Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation For Performance-Based Design

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking
Estimation for Performance-Based Design
Epicenter
Fault at surface
Focal depth
Fault at depth
Introduction
Earthquake engineering design of buildings increasingly is

using nonlinear dynamic analysis to demonstrate building
performance. One requirement of the nonlinear dynamic
procedure is the selection and manipulation of ground
motions appropriate to design hazard level.
Seismic hazard due to ground shaking should be determined
considering the location of the building with respect to
causative faults, the regional site-specific geologic
characteristics, and the selected earthquake hazard level. In
general, the seismic hazard should include earthquake-
induced geologic site hazards in addition to ground shaking.
The discussion here is limited to ground shaking hazard.
Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation for Performance-Based Design

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking
Estimation Using EZ-FRISK and SimQke GR
Continental Asia & SE Asia Hazard Map

Fault Seismic Sources & Trenches

Area Seismic Sources

Earthquakes in the Island
Unknown
Magnitude
06/14/1990 Known
M 7.1 Date and
Magnitude
Tablas Fault
Unknown
Date and
05/16/1915
Magnitude
M 5.5
08/26/1902
05/01/1787 M 6.1
07/12/1787 02/02/1887
M 6.1
01/24/1948
M 8.3

Site-Specific Seismic Studies
Needs and Requirements
Because the Code design parameters are generic, they are also
generally conservative. The Code includes provisions for use of a site-
specific seismic study to derive structural design parameters.
The decision to perform site-specific seismic study can be driven by the
following factors:
•Soil Classification: If the subsurface condition indicate Site Class E or F.
•Cost Optimization: If the owner wants to reduce the construction cost.
Performing site-specific seismic study will reduce the dynamic loads and
the Seismic Design Category. The study will add cost to the budget of the
project which is minimal compared to the potential construction cost
savings.
•Analysis Method: The site conditions of the structure may require input
parameters for the seismic analysis not covered in the Code.

Needs and Requirements (contd…)
For example Section 208.4.3.1 of the Building Code requires the hazard
analysis to account for regional tectonic setting, geology, and seismicity,
the expected recurrence rates and maximum magnitude of earthquakes
on known faults and source zones as specified in Section 21.2 of ASCE
7-10 Standard.
Seismic hazard due to ground shaking should be determined considering
the location of the building with respect to causative faults, the regional
site-specific geologic characteristics, and the selected earthquake hazard
level. In general, the seismic hazard should include earthquake-induced
geologic site hazards (Site Response Analysis) in addition to ground
shaking hazard (Seismic Hazard Analysis).
The discussion here is limited to ground shaking hazard (Seismic Hazard
Analysis).

Seismic Hazard Analysis
A seismic hazard study provides an alternative to the readily available

Building Code seismic zone maps to derive seismic coefficients for which
the structure has to be designed.

Earthquakes occur in areas where they cannot be clearly assigned to a
particular fault. Earthquake recurrence in these zones is based on models
that consider the historic occurrence of earthquakes in the area.
This analysis used the: SE Asia region Tablas, Tablas 2, Lubang,
Philippine-central fault seismic sources; SE Asia region Mindanao area
seismic source; and the West Panay fault user defined seismic source to
determine the peak ground acceleration PGA as indicated in Section
1803.5.12 of IBC 2009.
The analysis applies a logic tree approach to include the uncertainties in
model parameters.
This analysis used Spudich (1997) Soil, Zhao et al (2006) USGS 2008,
and Boore-Atkinson (2008) NGA USGS 2008 Ground Motion Prediction
“attenuation” Equations (GMPEs) to capture the uncertainty in ground
motion calculations.

Zhao et al (2006) USGS 2008 (33%)
Boore-Atkinson( 2008) NGA USGS 2008

M6.95 (20%)
(33%)
Spudich (1997) Soil (33%)

M7.15 (60%)
Tablas Fault
as above
Only the top branch in this
partial logic tree is drawn
M7.25 (20%)
as above completely and the other
similar branches are omitted
here.
Prediction Models
Magnitude Range
Ground Motion
The percentages are the
weights.
Partial logic tree to show epistemic magnitude uncertainties

The coordinates latitude and longitude of the site was taken from Google
Earth software.
The site specific value for Vs30 was 176 m/s (shear wave velocity
averaged over the top 30 meters of soil). Thus, the site is classified as
Site Class E.

