EFFECTS OF RUPTURE DIRECTIVITY ON
PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS
Norman A. Abrahamson!
ABSTRACT
For long period structures such as bridges that are near faults with high activity rates,
it can be important to explicitly include directivity effects in the attenuation relations for either
probabilistic or deterministic analyses. There are two rupture directivity effects. The first
effect is a change in strength of shaking of the average horizontal component of motion, and
the second effect is the systematic differences in the strength of shaking on the two horizontal
components oriented perpendicular and parallel to the strike of the fault. The new San
Francisco Oakland Bay Bridge is used as an example to show the effects of including rupture
directivity in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. For this example, including both effects
results in about a 30% increase in the T3 second spectral acceleration for a 1500 year return
period as compared to traditional analyses.
Introduction
Rupture directivity effects can lead to large long period pulses in the ground motion.
Recently, models have been developed to quantify the directivity effect (¢.g, Somerville et al,
1997). With these models of the rupture directivity effect, directivity can be included in either
deterministic or probabilistic seismic hazard analyses. This paper demonstrates the effect of
rupture directivity on probabilistic seismic hazard analyses.
Attenuation Relations and Rupture Directivity
For design of long-period structures such as bridges, characterization of long-period
motion is essential, Attenuation relations commonly used in California do not explicitly
include rupture directivity effects but they can adjusted to account for near-fault directivity
effecis using the Somerville et al. (1997) fault-rupture directivity model. The Somerville et al.
(1997) model comprises two period-deperdent scaling factors that may be applied to
horizontal attenuation relationship. One of the factors accounts for the change in shaking
intensity in the average horizontal component of motion due to near-fault rupture directivity
effects (higher ground motions for rupture toward the site and lower ground motions for
rupture away from the site). The second factor reflects the directional nature of the shaking,
intensity using two ratios: fault normal (FN) and fault parallel (FP) versus the average (FA)
» pacific Gas and Electric Company, 245 Market Stre:t, Mail Code N4C, San Francisco, CA 94105component ratios. ‘The fault normal component is taken as the major principal axis resulting
in an FN/PA ratio larger than 1 and the fault parallel component is taken as the minor
principal axis with an FP/FA ratio smaller than 1. ‘The two scaling factors depend on whether
fault rupture is in the forward or backward direction, and also the length of fault rupturing
toward the site
There are several aspects of the empirical model for the average horizontal component
scale factors developed by Somerville et al that needed to be modified to make the model
applicable to a probabilistic hazard analysis, As published, the directivity model is independent
of distance, The data set used in the analysis includes recordings at distances of 0 to 50 km.
A distance dependent taper function was applied to the model that reduces the effect to zero
for distances greater than 60km.
Ty =1 for <30km
1-(-30)/30 for 30 km 60 km
As published, the model is applicable to magnitudes greater than 6.5, A magnitude taper was
applied that reduces the effect to zero for magnitudes less than 6.0
Ty(m) = 1 form=65
1-(m65/0.5 for6=m<6.5 Q
° form<6
The empirical model uses two directivity parameters: x and @ where x is defined as the
fraction of the fault length that ruptures toward the site and 0 is the angle between the fault
strike and epicentral azimuth (see Somerville et al for details). The worst case is x=1 and
8-0. The empirical model uses a form that increases a constant rate as x increases from 0 to
1, There is litle empirical data with x cos(0) values greater than 0.6, and the extrapolation
of the model to larger x cos(@) values is nct well constrained. Based on an evaluation of
empirical recordings and numerical simulations, the form of the directivity function is
modified to reach a maximum at X =0.4. The slope is greater than the Somerville model, but
it flattens out at a lower level, The T=3 second value is used to guide the adjustment of the
model at all periods. ‘The resulting model is given by
ypir0,T) = C,(T) + 1.88 Cx(T) X’ cos()(3)
where X’ = X for X<=0.4 and X°=0.4 for x>0.4 and C,(T) + C2(T) are from Somerville et al.
(1997), and are listed in Table 1Table 1, Model Coefficients for the Modified Somerville et al. (1997) Directivity Effects
for the Average Horizontal Component
Period (sec) ci C2
0.60 0.000 0,000
0.75 -0.084 0.185
1,00 ~0192 0.423,
1,50 ~0344 0.759
2.00. ~0.452 0.998
3.00 0605 1,333
4.00 -0713, prs
5.00. 0797 SARE
Finally, including the directivity effet should results in a reduction of the standard
deviation of the attenuation relation. Based on an evaluation of the empirical data, at T=3
seconds, there is a reduction of the standard deviation of about 0.05 natural log units due to
adding the directivity term into the ground motion model. The period dependence of the
reduction was approximated by the period dependence of the slope of the directivity effect,
To account for the reduction in the standard deviation due to including the directivity effect as
part of the model, the standard deviations for the published attenuation relations were
modified for use in the hazard analysis using the following relation:
6,,.(M,T) = 6 (MT) - 0.05 C(TY/1.333 @
where C,(T) is given in Table 1 and o(M,,7) is the standard deviation from the published
attenuation relation (without directivity effects). The final modified Somerville model for the
average horizontal component for strike-slip faults is given by
In Sagir (M,t,,0,T) = In Sa(M,r) + yp(%,8,T) Ta(t) Tm (m) 6)
where Sa(M,t) is an empirical attenuation relation without directivity. ‘This modified model is
shown in Figure la, ‘The FN/Avg ratios are shown in Figure 1b for the modified Somerville et
al, (1997) model.
