1 / 35

Comparison of Recorded and Simulated Ground Motions

Comparison of Recorded and Simulated Ground Motions. Presented by: Emel Seyhan , PhD Student University of California, Los Angeles Collaborators: Li sa M. Star , PhD Candidate, University of California, Los Angeles Robert W. Graves , PhD, USGS

usoa
Download Presentation

Comparison of Recorded and Simulated Ground Motions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Comparison of Recorded and Simulated Ground Motions • Presented by: • EmelSeyhan, PhD Student • University of California, Los Angeles • Collaborators: • Lisa M. Star, PhD Candidate, University of California, Los Angeles • Robert W. Graves, PhD, USGS • Jonathan P. Stewart, PhD, PE, University of California, Los Angeles

  2. Outline • Motivation • Hybrid Simulation Procedure • Validation Analysis & Results • Distance scaling • Standard deviation • Calibration of Hybrid Simulation Procedure • Distance attenuation • Standard deviation • Conclusions

  3. Motivation • Broadband motions for response history analysis • Some (M, R) ranges poorly sampled by recordings • Motions needed with specific attributes, e.g. • Basin effect • Near fault effects

  4. Motivation • Broadband motions for response history analysis • Some (M, R) ranges poorly sampled by recordings • Motions needed with specific attributes, e.g. • Basin effect • Near fault effects Simulations hold potential to provide useful ground motions for engineering application in these situations

  5. ShakeOut Scenario Description Hughes Lake SanGorgonioPass Bombay Beach • Moment magnitude 7.8 earthquake • 150 yr return period (last events 1857 & 1680) • Evaluated for three different possible hypocenters

  6. Puente Hills Scenario • Directly under down town Los Angeles • 7.15 Mw Earthquake • Buried reverse fault

  7. Simulation Procedure • Hybrid procedure • f<1 Hz: physics based Physics-based

  8. Simulation Procedure • Hybrid procedure • f<1 Hz: physics based • f>1 Hz: stochastic Reference: Graves et al, 2004 Stochastic

  9. Simulation Procedure • Hybrid procedure • f<1 Hz: physics based • f>1 Hz: stochastic Reference: Graves et al, 2004

  10. Simulation Procedure • Hybrid procedure • Source function • Kinematically prescribed source model • Slip distribution • Rupture velocity ShakeOut, Mw 7.8

  11. Simulation Procedure • Hybrid procedure • Source function • Semi-empirical site term (fn of Vs30)

  12. Distance Attenuation

  13. Calibration Analysis Approach • Calculate residuals • 4 GMPEs: AS, BA, CB, CY • Random effect analysis: Separate event term (hi) from within-event residual (ei,j) • Distance-scaling evaluated from (ei,j)

  14. Calibration Analysis ei,j = Ri,j - hi General Model

  15. Intra-event Residuals

  16. Intra-event Standard Deviation • too low for T < 1.0 s • Large transition at T=1.0 s s=stdev(e)

  17. Calibration of Hybrid Simulation Procedure • Focus on high frequency stochastic model • Controlling parameters • Source parameters: Stress drop, slip function, rise time, rupture velocity • Path parameters: Distance, crustal velocity & damping (Q) • Site parameters: Near surface crustal velocity, shallow site term (Vs30) • Parameter selected for remove distance attenuation bias • Procedure to increase intra-event standard deviation

  18. Scope • Distance attenuation calibration • Strike slip fault M5, 6.5, 7.25 and 8 • Distributed arrays M5 M6.5 M7.25 M8

  19. M6.5 M5 • Slip models • For M5, 6.5, 7.25 and 8 • Random slips

  20. M7.25 M8

  21. Various levels of crustal damping, Q • Low Qo (a=25) • Mid Qo (a=41) • High Qo (a=57) Q (f) = Qo*fn (n = 0.6) ShakeOut Qo= a + b*Vs (b = 34)

  22. Verification of Hybrid Trends Using Stochastic Part Only • Using same level of Q (Low Qo) • Original ShakeOut • This study (M8) similar trend with previous work esp. beyond about 10 km

  23. Removing Distance Attenuation Bias • Comparing different level of Q (M7.25) • Using low Qo • Using high Qo

  24. Removing Distance Attenuation Bias • Residuals for different level of Q (M7.25) • Using low Qo • Using high Qo

  25. Removing Distance Attenuation Bias • Fit semi-log line to residuals of average ground motions • For different level of Q • Using low Qo • Using high Qo • Repeat for all M, GMPEs, IMs Y = c*ln(X) + d

  26. Removing Distance Attenuation Bias PGA • Slope of residuals of average ground motions • Scatter based on all gmpes • Using low Qo • Using high Qo

  27. Removing Distance Attenuation Bias • Slope of residuals of average responses • Using low Qo • Using high Qo

  28. Intra-event scatter calibration • Increasing intra-event standard deviation • Randomized velocity • Randomized Fourier Amplitude • Randomized Q

  29. Intra-event scatter calibration Approach • Modify parameters e.g. • Velocity profile Rand Case NonRand Case BA08

  30. Intra-event scatter calibration Approach • Randomization of Fourier Amplitude • Adding variation

  31. Intra-event scatter calibration Approach • Randomization of Fourier Amplitude • Adding variation Rand Case NonRand Case BA08

  32. Concluding Remarks • Calibrated simulation procedures needed for engineering practice • Validation process reveals: • Faster distance attenuation at shorter periods • Low intra-event standard deviation T<1s

  33. Cont’d • Calibration process reveals: • Possible to get slower distance attenuation by using higher Q • Randomization of Fourier Spectrum gives better results than randomization of velocity

  34. More? • Implementation fully hybrid simulation with revised Q and Vs

  35. Thank you

More Related