERFORMANCE-BASED PLASTIC DESIGN)
4th International Conference on Advanced Steel Structures November 09-10, 2017 Singapore Theme: Exploring Innovative Steel Structural Designs for advanced.
Douglas Dreger, Gabriel Hurtado, and Anil Chopra
SICHUAN EARTHQUAKE May 12, 2008
Campbell & Bozorgnia NGA Ground-Motion Relation
Deterministic Seismic Hazard Analysis
Preliminary PEER-NGA Ground Motion Model
Notes on the Intensity Measure Breakout Session - PEER Annual Meeting - Jan. 17, 2002   ·   Testbeds will not provide definitive answers as to the best.
Presentation transcript:

Overview of GMSM Methods Nicolas Luco 1 st Workshop on Ground Motion Selection and Modification (GMSM) for Nonlinear Analysis – 27 October 2006

NSF Year 7 Site Visit GMSM Methods Currently being Compared

NSF Year 7 Site Visit Nonlinear Analysis Results being Compared (Objectives of GMSM Methods Currently being Compared) 1. Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) of the Engineering Demand Parameter (EDP) for a given earthquake magnitude (M), source-to-site distance (R), 30m shear wave velocity (S), and style of faulting (F). 2. Median EDP | M, R, S, F. 3. CDF of EDP | M, R, S, F and a given pseudo spectral acceleration at the estimated fundamental period of the structure (and a 5% damping ratio), SA(T 1 ). 4. Median EDP | M, R, S, F and SA(T 1 ).

NSF Year 7 Site Visit Specifics of Current Comparison Case Structure =4-Story Reinforced Concrete (RC) Special Moment Frame (SMF) Building, T 1 ≈ 1 sec. EDP =maximum (over height) peak (over time) inter-story drift ratio (MIDR) M = 7 (moment magnitude) R = 10 km (closest distance to rupture) S = 400 m/sec (30m shear wave velocity) F = strike-slip (style of faulting) SA(T 1 ) =+2 sigma level (  =2) based on Campbell & Bozorgnia (2006) GM prediction equation

NSF Year 7 Site Visit Specifics of Current Comparison Case SA(T 1 )=1.08g

NSF Year 7 Site Visit Categories of Methods for Objective #1 ( i.e., CDF of EDP | M, R, S, F ) Select GMs for a M-R-S-F "bin" chosen to be consistent with the given M, R, S, F (no scaling). (Watson-Lamprey) Scale (in amplitude) each GM in bin so as to "correct" for ranges of M, R, S, F values vs. given values. (Bozorgnia) Select GMs that, with scaling, will both … (i)closely match the median response spectrum (ii)sample the variability of the response spectra (Rathje, Youngs/DGML, Almoradi) Adjust resulting variability of EDP for effects of scaling. (Shome)

NSF Year 7 Site Visit Example GMSM Method for Objective #1 ( i.e., CDF of EDP | M, R, S, F ) Selection Procedure 1. Gather GMs for bin consistent with given M, R, S, F. 2. Select from combinations of scaled GMs generated by modification procedure Modification Procedure 1. Scale GMs such that their median matches the median response spectrum for given M, R, S, F, and such that their variability matches the variability in SA(T).

NSF Year 7 Site Visit Example GMSM Method for Objective #1 ( i.e., CDF of EDP | M, R, S, F )

NSF Year 7 Site Visit Categories of Methods for Objective #2 ( i.e., Median of EDP | M, R, S, F ) Select GMs according to M-R-S-F bin and scale to median value of scalar EDP-proxy (e.g., SA(T 1 ) or inelastic spectral displacement) for given M, R, S, F. (Shome, Haselton, Cornell, Bozorgnia) Select GMs to match, with scaling allowed, median of EDP-proxy (e.g., elastic response spectrum or inelastic spectral displacement) for given M, R, S, F. (Youngs/DGML, Alimoradi, Baker, Watson-Lamprey, Shantz) Select GMs according to M-R-S-F bin (or randomly select?) and spectral-match them to median elastic or inelastic response spectrum. (Bazzurro/RASCAL, Watson-Lamprey/RSPMATCH, Bozorgnia)

NSF Year 7 Site Visit Example GMSM Method for Objective #2 ( i.e., Median of EDP | M, R, S, F ) Selection Procedure 1. Gather GMs for bin consistent with given M, R, S. 2. After scaling (procedure below), select GMs with smallest Mean Squared Error (MSE) w.r.t. median spectrum for given M, R, S, F. Modification Procedure 1. Scale GMs to minimize MSE w.r.t. median spectrum for given M, R, S, F.

