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.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
PREDICTION OF RESPONSE SPECTRAL PARAMETERS FOR BHUJ EARTHQUAKE (26TH JANUARY 2001) USING COMPONENT ATTENUATION MODELLING TECHNIQUE By DR. SAROSH.H. LODI.
Advertisements

Ground Motions Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering: Steve Kramer
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.
Prague, March 18, 2005Antonio Emolo1 Seismic Hazard Assessment for a Characteristic Earthquake Scenario: Integrating Probabilistic and Deterministic Approaches.
Keck Telescope Seismic Upgrade Design Support - Progress Report Frank Kan Andrew Sarawit 4 May 2011 (Revised 5 May 2011)
Need for an accurate Reno velocity model to understand amplification in the Reno Basin Aasha Pancha.
GMSM Mission and Vision Jennie Watson-Lamprey October 29, 2007.
Earthquake location rohan.sdsu.edu/~kbolsen/geol600_nhe_location_groundmotion.ppt.
Inelastic Displacement Surface Method Tom Shantz CALTRANS- Division of Research and Innovation.
GMSM Methodology and Terminology Christine Goulet, UCLA GMSM Core Members.
103/25/04 NGA Workshop Parameterization of Basin Response Based on 3D Simulations by PEER/SCEC 3D Ground Motion Project Team PI: Steven M. Day San Diego.
Ground Motion Prediction Equations for Eastern North America Gail M. Atkinson, UWO David M. Boore, USGS (BSSA, 2006)
Ground Motion Intensity Measures for Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Hemangi Pandit Joel Conte Jon Stewart John Wallace.
Further Development of Site Response in NGA Models PEER Lifelines Program NGA-West2 Project Topic #8 Working Group Meeting Meeting #2October 26, 2010.
The use of risk in design: ATC 58 performance assessment procedure Craig D. Comartin.
1 Workshop on GMSM for Nonlinear Analysis, Berkeley CA, October 26, 2006 Structural Models: OpenSees and Drain RC Frames and Walls Curt B. Haselton - PhD.
Characterization of Ground Motion Hazard PEER Summative Meeting - June 13, 2007 Yousef Bozorgnia PEER Associate Director.
Overview of NGA Database, Model Development to Date, and Next Steps PEER-NGA Workshop April 12, 2005.
Preliminary PEER-NGA Ground Motion Model Brian Chiou and Robert Youngs PEER-NGA Workshop 7 December 3, 2004.
Yousef Bozorgnia, Mahmoud Hachem, Kenneth Campbell PEER GMSM Workshop, UC Berkeley October 27, 2006 Attenuation of Inelastic Spectra and Its Applications.
03/24/2004NGA Workshop: Validation1 BROADBAND SIMULATION METHODOLOGY: A HYBRID DETERMINISTIC AND STOCHASTIC APPROACH  Use Deterministic Methodology at.
Overview of GMSM Methods Nicolas Luco 1 st Workshop on Ground Motion Selection and Modification (GMSM) for Nonlinear Analysis – 27 October 2006.
Review of GMSM Solicitation and Methods Nicolas Luco, On behalf of The PEER GMSM Program 2 nd Annual PEER Ground Motion Selection & Modification (GMSM)
Nonlinear response- history analysis in design practice RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE November 2007 Joe Maffei.
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.
Average properties of Southern California earthquake ground motions envelopes… G. Cua, T. Heaton Caltech.