What Is EZ-FRISK?
EZ-FRISK™ is a software package used by engineers and seismologists
to perform site-specific earthquake hazard analysis. The key capabilities
are:
• Seismic Hazard Analysis — calculating the probability of
earthquake ground shaking at the surface or in the bedrock
beneath a site based on the location of surrounding faults as
described in Chapter 21 of ASCE 7-10 Standard.
• Spectral Matching — adjusting an accelerogram to match a target
response spectrum, while preserving realistic time-dependent
characteristics of the ground motion.
• Site Response Analysis — calculating the ground motion at the
surface given a bedrock ground motion and the layers of soil and
rock that overlay the bedrock at the site.

Seismic Hazard Analysis Results
Total Hazard Spectral Response @ 5% Damping
The curve is developed for a range of different parameters to create
response spectrum for certain constant of proportionality.

10% Probability in 50 Years
Return Period = 475 years
Rate of Exceedance = 1/475 = 0.0021
PGA = 0.28g
0.28g PGA Hazard Curve Ordinate for 475 Year Return Period

0.05 sec Sa = 0.35g
0.05 sec Sa = 0.35g Hazard Curve Ordinate for 475 Year Return Period

Raw PSHA Uniform Hazard Spectrum
If the process is continued for 0.10, 0.20, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 2, 3, and 4
seconds, the result is a complete response spectrum.
Highest
amplitude
Design Basis EQ (DBE) Uniform Hazard Spectrum for 475 Year Return Period

Raw Uniform Hazard Spectrum (contd…)
Highest
amplitude
Maximum Considered EQ (MCE) Uniform Hazard Spectrum for 2475 Year Return Period

Hazard by Seismic Source Contribution

Hazard by Seismic Source Contribution (contd…)

Hazard by Seismic Source Contribution (contd…)
Controlling Source

Hazard for SE Asia Region – Tablas Fault Seismic Source

PGA = 0.15g

Hazard for SE Asia Region – Tablas 2 Fault Seismic Source

PGA = 0.02g

Hazard for SE Asia Region – Lubang Fault Seismic Source

PGA = 0.07g

Hazard for SE Asia Region – Phil.-Central Fault Seismic Source

PGA = 0.06g

Hazard for SE Asia Region – West Panay Fault Seismic Source

PGA = 0.21g

Hazard for SE Asia Region – Mindanao Area Seismic Source

PGA = 0.28g

Activity Rate by Seismic Source

Activity Rate by Seismic Source (contd…)
Minor Design 74 Year EQ Rate of Exceedance =

1/74
MMI VII Frequently Level ( Occasional EQ)

Activity Rate by Seismic Source (contd…)
Design Basis 440 Year EQ

Rate of Exceedance = 1/440
MMI VIII Design Intensity level (Rare EQ)

PSHA Deaggregation for 475 Year EQ
In this study we will assume that the fundamental period of building T is
less than 1 second. (Often T is taken ≈ 1 second because the period of
transition from deterministic to stochastic behavior is uncertain). The Sa
highest amplitude value for the 475 year EQ is 0.6567 in the 0.20 period
spectral ordinate of the Uniform Hazard Spectrum (UHS).

PSHA Deaggregation for 475 Year EQ (contd…)

PSHA Deaggregation for 475 Year EQ (contd…)
Highest
amplitude

PHSA Deaggregation for 2475 Year EQ
The Sa highest amplitude value for the 2475 year EQ is 1.042 in the 0.20
period spectral ordinate of the Uniform Hazard Spectrum (UHS).

PHSA Deaggregation for 2475 Year EQ (contd…)

PHSA Deaggregation for 2475 Year EQ (contd…)
Highest
amplitude

0.50 Fractile Deterministic Spectra

0.50 Fractile Deterministic Spectra (contd…)
Highest
amplitude

0.84 Fractile Deterministic Spectra

0.84 Fractile Deterministic Spectra (contd…)
Highest
amplitude

Generation of Design Response Spectrum
UBC 1997 Generic (DBE) Response Spectrum

UBC 1997 Generic (DBE) Response Spectrum (contd…)

UBC 1997 Generic (DBE) Response Spectrum (contd…)
Highest
amplitude

Simulation of Earthquakes
Artificial EQ of Raw PSHA 475 Year EQ UHS

Artificial EQ of Raw PSHA 475 Year EQ UHS (contd…)

t = 9.79 sec
PGA = 2.5574 m/sec/sec
Simulated accelerogram compatible with raw PSHA 475 year EQ uniform hazard spectrum.

Artificial EQ of Raw PSHA 2475 Year EQ UHS


t = 9.25 sec
Simulated accelerogram compatible with raw PSHA 2475 year EQ uniform hazard spectrum.

Artificial EQ of Deaggregated PSHA 475 Year EQ UHS

Artificial EQ of Deaggregated PSHA 475 Year EQ UHS (contd…)

t = 9.26 sec
Simulated accelerogram compatible with conditional mean spectrum 475 year EQ.

