1 / 28

Review of GMSM Solicitation and Methods Nicolas Luco, On behalf of The PEER GMSM Program

Review of GMSM Solicitation and Methods Nicolas Luco, On behalf of The PEER GMSM Program. 2 nd Annual PEER Ground Motion Selection & Modification (GMSM) Program Workshop 29 October 2007. Outline of Presentation. Review of GMSM Objectives (Solicited)

princess-osborn
Télécharger la présentation

Review of GMSM Solicitation and Methods Nicolas Luco, On behalf of The PEER GMSM Program

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. Review of GMSM Solicitation and Methods Nicolas Luco,On behalf ofThe PEER GMSM Program 2nd Annual PEER Ground Motion Selection & Modification (GMSM) Program Workshop 29 October 2007

  2. Outline of Presentation • Review of GMSM Objectives (Solicited) • List of GMSM Methods for Objectives 3 & 4 • Summaries of GMSM Methods for Objectives 3 & 4 • List of GMSM Methods for Objectives 1 & 2

  3. GMSM Objectives • Average (or average & dispersion) of structural response for a given response spectrum • Why not? Because probability of exceedance in T years (PE) of response spectrum is not typically known. • Median & probability distribution (CDF) of structural response for a given Sa(T1), M, R (and S, F)* • Why? Because PE of Sa(T1) and associated M, R are typically known (e.g., via PSHA and deaggregation). • Median and probability distribution (CDF) of structural response for a given M, R (and S, F)* • Why? For scenarios or "attenuation relations" for structural response. * Hereafter M, R, S, & F will be abbreviated to M, R.

  4. GMSM Methods for Objectives 3 & 4 "Sa(T1) Methods" "Uniform Hazard Spectrum (UHS) Methods" "Conditional Mean Spectrum (CMS) Methods" "Spectral Shape Proxy Methods" "Inelastic Ground Motion Parameter Methods"

  5. "Sa(T1) Methods" (4 & 53, 67) • Selection: GMs consistent with given M, R • Scaling: Match given Sa(T1) (Source: ATC-58 35% Draft for Method #67)

  6. "Sa(T1) Methods" (4 & 53, 67) • Selection: GMs consistent with given M, R • Scaling: Match given Sa(T1) (Source: Shome for Methods #4 & 53)

  7. "UHS Methods" (9980-9989) • Selection: GMs with spectral shape similar to UHS, perhaps consistent with given M, R • Scaling: "Closely match" UHS (Source: Haselton for Method #9980)

  8. 2500yr UHS UHS for our M, R, Sa(T1) Scenario • Suppose that the only fault near the S=400m/s site is F=Strike-Slip at R=10km capable of M=7 every 50yrs • In this case, 2500yr Sa(Ti) is equal to 98%-ile Sa(Ti) for given M, R, S, F (since 1/50yrs*2%=1/2500yrs)

  9. "CMS Methods" – Objective 4 (10, 15?, 24?) • Selection: GMs with spectral shape similar to CMS, perhaps consistent with given M, R • Scaling: Match given Sa(T1) (Method #10) or "closely match" CMS (Methods #24, 15?) (Source: Haselton for Method #10)

  10. "CMS Methods" – Objective 4 (10, 15?, 24?) • Selection: GMs with spectral shape similar to CMS, perhaps consistent with given M, R • Scaling: Match given Sa(T1) (Method #10) or "closely match" CMS (Methods #24, 15?) (Source: Haselton for Method #15)

  11. "CMS Methods" – Objective 4 (10, 15?, 24?) • Selection: GMs with spectral shape similar to CMS, perhaps consistent with given M, R • Scaling: Match given Sa(T1) (Method #10) or "closely match" CMS (Methods #24, 15?) (Source: Haselton for Method #24)

  12. "CMS Methods" – Objective 3 (45) • Selection: GMs with spectral shape approximating dis- tribution about CMS (Obj. 3) or similar to CMS (Obj. 4), and with consistent M, R • Scaling: Match given Sa(T1) (Source: Geomatrix Consultants for Method #45)

