2012 Coordination Workshop

From GMSV
Jump to: navigation, search
Organizer: Nico Luco
Date: Monday, April 2, 2012 (9:00am-5:00pm)
Location: SCEC Boardroom, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Participants: 33 total

Background & Objectives

SCEC has established a Technical Activity Group (TAG) focused on Ground Motion Simulation Validation (GMSV) in order to develop and implement testing/rating methodologies via collaboration between ground motions modelers and engineering users. The main purpose of this small workshop will be to coordinate any GMSV-related SCEC projects funded in 2012, before they begin in earnest. Invitees will include Principal Investigators (PI's) of the funded SCEC projects and other select participants. It is important to note that these participants include both ground motion modelers and engineering users. During the workshop, the PI's will present their proposed research and ample time will be dedicated to discussing coordination with other funded projects, as well as any additional research that may be needed in the near future.

Agenda

April 2 Background and Objectives of Workshop Presenter(s)
09:00 SCEC GMSV TAG T. Jordan / N. Luco
09:15 Related NGA-East and other efforts N. Abrahamson
09:30 Discussion
Plans for Ground Motion Simulations to be Validated
09:45 Validation of broadband ground-motion synthetics using earthquake engineering-relevant metrics K. Olsen
10:00 US-Japan collaboration on strong ground motion prediction techniques J. Bayless / P. Somerville
10:15 Coordination Discussion
11:00 Break
Plans for Validations using SDOF and MDOF-Building Systems
11:15 Validation of elastic spectral correlations from ground motion simulations L. Burks / J. Baker
11:30 Validation of simulated ground motions for multi-degree-of-freedom (MDoF) nonlinear buildling systems I. Iervolino
11:45 Coordination Discussion
12:15 Summary of Plans from Morning Session N. Luco
12:30 Lunch
Plans for Automating Validations
13:30 Existing SCEC Broadband Platform tools for validation P. Maechling
13:45 Development of analytical tools for engineering validation of simulated ground motions F. Zareian
14:00 Coordination Discussion
Plans for Validations using Geotechnical Systems
14:15 Validation of simulated ground motions relative to seismic geotechnical engineering demand parameters J. Stewart
14:30 A framework for validation of ground motion simulations emphasizing predictive power and use of seismic effective stress analyses of soil deposits B. Bradley
14:45 Coordination Discussion
15:15 Break
Plans for Other Validations
15:30 PBR science for SCEC 4: Validation of ground motion prediction and simulations G. Biasi
15:45 Validation of simulated ground motions through random vibrations statistical measures S. Rezaeian
16:00 Coordination Discussion
16:15 Summary of Plans from Afternoon Session N. Luco
16:30 Discussion/Summary of Future Plans Needed & Next Steps N. Luco
17:00 Adjourn

Participants

Attended In-Person: Brad Aagard (USGS), Norm Abrahamson (PG&E/UC Berkeley), Jack Baker (Stanford), Jeff Bayless (URS), Glenn Biasi (UNR), Jacobo Bielak (CMU), Lynne Burks (Stanford), Jorge Crempien (UCSB), Jessica Donovan (USC), Christine Goulet (UC Berkeley), Rob Graves (USGS), Bahareh Heidarzadeh (UCLA), Tran Huynh (USC/SCEC), Iunio Iervolino (UNINA), Tom Jordan (USC/SCEC), Nico Luco (USGS), Phil Maechling (USC/SCEC), Kim Olsen (SDSU), Paul Somerville (URS), Jon Stewart (UCLA), Feng Wang (USC), Katie Wooddell (PG&E), Farzin Zareian (UCI)

Attended Remotely: John Anderson (UNR), Ralph Archuleta (UCSB), Brendon Bradley (Canterbury), Luis Dalguer (ETHZ), Steve Day (SDSU), Carmine Galasso (AIR Worldwide), Sanaz Rezaeian (USGS/PEER), Daniel Roten (ETHZ), Fabio Silva (USC), Seok Goo Song (ETHZ)

Unable to Attend: Abbie Liel (CU Boulder), Dominic Asimaki (Georgia Tech)

Summary of Outcomes

In addition to providing feedback on the plans of the 2012 SCEC projects related to GMSV, workshop participants coordinated near-term plans for GMSV of the simulation models listed in Table 1. As requested by Norm Abrahamson (PG&E) [1], the near-term plans will focus on testing/rating the validity of the simulation models for use in developing the median part of ground motion prediction equations (GMPE's) for elastic spectral accelerations at a wide range of periods (0.01 to 10 seconds) and 5% damping. Abrahamson proposed that the testing/rating be done in two parts, using median spectral accelerations from (i) ground-motion records from the historical earthquakes listed in Table 2, and (ii) the scenario earthquakes and empirical GMPE's listed in Table 3 and 4, respectively.


Table 1. Simulations models that are part of the near-term GMSV plans. All of the models are on, or will soon be on, the SCEC Broadband Platform.