NSF Year 7 Site Visit Example GMSM Method for Objective #2 ( i.e., Median of EDP | M, R, S, F ) (Source: Youngs, Power & Chin; 2006)

NSF Year 7 Site Visit Categories of Methods for Objective #3 ( i.e., CDF of EDP | M, R, S, F, and SA(T 1 ) ) Select GMs for bin that is consistent with given M, R, S, F, and SA(T 1 ) (no scaling). Scale (individually) GMs in bin to "correct" for ranges of M, R, S, F, and SA(T 1 ) values vs. given values. (Luco/Bozorgnia/Tothong) Select GMs for M-R-S-F-consistent bin and scale them to given SA(T 1 ). (Shome) Select GMs for Objective #1 (CDF of EDP | M, R, S, F) and scale them to given SA(T 1 ). (Alimoradi, Youngs/DGML)

NSF Year 7 Site Visit ( i.e., CDF of EDP | M, R, S, F, and SA(T 1 ) ) Selection Procedure 1. Gather GMs for bin consistent with | M, R, S, F, SA(T 1 ). Modification Procedure 1. For each GM (unscaled), calculate … 2. Iteratively scale each GM such that … IM 1I&2E =scalar combination of first-mode inelastic spectral displacement and SA(T 2 ) (Luco & Cornell, 2002) Example GMSM Method for Objective #3

NSF Year 7 Site Visit Example GMSM Method for Objective #3 ( i.e., CDF of EDP | M, R, S, F, and SA(T 1 ) ) Ground Motion Prediction Equation (GMPE) for IM 1I&2E is available from Tothong & Cornell (2007). GMPEs for Inelastic Spectral Displacement (part of IM 1I&2E ) are available for … … constant strength, d y (Tothong & Cornell, 2006) … constant ductility,  (Bozorgnia et al., 2006) … constant strength reduction factor, R (???) Combine with GMPE for SA(T 2 ) and its correlation with SA(T 1 ) to approximate GMPE for IM 1I&2E.

NSF Year 7 Site Visit Categories of Methods for Objective #4 ( i.e., Median of EDP | M, R, S, F and SA(T 1 ) ) Select GMs for Objective #2 (Median of EDP | M, R, S, F) and scale them to given SA(T 1 ). (Youngs/DGML) Select GMs to match, with scaling allowed, median (or other target) of EDP-proxy (e.g., elastic or inelastic response spectrum) for given M, R, S, F, and SA(T 1 ). (Alimoradi, Baker, Watson-Lamprey, Shantz, Rathje) Select GMs according to M-R-S-F bin (or randomly select?) and spectral-match them to elastic or inelastic response spectrum consistent with SA(T 1 ). (Bazzurro/RASCAL, Watson-Lamprey/RSPMATCH, Bozorgnia)

NSF Year 7 Site Visit Example GMSM Method for Objective #4 ( i.e., Median of EDP | M, R, S, F, and SA(T 1 ) ) Selection Procedure 1. Gather GMs for bin consistent with given M, R, S, F, and/or SA(T 1 ) (e.g., M = 6.75 to 7.25, R = 0 to 20 km). Or … randomly select GMs? Modification Procedure 1. Spectral-match each GM to Conditional Mean Spectrum (CMS – Baker & Cornell, 2006) for given M, R, S, F and SA(T 1 ).

NSF Year 7 Site Visit Example GMSM Method for Objective #4 ( i.e., Median of EDP | M, R, S, F, and SA(T 1 ) ) e.g., from Bazzurro using RASCAL (Silva & Lee, 1987)

NSF Year 7 Site Visit GMSM Methods Currently being Compared

NSF Year 7 Site Visit Additional GMSM Methods to be Compared

NSF Year 7 Site Visit

Example GMSM Method for Objective #1 ( i.e., CDF of EDP | M, R, S, F ) Selection Procedure 1. Decide on "bin" consistent with given M, R, S, F. (e.g., M = 6.75 to 7.25, R = 0 to 20 km) 2. Gather GMs for chosen bin. Modification Procedure 1. Scale each GM by … … where the Median SA(T 1 ) is from a GM Prediction Equation (GMPE).