Artificial EQ of Deaggregated PSHA 2475 Year EQ UHS


t = 9.26 sec
Simulated accelerogram compatible with conditional mean spectrum 2475 year EQ.

Artificial EQ of 0.50 Fractile Deterministic Spectrum

Artificial EQ of 0.50 Fractile Deterministic Spectrum (contd…)

t = 9.25 sec
Simulated accelerogram compatible with DSHA 0.50 fractile.

Artificial EQ of 0.84 Fractile Deterministic Spectrum


t = 9.24 sec
Simulated accelerogram compatible with DSHA 0.84 fractile.

Artificial EQ of UBC 1997 Design Spectrum

Artificial EQ of UBC 1997 Design Spectrum (contd…)

Artificial EQ of UBC 1997 Design Spectrum (contd…)
t = 9.24 sec
Simulated accelerogram compatible with UBC 1997 design response spectrum.

Summary and Concluding Remarks
• Deterministic: Proposes design for the maximum

earthquake, that is the one that will produce most
severe ground motion at a site.
• Probabilistic: Advocates that likelihood of occurrence
should also be considered in view of the fact that the
life of a structure is very short compared to the
recurrence intervals of large events.

• There are two types of uncertainty in seismic hazard
analysis that the deterministic analysis has no way of
accounting:
1. Aleatory uncertainty – reflecting the inherent
randomness in earthquake occurrence and ground
motion generation.
2. Epistemic uncertainty – resulting from our
incomplete knowledge of the Earth processes
involved (i.e., seismicity, rupture characteristics, and
seismic energy excitation).

• In annual rate of event and annual frequency of
exceedence, small frequency or long return period can
result in very high design ground motion.
• Deaggregation is used to identify the most likely causal
magnitudes and distances for known spectral
acceleration value Sa at the fundamental period T of the
structure.

• Comparison of raw PSHA 2475 year EQ response
spectrum to UBC 1997 design response spectrum.

• Comparison of deaggregated PSHA 2475 year EQ
response spectrum to UBC 1997 design response
spectrum.

• Comparison of 0.50 fractile DSHA response spectrrum
to UBC 1997 design response spectrum.

• Comparison of 0.84 fractile DSHA response spectrum
to UBC 1997 design response spectrum.

• Comparison of the raw and the deaggregated PSHA
475 year EQ simulated ground motion time history.
Target Spectrum accelerogram Period PGA
(sec) (m/sec/sec)
Raw PSHA 475 Year 9.79 2.5574

EQ (DBE)
Deaggregated PSHA 9.26 2.3138

475 Year EQ (DBE)

• Comparison of the raw and the deaggregated PSHA
2475 year EQ simulated ground motion time history.
(sec) (m/sec/sec)
Raw PSHA 2475 9.25 4.2477

Year EQ (MCE)

2475 Year EQ (MCE)

• Comparison of the DSHA 50 and the 84 percentile
simulated ground motion time history.
(sec) (m/sec/sec)
DSHA 50 Percentile 9.24 4.2796

(MCE)
DSHA 84 Percentile 9.24 8.0256

(MCE)

• Comparison of the UBC 1997 and the deaggregated
PSHA 475 year EQ simulated ground motion time
history.
(sec) (m/sec/sec)
UBC 1997 9.24 3.5316

Response Spectrum
(DBE)

475 Year EQ (DBE)

• Simulated earthquake motions are used for
time-integration analyses where no satisfactory real
motion records are available. Evaluation of structural
response and floor response spectra using simulated
motions is frequently an important step in the seismic
design of constructed structures.
• The art and science of ground motion evaluation
undeniably plays a vital role in performance-based
design.

• In performance-based engineering, the ground motions
may need to be specified not only as intensity measures
but also by suites of time histories for input into
time-domain nonlinear analyses of structures.
Development of these time histories requires that the
seismic hazard first be deaggregated to identify the
most critical ranges of magnitude and distance, that
appropriate time histories be selected for these
seismological conditions, and that the selected time
histories be appropriately scaled.

• In performance-based design framework, it is common
to define both a design basis earthquake (DBE) and a
maximum considered earthquake (MCE).
• While details vary from case to case, the DBE usually
corresponds to ground shaking having 10% probability
of exceedance in 50 years (10%/50 yr).
• MCE shaking levels vary, usually corresponding to
either 5%/50 yr (10%/100 yr) or 2%/50yr (10%/250 yr)
levels, perhaps capped by shaking associated with
attenuation of characteristic earthquakes in regions with
relatively well-defined active faults.