  13. Review of Conditional Mean Spectrum • CMS ≡ expected spectrum for given Sa(T1), M, R where r = correlation between lnSa(Ti) and lnSa(T1) e.g., … M = 7 R = 10km Sa(T1) = "2s" (Source: Baker for Method #10)

  14. "Proxy Methods" – e(T1) (20, 31) • Selection: GMs consistent with given e(T1) and M, R • Scaling: Match given Sa(T1) e.g., for … e(T1) = 1-3 M = 6.7-7.3 R = 0-42km S = 215-560m/s (Source: Haselton for Method #20)

  15. "Proxy Methods" – e(T1) (20, 31) • Selection: GMs consistent with given e(T1) and M, R • Scaling: Match given Sa(T1) (Source: Haselton for Method #31)

  16. "Proxy Methods" – Sa(Ti) Vector (57 & 58) • Selection: GMs consistent with expected (Obj. 4) or distribution of (Obj. 3) Sa(0.5T1) & Sa(2T1) for given Sa(T1), M, R, and consistent with given M, R • Scaling: Match given Sa(T1) (Source: Shome for Methods #57 & 58)

  17. "Inelastic Methods" – Obj. 4 (6) • Selection: GMs with expected Sdi(T1,R)/Sde(T1) consistent with that and DurUNI, PGV, Sa(2T1) for given Sa(T1), M, R • Scaling: Match given Sa(T1) • DurUNI, PGV, Sa(2T1) from available ground motion prediction equations (a.k.a., attenuation relations) • Expected Sdi(T1,R)/Sde(T1) for DurUNI, PGV, Sa(T1), Sa(2T1) computed as part of method

  18. "Inelastic Methods" – Obj. 4 (11) • Selection: GMs with Inelastic Displacement Surface similar to that expected for given Sa(T1), M, R • Scaling: Optimal fit to expected (i.e., target) IDS CMS x CR(R,T,e) Sdi(T,R)/Sde(T) (Source: Shantz for Method #11)

  19. "Inelastic Methods" – Obj. 4 (27, 35) • Selection: Random • Scaling: Match expected Sdi(T1,dy) (Method #27) or IM1I&2E (Method #35) for given Sa(T1), M, R • dy from Nonlinear Static Pushover curve • Expected Sdi(T1,dy) from Tothong & Cornell (2006) • Expected IM1I&2E from expected Sdi(T1,dy) and Tothong & Cornell (2006) (Luco, 2002)

  20. "Inelastic Methods" – Obj. 3 (26, 34) • Selection: Random • Scaling: Approximate distribution of Sdi(T1,dy) (Method #26) or IM1I&2E (Method #34) for given Sa(T1), M, R • Distribution of Sdi(T1,dy) or IM1I&2E also from Tothong & Cornell (2006) 10 GMs 2 GMs 7 GMs 7 GMs 2 GMs 0 GMs 0 GMs

  21. GMSM Methods for Objectives 1 & 2

  22. GMSM Methods for Objectives 3 & 4 "Sa(T1) Methods" "Uniform Hazard Spectrum (UHS) Methods" "Conditional Mean Spectrum (CMS) Methods" "Spectral Shape Proxy Methods" "Inelastic Ground Motion Parameter Methods"

  23. Extra Slides …

  24. "Proxy Methods" – Objective 3 (30) • Selection: GMs consistent with given e(T1) and M, R • Scaling: To given Sa(T1) (Source: Haselton for Method #30)

  25. Old Presentation …

  26. GMSM Methods Currently being Compared Notes: A, B, C = Class of GMSM Method for given Objective. #1D = Adjust resulting variability of EDP for effects of scaling. ( √ ) = Median for Objective #2 or 4 obtained via CDF from Objective #1 or 3, respectively.

  27. Additional GMSM Methods to be Compared

  28. Summary of Categorization of GMSM Methods • 4 Objectives 1. CDF of EDP | M, R, S, F 2. Median of EDP | M, R, S, F 3. CDF of EDP | M, R, S, F and SA(T1) 4. Median of EDP | M, R, S, F and SA(T1) • 3 Classes (A, B, C) per objective • 30+ specific GMSM Methods under consideration • Any other objectives, classes, specific methods?

More Related