Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Review of GMSM Solicitation and Methods Nicolas Luco, On behalf of The PEER GMSM Program 2 nd Annual PEER Ground Motion Selection & Modification (GMSM)

Published by Modified over 9 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Review of GMSM Solicitation and Methods Nicolas Luco, On behalf of The PEER GMSM Program 2 nd Annual PEER Ground Motion Selection & Modification (GMSM)"— Presentation transcript:

1 Review of GMSM Solicitation and Methods Nicolas Luco, On behalf of The PEER GMSM Program 2 nd Annual PEER Ground Motion Selection & Modification (GMSM) Program Workshop 29 October 2007

2 NSF Year 7 Site Visit Outline of Presentation  Review of GMSM Objectives (Solicited)  List of GMSM Methods for Objectives 3 & 4  Summaries of GMSM Methods for Objectives 3 & 4  List of GMSM Methods for Objectives 1 & 2

3 NSF Year 7 Site Visit GMSM Objectives  Average (or average & dispersion) of structural response for a given response spectrum Why not? Because probability of exceedance in T years (PE) of response spectrum is not typically known.  Median & probability distribution (CDF) of structural response for a given Sa(T1), M, R (and S, F)* Why? Because PE of Sa(T1) and associated M, R are typically known (e.g., via PSHA and deaggregation).  Median and probability distribution (CDF) of structural response for a given M, R (and S, F)* Why? For scenarios or "attenuation relations" for structural response. * Hereafter M, R, S, & F will be abbreviated to M, R.

4 NSF Year 7 Site Visit GMSM Methods for Objectives 3 & 4 Index #NameDeveloper(s)Objective(s) 4, 53"Sa(T1) Scaling"Shome3 and 4 67"ATC-58 [35% Draft] -- Near-Field Set"Whittaker et al (Zareian)3 and 4 9980-9989"Building Code Selection Mini-Study"Baker4 16"Semi-Automated Selection & Scaling …"Rathje & Kottke4 17"Building Code (purposefully extreme selection)"Watson-Lamprey4 10"Conditional Mean Spectrum Selection w/ Scaling"Baker4 15"Genetic Algorithm Selection (based on CMS)" Naeim, Alimoradi 4 or 3? 24"Semi-Automated Selection & Scaling - to match CMS"Rathje, Kottke4 or 3? 45"Design Ground Motion Library (DGML)"Power, Youngs, Wang3 and 4 20"Target Spectrum Based on Epsilon Correlations..."Stewart, Skyers, Goulet3? and 4 31"ε Selection with Sde(T1) Scaling"Tothong, Luco3? and 4 57, 58"Sa(T1) Scaling Considering Spectral Shape"Shome3, 4 43, 48"ATC-63 - Far[/Near]-Field set with the ε correction"Haselton, Kircher4 6"Vector of Record Properties Identified by Proxy"Watson-Lamprey4 11"Inelastic Response Surface Scaling - Basic set"Shantz4 26, 27"Sdi(T1, dy) Scaling"Tothong, Luco3, 4 34, 35"IM1I&2E Selection/Scaling"Luco, Tothong3, 4 51"Inelastic Response Surface Scaling - With post-processing"Shantz3 "Sa(T1) Methods" "Uniform Hazard Spectrum (UHS) Methods" "Conditional Mean Spectrum (CMS) Methods" "Spectral Shape Proxy Methods" "Inelastic Ground Motion Parameter Methods"

5 NSF Year 7 Site Visit "Sa(T1) Methods" (4 & 53, 67)  Selection: GMs consistent with given M, R  Scaling: Match given Sa(T1) (Source: ATC-58 35% Draft for Method #67)

6 NSF Year 7 Site Visit "Sa(T1) Methods" (4 & 53, 67)  Selection: GMs consistent with given M, R  Scaling: Match given Sa(T1) (Source: Shome for Methods #4 & 53)

7 NSF Year 7 Site Visit "UHS Methods" (9980-9989)  Selection:GMs with spectral shape similar to UHS, perhaps consistent with given M, R  Scaling: "Closely match" UHS (Source: Haselton for Method #9980)