• In most cases, the DBE is at a hazard level consistent
with the design basis for new buildings. When used in
performance-based design applications for new building
designs, the DBE may be used in conjunction with
(some or all of) the prescriptive provisions of the building
code as the basis for establishing initial building strength
and stiffness requirements, while for existing buildings
the DBE is sometimes used to check for life safety (a
margin against collapse and protection against falling
hazards) (FEMA 356).
• The MCE is usually used to check safety against local or
global collapse.

• In this hypothetical case study:
1. Using DBE UBC 1997 design response spectrum in
dynamic analysis will produce higher dynamic loads
than the DBE raw PSHA 475 year EQ and DBE
deaggregated PSHA 475 year EQ spectra.
2. There is a slight difference in the value of PGA in
MCE raw PSHA 2475 year EQ and MCE DSHA
0.50 fractile spectra. The MCE site-specific
response spectrum can be that of raw PSHA or 0.50
fractile DSHA if PSHA deaggregation is not
considered.

3. For the purposes of the ASCE 7-10 Standard, the site-
specific MCE response spectrum shall not be taken
lower than corresponding ordinates of the design
response spectrum as specified in Section 21.2.3.
Applying the limits to the deaggregated PSHA 2475
Year Earthquake response spectrum will results a
MCE site-specific response spectrum.

MCE PSHA 2475 Year EQ Site-Specific Response Spectrum

t = 9.25 sec
Simulated accelerogram compatible with MCE PSHA 2475 year EQ site-specific response
spectrum.

Cycling option
may be used to
smoothen the
match of
calculated
spectra of the
time history to
the target
spectra.
Acceleration target MCE PSHA 2475 year EQ site-specific spectrum (smoothed line) and
the computed spectra of the simulated time history (wiggled line).

or
4. Applying Section 21.2.3 of the ASCE 7-10 Standard to

the DSHA 0.50 fractile response spectrum will results a
MCE site-specific response spectrum.
The important thing to recognize is that the PSHA and DSHA are simply tools to be used to
assist in decision making. One method is not better than the other; rather, the methods are
complimentary.

MCE DSHA 0.50 Fractile Site-Specific Response Spectrum

t = 9.24 sec
Simulated accelerogram compatible with MCE DSHA 0.50 fractile site-specific response
spectrum.

Cycling option
may be used to
smoothen the
match of
calculated
spectra of the
time history to
the target
spectra.
Acceleration target MCE DSHA 0.50 fractile site-specific spectrum (smoothed line) and the
computed spectra of the simulated time history (wiggled line).

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation For Performance-Based Design

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation For Performance-Based Design

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking

Estimation for Performance-Based Design

Earthquake engineering design of buildings increasingly is

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation for Performance-Based Design

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation for Performance-Based Design

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation for Performance-Based Design

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation for Performance-Based Design

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation for Performance-Based Design

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation for Performance-Based Design

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation for Performance-Based Design

A seismic hazard study provides an alternative to the readily available

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation for Performance-Based Design

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation for Performance-Based Design

Boore-Atkinson( 2008) NGA USGS 2008

Spudich (1997) Soil (33%)

Partial logic tree to show epistemic magnitude uncertainties

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation for Performance-Based Design

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation for Performance-Based Design

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation for Performance-Based Design

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation for Performance-Based Design

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation for Performance-Based Design

0.05 sec Sa = 0.35g

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation for Performance-Based Design

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation for Performance-Based Design

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation for Performance-Based Design

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation for Performance-Based Design

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation for Performance-Based Design

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation for Performance-Based Design

10% Probability in 50 Years

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation for Performance-Based Design

10% Probability in 50 Years

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation for Performance-Based Design

10% Probability in 50 Years

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation for Performance-Based Design

10% Probability in 50 Years

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation for Performance-Based Design

10% Probability in 50 Years

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation for Performance-Based Design

10% Probability in 50 Years

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation for Performance-Based Design

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation for Performance-Based Design

Minor Design 74 Year EQ Rate of Exceedance =

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation for Performance-Based Design

Design Basis 440 Year EQ

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation for Performance-Based Design

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation for Performance-Based Design

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation for Performance-Based Design

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation for Performance-Based Design

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation for Performance-Based Design

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation for Performance-Based Design

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation for Performance-Based Design

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation for Performance-Based Design

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation for Performance-Based Design

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation for Performance-Based Design

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation for Performance-Based Design

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation for Performance-Based Design

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation for Performance-Based Design

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation for Performance-Based Design

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation for Performance-Based Design

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation for Performance-Based Design

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation for Performance-Based Design

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation for Performance-Based Design

Hypothetical Earthquake Ground Shaking Estimation for Performance-Based Design