1 Structural Responses – Preliminary Results and Observations PEER GMSM Program Workshop, Richmond CA, October 29, 2007 Curt B. Haselton, PhD, PE Assistant.
11/02/2007PEER-SCEC Simulation Workshop1 NUMERICAL GROUND MOTION SIMULATIONS: ASSUMPTIONS, VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION Earthquake Source Velocity Structure.
PEER-SCEC WORKSHOP ON GROUND MOTION SIMULATION AND BUILDING RESPONSE SIMULATION with focus on long period ground motions and tall buildings PEER Nov 2,
Selection of Time Series for Seismic Analyses
Ground Motion Parameters Measured by triaxial accelerographs 2 orthogonal horizontal components 1 vertical component Digitized to time step of
December 3-4, 2007Earthquake Readiness Workshop Seismic Design Considerations Mike Sheehan.
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.
Static Pushover Analysis
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.
Major Ongoing Ground Motion Research Programs at PEER Yousef Bozorgnia, Ph.D., P.E. PEER, University of California, Berkeley.
CENA GMPEs from Stochastic Method Simulations: Review, Issues, Recent Work David M. Boore Blue Castle Licensing Project (BCLP) Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis.
EERI Seminar on Next Generation Attenuation Models Role of SCEC Ground Motion Simulation Validation Technical Activity Group (GMSV TAG) in SEISM Project.
Session 1A – Ground Motions and Intensity Measures Paul Somerville Andrew Whittaker Greg Deierlein.
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.
Yousef Bozorgnia, Ph.D., P.E.
NEEDS FOR PERFORMANCE-BASED GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
An Assessment of the High-Gain Streckheisen STS2 Seismometer for Routine Earthquake Monitoring in the US ISSUE: Is the high-gain STS2 too sensitive to.
Jennie Watson-Lamprey COSMOS Annual Meeting Technical Session November 9, PEER GMSM Program: Recommendations for Selection and Scaling of Ground.
GMSV in SEISM Project Jonathan P. Stewart University of California, Los Angeles.
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,
Site Specific Response Analyses and Design Spectra for Soft Soil Sites Steven F. Bartlett, Ph.D., P.E. I-15 NATIONAL TEST BED TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER SYMPOSIUM.
HIGH FREQUENCY GROUND MOTION SCALING IN THE YUNNAN REGION W. Winston Chan, Multimax, Inc., Largo, MD W. Winston Chan, Multimax, Inc., Largo, MD Robert.
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
NGA Project Review and Status Norm Abrahamson NGA Workshop #5 March, 2004.
Need for an Objective Goodness-of-Fit Measure for: Broadband synthetic time histories from different methodologies Broadband synthetic time histories versus.
Novel Approach to Strong Ground Motion Attenuation Modeling Vladimir Graizer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Erol Kalkan California Geological Survey.
Earthquake Site Characterization in Metropolitan Vancouver Frederick Jackson Supervisor – Dr. Sheri Molnar.
NGA Dataset Brian Chiou NGA Workshop #5 March 24, 2004.
PRISM: PROCESSING AND REVIEW INTERFACE FOR STRONG MOTION DATA SOFTWARE
CE 5603 Seismic Hazard Assessment
Norm Abrahamson NGA workshop #5 March 24, 2004
Campbell & Bozorgnia NGA Ground-Motion Relation
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:

