Informing the Seismic Risk Assessment of Distributed Infrastructure Using a Suite of Physics-Based Simulated Ground-Motion Realizations
Publication: Structures Congress 2023
ABSTRACT
This paper presents the results of a numerical study conducted to assess the effects of site-specific arrays of simulated ground motions from large magnitude earthquakes on the response of distributed infrastructure. Focus is laid on specific ground-motion features that are known to largely affect the response of long-period structures, including pseudo-spectral acceleration (PSA), peak ground velocity and displacement (PGV and PGD), fling step, and impulsive characteristics. The study is conducted on a detailed numerical model representative of the West San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge developed in the OpenSees environment and a suite of fifteen realizations of an Mw7 Hayward Fault strike-slip earthquake generated in SW4. The realizations differ from each other for the rupture model and depth of the fault plane. A core component of the study is the rigorous evaluation of the simulated ground motions based on the use of ground motion models (GMMs). The main objective is to verify the realistic character of the motions for their utilization in the risk assessments of distributed infrastructure, yet recognizing that the physics-based models are herein utilized to simulate events for which the GMMs are not well constrained. Therefore, insight into the interpretation of such comparisons is also provided. Results show a close agreement between the simulated motions and several GMMs, across multiple intensity measures. Finally, the preliminary results of nonlinear dynamic simulations carried out on the bridge model are discussed. Emphasis is laid on the influence of both between-events (multiple realizations at one location) and within-event (one realization at multiple locations) ground-motion variability on the structure response statistics.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this chapter.
REFERENCES
AASHTO. (2020). AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. In American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC. AASHTO.
Abrahamson, N. A., Silva, W. J., & Kamai, R. (2014). Summary of the ASK14 ground motion relation for active crustal regions. Earthquake Spectra, 30(3), 1025–1055.
Al Noman, M. N., & Cramer, C. H. (2015). Empirical ground-motion prediction equations for Eastern North America. NGA-East: Median Ground-Motion Models for the Central and Eastern North America Region, 193–212.
Alavi, A. H., Gandomi, A. H., Modaresnezhad, M., & Mousavi, M. (2011). New ground-motion prediction equations using multi expression programing. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 15(4), 511–536.
Ameur, M., Derras, B., & Zendagui, D. (2018). Ground Motion Prediction Model Using Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference Systems: An Example Based on the NGA-West 2 Data. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 175(3), 1019–1034.
Baker, J. W. (2007). Quantitative classification of near-fault ground motions using wavelet analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 97(5), 1486–1501.
Boore, D. M., & Atkinson, G. M. (2008). Ground-Motion Prediction Equations for the Average Horizontal Component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-Damped PSA at Spectral Periods between 0.01 s and 10.0 s. Earthquake Spectra, 24(1), 99–138.
Boore, D. M., Stewart, J. P., Seyhan, E., & Atkinson, G. M. (2014). NGA-West2 equations for predicting PGA, PGV, and 5% damped PSA for shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra, 30(3), 1057–1085.
Burks, L. S., & Baker, J. W. (2016). A predictive model for fling-step in near-fault ground motions based on recordings and simulations. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 80, 119–126.
Caltrans. (2019). Caltrans seismic design criteria, version 2.0. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
Campbell, K. W., & Bozorgnia, Y. (2008). NGA ground motion model for the geometric mean horizontal component of PGA, PGV, PGD and 5% damped linear elastic response spectra for periods ranging from 0.01 to 10 s. Earthquake Spectra, 24(1), 139–171.
Campbell, K. W., & Bozorgnia, Y. (2014). NGA-West2 ground motion model for the average horizontal components of PGA, PGV, and 5% damped linear acceleration response spectra. Earthquake Spectra, 30(3), 1087–1114.
Carder, D. S. (1937). Observed vibrations of bridges. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 27(4), 267–303.
Cauzzi, C., Faccioli, E., Vanini, M., & Bianchini, A. (2015). Updated predictive equations for broadband (0.01–10 s) horizontal response spectra and peak ground motions, based on a global dataset of digital acceleration records. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 13(6), 1587–1612.
