Validation of Simulated Earthquake Ground Motions for Displacement Response of Building and Bridge Structures Based on Intensity and Frequency Content Parameters
Publication: Journal of Structural Engineering
Volume 148, Issue 1
Abstract
This paper introduces a statistical methodology, titled vector-based intensity-measure method (VBIM), to validate simulated ground motions for the estimation of structural response parameters and demonstrate its application using case study structures. VBIM combines several intensity measures representative of key ground motion waveform components that affect structural response—including intensity and frequency content parameters—to validate simulated ground motions. Because the validation and the use of simulated ground motions are of interest to engineers and ground motion simulators, the selected waveform parameters used as validation metrics provide easily interpretable proxies for multiple stakeholders. Four time-dependent metrics are considered to assess how the differences in these parameters correlate to the differences in structural response between simulated and recorded ground motions. The study used 2- and 12-story special steel moment-resisting frame (SMRF) buildings and a two-span, cast-in-place concrete bridge as case study structures to showcase the application of VBIM. Results indicate that models of simulated and recorded ground motions that predict structural response based on waveform parameters are similar. Furthermore, Arias intensity is the most significant waveform parameter predicting response for all three case study structures. The difference in Arias intensity between recorded and simulated ground motions strongly correlates to differences in bridge response. The results of this study provide recommendations for ground motion simulators regarding the required accuracy of these key parameters for simulated ground motions to accurately predict structural response while also providing several steps of validation that show similarities between recorded and simulated ground motions.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or codes that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by National Science Foundation and USGS sponsored Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC). Their support is gratefully acknowledged. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors.
References
AISC. 2005. Specification for structural steel buildings. ANSI/AISC 360-05. Chicago: AISC.
Anderson, J. G. 2004. “Quantitative measure of the goodness-of-fit of synthetic seismograms.” In Vol. 243 of Proc., 13th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, 243. Tokyo: International Association for Earthquake Engineering.
Anderson, J. G. 2015. “The composite source model for broadband simulations of strong ground motions.” Seismol. Res. Lett. 86 (1): 68–74. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220140098.
ASCE. 2017. Minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings and other structures. ASCE/SEI 7-16. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Atkinson, G. M., K. Assatourians, D. M. Boore, K. Campbell, and D. Motazedian. 2009. “A guide to differences between stochastic point-source and stochastic finite-fault simulations.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 99 (6): 3192–3201.
Atkinson, G. M., and K. Goda. 2011. “Effects of seismicity models and new ground-motion prediction equations on seismic hazard assessment for four Canadian cities.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 101 (1): 176–189.
Aviram, A., K. R. Mackie, and B. Stojadinovic. 2008. “Effect of abutment modeling on the seismic response of bridge structures.” Earthquake Eng. Eng. Vibr. 7 (4): 395–402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-008-1008-3.
Baker, J. W., and C. A. Cornell. 2006. “Spectral shape, epsilon and record selection.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 35 (9): 1077–1095.
Baker, J. W., T. Lin, S. K. Shahi, and N. Jayaram. 2011. “New ground motion selection procedures and selected motions for the PEER transportation research program.” PEER Rep. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
Bazzurro, P., and N. Luco. 2006. “Damage potential of near-source ground motion records.” In Vol. 10 of Proc., 8th US National Conf. on Earthquake Engineering. Oakland, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
Boore, D. M. 2003. “Simulation of ground motion using the stochastic method.” Pure Appl. Geophys. 160 (3–4): 635–676. https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00012553.
Boore, D. M. 2009. “Comparing stochastic point-source and finite-source ground-motion simulations: SMSIM and EXSIM.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 99 (6): 3202–3216. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120090056.
Chandramohan, R., J. W. Baker, and G. G. Deierlein. 2016. “Quantifying the influence of ground motion duration on structural collapse capacity using spectrally equivalent records.” Earthquake Spectra 32 (2): 927–950. https://doi.org/10.1193/122813eqs298mr2.
Galasso, C., P. Kaviani, A. Tsioulou, and F. Zareian. 2020. “Validation of ground motion simulations for historical events using skewed bridges.” J. Earthquake Eng. 24 (10): 1652–1674. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2018.1483277.
Galasso, C., F. Zareian, I. Iervolino, and R. W. Graves. 2012. “Validation of ground-motion simulations for historical events using SDoF systems.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 102 (6): 2727–2740. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120120018.
Galasso, C., P. Zhong, F. Zareian, I. Iervolino, and R. W. Graves. 2013. “Validation of ground-motion simulations for historical events using MDoF systems.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 42 (9): 1395–1412. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2278.
Girden, E. R. 1992. ANOVA: Repeated measures. Vol. 84 of Quantitative applications in the social sciences. New York: SAGE.
Graves, R., T. H. Jordan, S. Callaghan, E. Deelman, E. Field, G. Juve, and D. Okaya. 2011. “CyberShake: A physics-based seismic hazard model for southern California.” Pure Appl. Geophys. 168 (3–4): 367–381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-010-0161-6.