8 NSF Year 7 Site Visit UHS for our M, R, Sa(T1) Scenario  Suppose that the only fault near the S=400m/s site is F=Strike-Slip at R=10km capable of M=7 every 50yrs  In this case, 2500yr Sa(Ti) is equal to 98%-ile Sa(Ti) for given M, R, S, F (since 1/50yrs*2%=1/2500yrs) 2500yr UHS

9 NSF Year 7 Site Visit "CMS Methods" – Objective 4 (10, 15?, 24?)  Selection:GMs with spectral shape similar to CMS, perhaps consistent with given M, R  Scaling:Match given Sa(T1) (Method #10) or "closely match" CMS (Methods #24, 15?) (Source: Haselton for Method #10)

10 NSF Year 7 Site Visit "CMS Methods" – Objective 4 (10, 15?, 24?)  Selection:GMs with spectral shape similar to CMS, perhaps consistent with given M, R  Scaling:Match given Sa(T1) (Method #10) or "closely match" CMS (Methods #24, 15?) (Source: Haselton for Method #15)

11 NSF Year 7 Site Visit "CMS Methods" – Objective 4 (10, 15?, 24?)  Selection:GMs with spectral shape similar to CMS, perhaps consistent with given M, R  Scaling:Match given Sa(T1) (Method #10) or "closely match" CMS (Methods #24, 15?) (Source: Haselton for Method #24)

12 NSF Year 7 Site Visit "CMS Methods" – Objective 3 (45)  Selection:GMs with spectral shape approximating dis- tribution about CMS (Obj. 3) or similar to CMS (Obj. 4), and with consistent M, R  Scaling: Match given Sa(T1) (Source: Geomatrix Consultants for Method #45)

13 NSF Year 7 Site Visit Review of Conditional Mean Spectrum  CMS ≡ expected spectrum for given Sa(T1), M, R  where  = correlation between lnSa(Ti) and lnSa(T1) (Source: Baker for Method #10) e.g., … M = 7 R = 10km Sa(T1) = "2  "

14 NSF Year 7 Site Visit "Proxy Methods" –  (T1) (20, 31)  Selection: GMs consistent with given  (T1) and M, R  Scaling: Match given Sa(T1) (Source: Haselton for Method #20) e.g., for …  (T1) = 1-3 M = 6.7-7.3 R = 0-42km S = 215-560m/s

15 NSF Year 7 Site Visit "Proxy Methods" –  (T1) (20, 31)  Selection: GMs consistent with given  (T1) and M, R  Scaling: Match given Sa(T1) (Source: Haselton for Method #31)

16 NSF Year 7 Site Visit "Proxy Methods" – Sa(Ti) Vector (57 & 58)  Selection: GMs consistent with expected (Obj. 4) or distribution of (Obj. 3) Sa(0.5T1) & Sa(2T1) for given Sa(T1), M, R, and consistent with given M, R  Scaling: Match given Sa(T1) (Source: Shome for Methods #57 & 58)

17 NSF Year 7 Site Visit "Inelastic Methods" – Obj. 4 (6)  Selection: GMs with expected Sdi(T1,R)/Sde(T1) consistent with that and DurUNI, PGV, Sa(2T1) for given Sa(T1), M, R  Scaling: Match given Sa(T1)  DurUNI, PGV, Sa(2T1) from available ground motion prediction equations (a.k.a., attenuation relations)  Expected Sdi(T1,R)/Sde(T1) for DurUNI, PGV, Sa(T1), Sa(2T1) computed as part of method

18 NSF Year 7 Site Visit "Inelastic Methods" – Obj. 4 (11)  Selection: GMs with Inelastic Displacement Surface similar to that expected for given Sa(T1), M, R  Scaling: Optimal fit to expected (i.e., target) IDS (Source: Shantz for Method #11) CMS x C R (R,T,  ) Sdi(T,R)/Sde(T)