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. Deierlein

2 Workshop on GMSM for Nonlinear Analysis, Berkeley CA, October 26, 2006 Ground Motion Objectives and Considerations  Objectives of ATC-63 Project:  Develop a far-field set that is independent of site and building period  Use set to assess collapse of 70 buildings with various period  Use set as part of an assessment process to validate new building systems for inclusion in building code  Minimize required scaling factors at collapse levels (PGA, PGV limits)  Maintain enough records to do meaningful statistics with collapse predictions  Consideration of spectral shape:  For rare ground motions, spectral shape ( ε ) is extremely important (Baker and Cornell).  Our selection does not account for this proper spectral shape.  We account for this by adjusting the collapse capacity distribution (mean and sigma) after running the collapse simulations (forthcoming paper on this method).

3 Workshop on GMSM for Nonlinear Analysis, Berkeley CA, October 26, 2006 Selection of Far-Field Ground Motion Set  Selection Criteria:  M > 6.5  R > 10km  PGA > 0.2g AND PGV > 15 cm/sec  Vs > 180 m/s (NEHRP A-D)  ≤ 2 records per event  Lowest useable frequency < 0.25 Hz (4 seconds)  Strike-slip and thrust faults (consistent with California)

4 Workshop on GMSM for Nonlinear Analysis, Berkeley CA, October 26, 2006 Summary of Far-Field Ground Motion Set - 22 records - 14 events - Mechanisms: - 9 strike-slip - 5 thrust

5 Workshop on GMSM for Nonlinear Analysis, Berkeley CA, October 26, 2006 Ground Motion Scaling Method  Scaling method developed by C. Kircher (details included in last slide)  Scaling steps:  Compute the average [Sa(T 1 )/PGV] for the full set of ground motions  Compute record scale factors:  SF = [ average [Sa(T 1 )/PGV] of set ] * RecordPGV  Further scale the records by anchoring the mean Sa(T 1 ) to the target value

6 Workshop on GMSM for Nonlinear Analysis, Berkeley CA, October 26, 2006 Scaled Far-Field Ground Motion Set  Records scaled to Sa(1s) = 0.9g

7 Workshop on GMSM for Nonlinear Analysis, Berkeley CA, October 26, 2006 Dispersion in Scaled Ground Motion Set  Dispersion in scaled record set

8 Workshop on GMSM for Nonlinear Analysis, Berkeley CA, October 26, 2006 Closing  Thank you for your attention.  Questions?

9 Workshop on GMSM for Nonlinear Analysis, Berkeley CA, October 26, 2006 Ground Motion Scaling Method A Method for Scaling Horizontal Earthquake Time Histories Kircher & Associates Consulting Engineers March 28, 1996 Definitions (Input Data): N Number of pairs of horizontal time history components that make up the set of earthquake records for each of site soil conditions (e.g., rock/rear- source, soil near-source, rock/far-source and soil/far-source. PGVji Peak ground velocity, PGV, of time history, THji, (note: PGV values are provided by USGS/CDMG with processed time history and response spectra data), Rsji Response spectrum (5%-damping) of time history, THji, Thji Time history of the ith pair in the jth horizontal direction (i.e., j = 1 or 2), TRS Target response spectrum (defined as 1.4 times the DBE, Z = 0.4, N=1.0) Teff Effective period of structure in seconds at intersection of capacity/demand curves. Definitions (Calculated Data): ARS Response spectrum shape of time histories taken as the mean of composite response spectra, CRSi, normalized by composite peak ground velocity, CPGVi, CPGVi Composite peak ground velocity of the ith horizontal time history pair, CRSi Composite response spectrum of the ith horizontal time history pair, MARS Response spectrum multiplier used to fit the response spectrum shape, ARS, to the target response spectrum, TRS, STHji Scaled time history of the ith pair in the jth horizontal direction. Calculation Steps: 1.For near-source records, rotate each pair of horizontal components to fault normal and fault parallel directions (note: rotation affects all parameters, including time histories, THij, response spectra, RSij, and peak ground velocity, PGVij). 2.For each pair of earthquake components, calculate the composite spectrum, CRSi, and the composite peak ground velocity, CPGVi: CRSi = (RS1i2 + RS2i2)1/2 CPGVi = (PGV1i2 + PGV2i2)1/2 3.Find the average value of composite spectra normalized by composite peak ground velocity: 4.Determine the response spectrum multiplier, MARS, that is required to increase (or decrease) the response spectrum shape, ARS, such that it matches the target response spectrum, TRS, at the period(s) of interest (e.g., 1.4 times 0.60g for soil sites and 1.4 times 0.40g for rock sites at 1 second): MARS  TRS/ARS (ARS  1/T at Teff  1 second) 5.For each pair of earthquake time histories, scale both horizontal components by the ratio of the response spectrum multiplier to the composite peak ground velocity: STH1i = (MARS/CPGVi)TH1i STH2i = (MARS/CPGVi)TH2i