Graves, R., and A. Pitarka. 2015. “Refinements to the Graves and Pitarka (2010) broadband ground-motion simulation method.” Seismol. Res. Lett. 86 (1): 75–80. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220140101.
Graves, R. W., and A. Pitarka. 2010. “Broadband ground-motion simulation using a hybrid approach.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 100 (5A): 2095–2123. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120100057.
Haselton, C. B., A. S. Whittaker, A. Hortacsu, J. W. Baker, J. Bray, and D. N. Grant. 2012. “Selecting and scaling earthquake ground motions for performing response-history analyses.” In Proc., 15th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, 4207–4217. Oakland, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
Iervolino, I., G. Manfredi, and E. Cosenza. 2006. “Ground motion duration effects on nonlinear seismic response.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 35 (1): 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.529.
Irikura, K., and H. Miyake. 2011. “Recipe for predicting strong ground motion from crustal earthquake scenarios.” Pure Appl. Geophys. 168 (1–2): 85–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-010-0150-9.
Jayaram, N., and N. Shome. 2012. “A statistical analysis of the response of tall buildings to recorded and simulated ground motions.” In Proc., 15th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, 1–10. Tokyo: International Association for Earthquake Engineering.
Jones, P., and F. Zareian. 2010. “Relative safety of high-rise and low-rise steel moment-resisting frames in Los Angeles.” Struct. Des. Tall Special Build. 19 (1–2): 183–196.
Kaviani, P., F. Zareian, and E. Taciroglu. 2012. “Seismic behavior of reinforced concrete bridges with skew-angled seat-type abutments.” Eng. Struct. 45 (Dec): 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.06.013.
Kristeková, M., J. Kristek, P. Moczo, and S. M. Day. 2006. “Misfit criteria for quantitative comparison of seismograms.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 96 (5): 1836–1850.
Lacey, M. 2019. “ANOVA for regression.” Accessed January 15, 2020. http://www.stat.yale.edu/Courses/1997-98/101/stat101.htm.
Luco, N., and C. A. Cornell. 2007. “Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for near-source and ordinary earthquake ground motions.” Earthquake Spectra 23 (2): 357–392.
McKenna, F., G. L. Fenves, M. H. Scott, and B. Jeremic. 2000. Open system for earthquake engineering simulation (OpenSees). Berkeley, CA: Univ. of California.
Motazedian, D., and G. M. Atkinson. 2005. “Stochastic finite-fault modeling based on a dynamic corner frequency.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 95 (3): 995–1010. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120030207.
Naeim, F., and R. W. Graves. 2005. “The case for seismic superiority of well-engineered tall buildings.” Struct. Des. Tall Special Build. 14 (5): 401–416.
NIST. 2011. Evaluation of the FEMA P-695 methodology for quantification of building seismic performance factors. GCR 10-917-8 (2010). Gaithersburg, MD: NIST.
Olsen, K. B., and J. E. Mayhew. 2010. “Goodness-of-fit criteria for broadband synthetic seismograms, with application to the 2008 Mw 5.4 Chino Hills, California, earthquake.” Seismol. Res. Lett. 81 (5): 715–723. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.81.5.715.
Rezaeian, S., and A. Der Kiureghian. 2010. “Simulation of synthetic ground motions for specified earthquake and site characteristics.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 39 (10): 1155–1180. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.997.
Rezaeian, S., P. Zhong, S. Hartzell, and F. Zareian. 2015. “Validation of simulated earthquake ground motions based on evolution of intensity and frequency content.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 105 (6): 3036–3049. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120140210.
Song, S. G., and P. Somerville. 2010. “Physics-based earthquake source characterization and modeling with geostatistics.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 100 (2): 482–496. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120090134.
Star, L. M., J. P. Stewart, and R. W. Graves. 2011. “Comparison of ground motions from hybrid simulations to NGA prediction equations.” Earthquake Spectra 27 (2): 331–350.
Tsioulou, A., and C. Galasso. 2018. “Information theory measures for the engineering validation of ground-motion simulations.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 47 (4): 1095–1104. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3015.
Tsioulou, A., A. A. Taflanidis, and C. Galasso. 2019. “Validation of stochastic ground motion model modification by comparison to seismic demand of recorded ground motions.” Bull. Earthquake Eng. 17 (6): 2871–2898. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-00571-x.
Vetter, C., and A. A. Taflanidis. 2014. “Comparison of alternative stochastic ground motion models for seismic risk characterization.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 58: 48–65.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Structural Engineering
Volume 148 • Issue 1 • January 2022
Copyright
© 2021 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Feb 27, 2020
Accepted: Aug 10, 2021
Published online: Oct 25, 2021
Published in print: Jan 1, 2022
Discussion open until: Mar 25, 2022
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.