19 NSF Year 7 Site Visit "Inelastic Methods" – Obj. 4 (27, 35)  Selection: Random  Scaling: Match expected Sdi(T1,dy) (Method #27) or IM1I&2E (Method #35) for given Sa(T1), M, R  dy from Nonlinear Static Pushover curve  Expected Sdi(T1,dy) from Tothong & Cornell (2006)   Expected IM1I&2E from expected Sdi(T1,dy) and Tothong & Cornell (2006) (Luco, 2002)

20 NSF Year 7 Site Visit  Selection: Random  Scaling: Approximate distribution of Sdi(T1,dy) (Method #26) or IM1I&2E (Method #34) for given Sa(T1), M, R  Distribution of Sdi(T1,dy) or IM1I&2E also from Tothong & Cornell (2006) "Inelastic Methods" – Obj. 3 (26, 34) 10 GMs7 GMs 2 GMs 0 GMs

21 NSF Year 7 Site Visit GMSM Methods for Objectives 1 & 2 Index #NameDeveloper(s)Objective(s) 3"Bin Selection with Scaling by Elastic GMPE"Stewart (Tothong)1 and 2 5, 25"Sdi(T1, dy) Scaling"Tothong, Luco1 and 2, 2 22"Malhotra 2007 Method"Malhotra1 and 2 28, 29"ε Selection with Sde(T1) Scaling"Tothong, Luco1 ans 2, 2 32, 33"IM1I&2E Selection/Scaling"Luco, Tothong1 and 2, 2 36"Bin Selection with no Scaling"Tothong1 and 2 41"Building Code …"Baker2 49, 50"ATC-63 - Far[/Near]-Field set with the ε correction"Haselton, Kircher1 and 2 52, 56"Sa(T1) Scaling Considering Spectral Shape"Shome1 and 2, 2 54, 55"Sa(T1) Scaling"Shome1 and 2, or 2 59"Vector of Record Properties Identified by Proxy"Watson-Lamprey2 61, 70"Design Ground Motion Library (DGML)"Power, Youngs, Wang1 and 2, 2 62"Conditional Mean Spectrum Selection with Scaling"Baker2 63"Inelastic Response Surface Scaling - Basic set"Shantz2 65"Inelastic Response Surface Scaling - With post-processing "Shantz1 and 2 66"Genetic Algorithm Selection (based on median spectrum)"Naeim, Alimoradi1? and 2 68"ATC-58 - Near-Field Set"Whittaker et al (Zareian)1 and 2

22 NSF Year 7 Site Visit GMSM Methods for Objectives 3 & 4 Index #NameDeveloper(s)Objective(s) 4, 53"Sa(T1) Scaling"Shome3 and 4 67"ATC-58 [35% Draft] -- Near-Field Set"Whittaker et al (Zareian)3 and 4 9980-9989"Building Code Selection Mini-Study"Baker4 16"Semi-Automated Selection & Scaling …"Rathje & Kottke4 17"Building Code (purposefully extreme selection)"Watson-Lamprey4 10"Conditional Mean Spectrum Selection w/ Scaling"Baker4 15"Genetic Algorithm Selection (based on CMS)" Naeim, Alimoradi 4 or 3? 24"Semi-Automated Selection & Scaling - to match CMS"Rathje, Kottke4 or 3? 45"Design Ground Motion Library (DGML)"Power, Youngs, Wang3 and 4 20"Target Spectrum Based on Epsilon Correlations..."Stewart, Skyers, Goulet3? and 4 31"ε Selection with Sde(T1) Scaling"Tothong, Luco3? and 4 57, 58"Sa(T1) Scaling Considering Spectral Shape"Shome3, 4 43, 48"ATC-63 - Far[/Near]-Field set with the ε correction"Haselton, Kircher4 6"Vector of Record Properties Identified by Proxy"Watson-Lamprey4 11"Inelastic Response Surface Scaling - Basic set"Shantz4 26, 27"Sdi(T1, dy) Scaling"Tothong, Luco3, 4 34, 35"IM1I&2E Selection/Scaling"Luco, Tothong3, 4 51"Inelastic Response Surface Scaling - With post-processing"Shantz3 "Sa(T1) Methods" "Uniform Hazard Spectrum (UHS) Methods" "Conditional Mean Spectrum (CMS) Methods" "Spectral Shape Proxy Methods" "Inelastic Ground Motion Parameter Methods"

