1 / 18

Engineering Perspective on Application of Simulated Ground Motions

Engineering Perspective on Application of Simulated Ground Motions. Jonathan P. Stewart & Emel Seyhan University of California, Los Angeles Robert W. Graves USGS Pasadena. Outline. Need for verification, validation, and calibration (VVC) Validation procedures

tallis
Télécharger la présentation

Engineering Perspective on Application of 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. Engineering Perspective on Application of Simulated Ground Motions Jonathan P. Stewart & Emel Seyhan University of California, Los Angeles Robert W. Graves USGS Pasadena

  2. Outline • Need for verification, validation, and calibration (VVC) • Validation procedures • Validation of ShakeOut motions • Calibration of high frequency IMs from Graves-Pitarka hybrid procedure

  3. Need for VVC • Verification: consistency of motions across computational platforms for common conditions ShakeOut: example vel.(t) Bielak et al., 2010

  4. Need for VVC • Verification • Validation: results of analysis generally consistent with recordings

  5. Need for VVC • Verification • Validation • Calibration: adjustment of parameters to achieve desired attribute of simulated motions

  6. Validation Procedures • Waveform comparison using earthquake data Graves and Pitarka, 2010

  7. Validation Procedures • Waveform comparison using earthquake data • IM comparison to earthquake data Closest Distance (km) Graves and Pitarka, 2010

  8. Validation Procedures • Waveform comparison using earthquake data • IM comparison to earthquake data • IM comparison to GMPEs Frankel, 2009

  9. ShakeOut Validation • Motions from hybrid procedure

  10. ShakeOut Validation • Motions from hybrid procedure • Analysis of residuals • 4 NGA GMPEs • R, Vs30, Z for site i

  11. ShakeOut Validation • Motions from hybrid procedure • Analysis of residuals • Too-fast distance attenuation SO R PH R Star et al., 20xx

  12. ShakeOut Validation • Motions from hybrid procedure • Analysis of residuals • Too-fast distance attenuation • Too-low intra-event standard deviation Star et al., 20xx

  13. Calibration • Adjustment to high frequency component of hybrid procedure

  14. Calibration • Adjustment to high frequency component of hybrid procedure • Increase Q to slow distance attenuation Seyhan et al., 20xx

  15. Calibration • Adjustment to high frequency component of hybrid procedure • Increase Q to slow distance attenuation Seyhan et al., 20xx

  16. Calibration • Adjustment to high frequency component of hybrid procedure • Increase Q to slow distance attenuation • Randomize Fourier amplitude spectra sA = f(M) Seyhan et al., 20xx

  17. Calibration • Adjustment to high frequency component of hybrid procedure • Increase Q to slow distance attenuation • Randomize Fourier amplitude spectra Seyhan et al., 20xx

  18. Conclusions • Engineers want to use simulated motions • Needed for conditions having sparse data • Verification – Validation – Calibration • Each step documented • Avoid circularity in use of data

More Related