Chiou, B. S. J., & Youngs, R. R. (2014). Update of the Chiou and Youngs NGA model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra. Earthquake Spectra, 30(3), 1117–1153.
Crowell, B. W., Melgar, D., Bock, Y., Haase, J. S., & Geng, J. (2013). Earthquake magnitude scaling using seismogeodetic data. Geophysical Research Letters, 40(23), 6089–6094.
Douglas, J. (2021). Ground motion prediction equations 1964–2021.
Dryden, G. M. (2009). The Integration of Experimental and Simulation Data in the Study of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Systems Including Soil-Foundation-Structure Interaction. University of California, Berkeley.
Fang, R., Zheng, J., Geng, J., Shu, Y., Shi, C., & Liu, J. (2021). Earthquake magnitude scaling using peak ground velocity derived from high-rate GNSS observations. Seismological Research Letters, 92(1), 227–237.
Hayden, C. P., Bray, J. D., & Abrahamson, N. A. (2014). Selection of Near-Fault Pulse Motions. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 140(7), 04014030.
Hecker, S., Abrahamson, N. A., & Wooddell, K. E. (2013). Variability of displacement at a point: Implications for earthquake-size distribution and rupture hazard on faults. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 103(2A), 651–674.
Idrissa, I. M. (2014). An NGA-West2 empirical model for estimating the horizontal spectral values generated by shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra, 30(3), 1155–1177.
Kafaei M. A., Mousavi, S. M., Torabi, M., Mousavi, M., & Alavi, A. H. (2012). Robust attenuation relations for peak time-domain parameters of strong ground motions. Environmental Earth Sciences, 67(1), 53–70.
Kamai, R., Abrahamson, N., & Graves, R. (2014). Adding fling effects to processed ground-motion time histories. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 104(4), 1914–1929.
Karakostas, C., Sextos, A., Lekidis, V., & Papadopoulos, S. (2011). Investigation of the dynamic response of the evripos cable-stayed bridge in Greece, under asynchronous ground motion records.
Kaveh, A., Bakhshpoori, T., & Hamze-Ziabari, S. M. (2016). Derivation of new equations for prediction of principal ground-motion parameters using M5′ algorithm. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 20(6), 910–930.
Ketchum, M. A., & Waggoner, F. (1995). Seismic analysis of the west bay suspension spans of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.580.6889
Lu, X., Xie, L., Guan, H., Huang, Y., & Lu, X. (2015). A shear wall element for nonlinear seismic analysis of super-tall buildings using OpenSees. Finite Elements in Analysis and Design, 98, 14–25.
Maechling, P. J., Silva, F., Callaghan, S., & Jordan, T. H. (2015). SCEC Broadband Platform: System Architecture and Software Implementation. Seismological Research Letters, 86(1), 27–38.
Mazzieri, I., Stupazzini, M., Guidotti, R., & Smerzini, C. (2013). SPEED: SPectral Elements in Elastodynamics with Discontinuous Galerkin: a non-conforming approach for 3D multi-scale problems. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 95(12), 991–1010.
McCallen, D., Astaneh-Asl, A., Larsen, S. C., & Hutchings, L. (2009). The response of long-span bridges to low frequency, near-fault earthquake ground motions. Lawrence Berkeley National Lab.(LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United States).
McCallen, D. B., & Astaneh-Asl, A. (2000). An explicit integration framework for nonlinear analysis of suspension bridges. Journal of Seismology and Earthquake Engineering, 2(4), 19–41.
McCallen, D., Petersson, A., Rodgers, A., Pitarka, A., Miah, M., Petrone, F., Sjogreen, B., Abrahamson, N., & Tang, H. (2021). EQSIM—A multidisciplinary framework for fault-to-structure earthquake simulations on exascale computers part I: Computational models and workflow. Earthquake Spectra, 37(2), 707–735.
McKenna, F. (2011). OpenSees: A framework for earthquake engineering simulation. Computing in Science and Engineering, 13(4), 58–66.