23 NSF Year 7 Site Visit Extra Slides …

24 NSF Year 7 Site Visit "Proxy Methods" – Objective 3 (30)  Selection: GMs consistent with given  (T1) and M, R  Scaling: To given Sa(T1) (Source: Haselton for Method #30)

25 NSF Year 7 Site Visit Old Presentation …

26 NSF Year 7 Site Visit GMSM Methods Currently being Compared GMSM Methods Currently being Compared Notes:A, B, C= Class of GMSM Method for given Objective. #1D= Adjust resulting variability of EDP for effects of scaling. √ ( √ )= Median for Objective #2 or 4 obtained via CDF from Objective #1 or 3, respectively.

27 NSF Year 7 Site Visit Additional GMSM Methods to be Compared Additional GMSM Methods to be Compared

28 NSF Year 7 Site Visit Summary of Categorization of GMSM Methods  4 Objectives 1. CDF of EDP | M, R, S, F 2. Median of EDP | M, R, S, F 3. CDF of EDP | M, R, S, F and SA(T 1 ) 4. Median of EDP | M, R, S, F and SA(T 1 )  3 Classes (A, B, C) per objective  30+ specific GMSM Methods under consideration  Any other objectives, classes, specific methods?

Download ppt "Review of GMSM Solicitation and Methods Nicolas Luco, On behalf of The PEER GMSM Program 2 nd Annual PEER Ground Motion Selection & Modification (GMSM)"

Similar presentations

Ground Motions Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering: Steve Kramer

Ground Motions Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering: Steve Kramer
Nirmal Jayaram Nilesh Shome Helmut Krawinkler 2010 SCEC Annual Meeting A statistical analysis of the responses of tall buildings to recorded and simulated.

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

TBI Committee Members Y. Bozorgnia C.B. Crouse J.P. Stewart
NGA Site Response Study Joseph Sun, Tom Shantz, Zhi-Liang Wang.

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.

EERI Seminar on Next Generation Attenuation Models SCEC GMSV Workshop: Summary of Other Validation Methodologies/Applications Nicolas Luco, Research Structural.
Prague, March 18, 2005Antonio Emolo1 Seismic Hazard Assessment for a Characteristic Earthquake Scenario: Integrating Probabilistic and Deterministic Approaches.

Prague, March 18, 2005Antonio Emolo1 Seismic Hazard Assessment for a Characteristic Earthquake Scenario: Integrating Probabilistic and Deterministic Approaches.
New “Risk-Targeted” Seismic Maps Introduced into USA Building Codes

New “Risk-Targeted” Seismic Maps Introduced into USA Building Codes
Deterministic Seismic Hazard Analysis Earliest approach taken to seismic hazard analysis Originated in nuclear power industry applications Still used for.

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.

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.

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.

Inelastic Displacement Surface Method Tom Shantz CALTRANS- Division of Research and Innovation.
GMSM Methodology and Terminology Christine Goulet, UCLA GMSM Core Members.

GMSM Methodology and Terminology Christine Goulet, UCLA GMSM Core Members.
Continuous Random Variables and Probability Distributions

Continuous Random Variables and Probability Distributions
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.

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.
Ground Motion Intensity Measures for Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Hemangi Pandit Joel Conte Jon Stewart John Wallace.

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.

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.

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.

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, Mahmoud Hachem, Kenneth Campbell PEER GMSM Workshop, UC Berkeley October 27, 2006 Attenuation of Inelastic Spectra and Its Applications.
Design of Curves and Surfaces by Multi Objective Optimization Rony Goldenthal Michel Bercovier School of Computer Science and Engineering The Hebrew University.

Design of Curves and Surfaces by Multi Objective Optimization Rony Goldenthal Michel Bercovier School of Computer Science and Engineering The Hebrew University.

Similar presentations

Ads by Google