1. GMSV in SEISM Project Jonathan P. Stewart University of California, Los Angeles

2. Outline Possible areas of activity: Geotechnical validation – duration sensitive – Not at top of list in validation gauntlet General validation / use of simulations – Fundamental to the validation gauntlet

3. Geotechnical Validation Site response V s Input Rock Att. G/G Max D  Output Equivalent-linear Nonlinear

4. Geotechnical Validation Site response Outcome:

5. Geotechnical Validation Site response Nonlinear soil response Element response: Boulanger and Idriss, 2004

6. Candidate metrics: End of record pore pressure generation Peak shear strain Kammerer et al. (2002)

7. Candidate metrics: End of record pore pressure generation Peak shear strain Post (or during) cyclic volume change Yee et al. (2012).

8. Geotechnical Validation Site response Nonlinear soil response Newmark displacements

9. Newmark sliding block:

10. Geotechnical Validation Compute geotechnical engineering demand parameters (EDPs) of interest using recorded and simulated ground motion suites. OpenSees platform can be used Identify inconsistencies and their cause

11. General Validation / Use of Simulations Distance scaling; M-scaling Spectral shape Sigma from simulations (within- and between- event) Basin effects Useful for: – Simulation validation – Constraining components of GMPEs poorly constrained by data

12. Suggestion was to do geotechnical. My second suggestion is NGA-West3, so premature to do now. Do it for the motions that pass the SWUS broadband validation project for the xx events. Select a series of simulated records and comparable real records and compare. Some discussion of how do we compare apples and apples. Could start by computing IMs for the sets that are relevant (CAV5, IA, duration, etc.). Could then compare sim/real for records with similar values of these Ims. Coordinate with CG on this.