Melgar, D., Crowell, B. W., Geng, J., Allen, R. M., Bock, Y., Riquelme, S., Hill, E. M., Protti, M., & Ganas, A. (2015). Earthquake magnitude calculation without saturation from the scaling of peak ground displacement. Geophysical Research Letters, 42(13), 5197–5205.
Özcebe, A. G., Smerzini, C., & Bhanu, V. (2020). Insights into the Effect of Spatial Variability of Recorded Earthquake Ground Motion on the Response of a Bridge Structure. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 24(6), 920–946.
Petrone, F., Abrahamson, N., McCallen, D., Pitarka, A., & Rodgers, A. (2021). Engineering evaluation of the EQSIM simulated ground-motion database: The San Francisco Bay Area region. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 50(15), 3939–3961.
Pitarka, A., Graves, R., Irikura, K., Miyakoshi, K., Wu, C., Kawase, H., Rodgers, A., & McCallen, D. (2022). Refinements to the Graves–Pitarka Kinematic Rupture Generator, Including a Dynamically Consistent Slip-Rate Function, Applied to the 2019 Mw 7.1 Ridgecrest Earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 112(1), 287–306.
Rodgers, A. J., Pitarka, A., Anders Petersson, N., Sjogreen, B., McCallen, D. B., & Abrahamson, N. (2019). Broadband (0-5 Hz) fully deterministic 3D ground-motion simulations of a magnitude 7.0 Hayward fault earthquake: Comparison with empirical ground-motion models and 3D path and site effects from source normalized intensities. Seismological Research Letters, 90(3), 1268–1284.
Ruhl, C. J., Melgar, D., Allen, R. M., Geng, J., Goldberg, D. E., Bock, Y., Crowell, B. W., Barrientos, S., Riquelme, S., Baez, J. C., Cabral-Cano, E., Pérez-Campos, X., Hill, E. M., Protti, M., Ganas, A., Ruiz, M., Mothes, P., Jarrín, P., Nocquet, J. M., … D’Anastasio, E. (2019). A global database of strong-motion displacement GNSS recordings and an example application to PGD scaling. Seismological Research Letters, 90(1), 271–279.
Rupakhety, R., Sigurdsson, S. U., Papageorgiou, A. S., & Sigbjörnsson, R. (2011). Quantification of ground-motion parameters and response spectra in the near-fault region. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 9(4), 893–930.
Shahi, S. K., & Baker, J. W. (2014). An efficient algorithm to identify strong-velocity pulses in multicomponent ground motions. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 104(5), 2456–2466.
Sjögreen, B., & Petersson, N. A. (2012). A fourth order accurate finite difference scheme for the elastic wave equation in second order formulation. Journal of Scientific Computing, 52(1), 17–48.
Sung, C. H., Abrahamson, N. A., & Huang, J. Y. (2021). Conditional ground-motion models for horizontal peak ground displacement for active crustal regions. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 111(3), 1542–1562.
Thingbaijam, K. K. S., Mai, P. M., & Goda, K. (2017). New empirical earthquake source-scaling laws. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 107(5), 2225–2246.
Tu, T., Yu, H., Ramirez-Guzman, L., Bielak, J., Ghattas, O., Ma, K., & O’Hallaron, D. (2007). From Mesh Generation to Scientific Visualization: An End-to-End Approach to Parallel Supercomputing. 12–12.
USGS. (2018). 3-D geologic and seismic velocity models of the San Francisco Bay region. https://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquake-hazards/science/3-d-geologic-and-seismic-velocity-models-san-francisco-bay?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects
Wells, D. L., & Coppersmith, K. J. (1994). New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 84(4), 974–1002.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Structures Congress 2023
Pages: 132 - 149
History
Published online: May 1, 2023
ASCE Technical Topics:
- Analysis (by type)
- Continuum mechanics
- Dynamics (solid mechanics)
- Earthquake engineering
- Earthquakes
- Engineering fundamentals
- Engineering mechanics
- Geohazards
- Geotechnical engineering
- Geotechnical investigation
- Ground motion
- Infrastructure
- Infrastructure vulnerability
- Models (by type)
- Numerical analysis
- Numerical models
- Seismic effects
- Simulation models
- Solid mechanics
- Structural dynamics
- Structural response
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.