Incorporating Rupture Directivity Into Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis
It is straightforward to include rupture directivity into a probabilistic hazard analysis
‘The main change is that the location of the hypocenter on the rupture area needs to be
included as an additional source of (aleatory) variability (Figure 2)
Ina standard hazard calculation, the hazard is given by
vido a= Man) | YY J J ta fm Dm RA fa, Do 8) G6)
Bhosob meg
P(A> Z| myr(x,y,RA, W)) dW aRA de dy dinwhere N; (Myjn) is the rate of earthquakes with magnitude greater than M,,;, from the ith
source; m is magnitude; Myx, is the maximum magnitude (for the it source); fm(m),
fw(m,W), fRAGm.RA), fix, and fey are probability density functions for the earthquake
magnitude, rupture width, rupture area, locetion of the center of rupture along strike and
location of the center of rupture down dip, respectively; and P(A>zim,r,e) is the probability
that the ground motion exceeds the test level z for a given magnitude and distance,
Including directivity effects for strike-slip faults, the hazard is given by
vsde)= NUM) | fF LL Fe il fg mA fn 2 fo 216, 0,)
17-0 Rio Be=0lhe=O m= My
P(A>2|m,r,X,0)dW dRAds dydh.dm a
where r, X, and @ are computed from the rupture location and the hypocenter location, In
this calculation, we need to define and additional probability density function for the location
of the hypocenter on the rupture, f,(h,). Here, I have assumed uniform distributions for the
hypocenter location (e.g. no preferred locations for the nucleation of the rupture)
It could be argued that the effect off directivity on the average horizontal component
is already included in the standard deviation ofthe ground motion of the published attenuation
relations. There are two reasons why the published standard deviations do not adequately
account for directivity effects. First, the standard deviation of most attenuation relations is
averaged over all distances. As a result, tke standard deviation of the near fault ground
motion is underestimated by the average stardard deviation over all distances. Second, the
size of the directivity effect can vary significantly for different locations that are the same
distance away from the fault. ‘That is, a particular site-fault geometry may be more likely to
experience forward directivity effects than other sites.
Example Calculation
‘As an example, the probabilistic seismic hazard is computed with and without
directivity. As discussed above, we can consider the effects of directivity on the average
horizontal component or on the individual components oriented parallel and perpendicular to
the strike of the fault, The base case is using the attenuation relations as published. These are
for the geometric mean of the two horizontal components. This case is label as “without
directivity” in Figure 3, Including just the effect of directivity on the average horizontal
component increases the hazard at return periods greater than 500 years. The hazard with
directivity can be deaggregated in terms of the rupture directivity parameter, Xcos(8). The
deaggregation at the 1500 year return perio¢ is shown in Figure 4. This figure shows that
most of the long period ground motion hazard is from forward directivity cases.Deageregation on the directivity can guide the selection of time histories in terms of selecting
forward directicity time histories vs neutral or backward directivity time histories
Conclusions
Rupture directivity has not been included in most probabilistic seismic hazard
calculations, To accurately estimate the hazard from long period ground motions, directivity
should be directly included in the hazard analysis as one of the important sources of variability
of the long period ground motion. I believe that including rupture directivity will soon
become the standard of practice for computing the hazard for long period ground motions
near active faults,
References
Somerville, P. G., N. F. Smith, R. W, Graves. and N, A. Abrahamson (1997). Modification of
empirical strong ground motion attenuation relations to include the amplitude and
duration effects of rupture directivity, Seism, Res. Let, Vol. 68, 199-222
1 03; rT
os: =
Somers et
_ Of coe al, (1997)
Zos. Ee — FNAverage
S02 Bo Horizontal,
5 7 Model
2 0: Z ous 1b.
202 =z
on
204
064A] __ stotted Somervte eta a
“off (197 sity model
ol prorat rer frerefareri reer frre 0.
0 0102 03 04 050607 0809 1 0 10 20 3040 50 60 70 #0 90
Xoos(Tht) Theta
Figure 1. Modified Somerville et al, (1997) rupture directivity model,Depth (km)
0 1 20 30 40 50 6D 808100
Distance (km)
Figure 2. Example of the variability in hypocenter location over the rupture surface for a single rupture
location. The heavy Tine defines the rupture arca of m earthquake scenario, the circle indicates the center of
thegupture and the stars indicate the range of hyposenters,
g 1 =
3 “Ave Horizontal without Divetvity
3
Bos Fault Parallel Component
% Average Horizontal Component
g oor vor Fault Nsmal Component
E 0.001
2
2 0.0001-
0 005 0.1 0.15 02 025 03 035 04 045 05
Spectral Acceleration (e)
Figuro 3. Effects of directivity on the hazard for T=3 seconds spectral acceleration for the new San
Francisco Bay Bridge.
Figure 4. Deaggrogation of the hazard for a spectral period of 3.0 seconds at the 1500 year return period.