Name Contact Person Notes
SDSU Kim Olsen (SDSU) Already on Broadband Platform
UCSB Jorge Crempien (UCSB) Already on Broadband Platform
URS Rob Graves (USGS) Already on Broadband Platform
Atkinson stochastic finite fault (EXSIM) Gail Atkinson (Western Ontario)
Irikura Recipe Paul Somerville (URS)
Point source stochastic  ???
Zeng/Anderson composite source model Yuehua Zeng (USGS)


Table 2. Historical earthquakes proposed by the GMSV TAG and Abrahamson for use in testing/rating the simulations models listed in Table 1, in order of decreasing priority.

Year Location Mw EQID Notes
1994 Northridge 6.7 127 Selected by workshop participants for immediate use, and being used by NGA-East Project
1989 Loma Prieta 6.9 118 Selected by workshop participants for immediate use, and being used by NGA-East Project
1992 Landers 7.3 125 Selected by workshop participants for immediate use
1979 Imperial Valley 6.5 50 Being used by NGA-East Project
1999 Chi-Chi (Taiwan) 7.6 137 Being used by NGA-East Project
2000 Tottori (Japan) 6.6 176 Being used by NGA-East Project
2010 El-Mayor Cucapah 7.2 280
2004 Parkfield 6.0 179
1999 Hector Mine 7.1 158
1992 Big Bear 6.5 126
1987 Whittier Narrows 6.0 113
1986 North Palm Springs 6.1 101
1984 Morgan Hill 6.2 90
2003 San Simeon 6.5 177
2010 Darfield (New Zealand) 7.0 281
2009 L'Aquila (Italy) 6.3 274
2008 Iwate (Japan) 6.9 279
2007 Chuetsu-Oki (Japan) 6.7 278
2004 Niigata (Japan) 6.6 180
1999 Kocaeli (Turkey) 7.5 136
1995 Kobe (Japan) 6.9 129
2011 Mineral 5.8 88 Being used by NGA-East Project
2005 Riviere-du-Loup 4.6 32 Being used by NGA-East Project
1988 Saguenay 5.9 5 Being used by NGA-East Project
1983 Coalinga 6.4 76 Removed due to few "near-field" stations
1971 San Fernando 6.6 30 Removed due to few "far-field" stations


Table 3. Scenario earthquakes for use, with the empirical GMPE's listed in Table 4, in testing/rating the simulations models listed in Table 1. These scenario earthquakes are in addition to the historical earthquakes listed in Table 2.

Mw Distance Notes
6.5 15km Example suggested by Abrahamson
6.5 40km Example suggested by Abrahamson


Table 4. Empirical ground motion prediction equations (GMPE's) proposed for use, with the scenario earthquakes listed in Table 3, in testing/rating the simulations models listed in Table 1.

Author(s) Year Notes
Abrahamson & Silva 2010
Boore & Atkinson 2008 Used by USGS in developing 2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps
Campbell & Bozorgnia 2008 Used by USGS in developing 2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps
Chiou & Youngs 2008 Used by USGS in developing 2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps


To further develop the near-term plans described above, workshop participants formed two subgroups that will correspond primarily via email and phone/web conferences. The two subgroups will correspond with each other and the TAG as a whole, through their respective subgroup leaders and joint correspondence. The first subgroup will develop detailed plans for simulations of the historical and scenario earthquakes listed in Tables 2 and 3, via the simulation models listed in Table 1. The second subgroup will develop detailed plans for testing/rating the simulated ground motions. The current members of the two subgroups are listed below in Tables 5 and 6. The current tasks planned for the two subgroups are listed in Tables 7 and 8.


Table 5. Members of the "GMSV Simulators" subgroup that will develop detailed plans for simulating ground motions of the historical and scenario earthquakes listed in Tables 2 and 3, via the simulation models listed in Table 1.

Name Affiliation Notes
Kim Olsen SDSU Subgroup Leader, SDSU Simulation Model Contact
Brad Aagard USGS
John Anderson UNR
Ralph Archuleta UCSB NGA-East Simulations Working Group Chair
Jacobo Bielak CMU
Jorge Crempien UCSB UCSB Simulation Model Contact
Steve Day SDSU
Rob Graves USGS URS Simulation Model Contact
Tom Jordan USC/SCEC
Nico Luco USGS Validators Subgroup Leader
Phil Maechling USC/SCEC Broadband Platform IT Architect
Paul Somerville URS Irikura Recipe Simulation Model Contact
Jon Stewart UCLA
Katie Wooddell PG&E PG&E Contact
Others?


Table 6. Members of the "GMSV Validators" subgroup that will develop detailed plans for testing/rating the simulated ground motions from the GMSV Simulators subgroup.

Name Affiliation Notes
Nico Luco USGS Subgroup Leader
Jack Baker Stanford
Jeff Bayless URS
Glenn Biasi UNR
Brendon Bradley Canterbury
Lynne Burks Stanford
Christine Goulet PEER NGA-East Project Manager
Bahareh Heidarzadeh UCLA
Iunio Iervolino UNINA
Tom Jordan USC/SCEC
Phil Maechling USC/SCEC Broadband Platform IT Architect
Kim Olsen SDSU GMSV Simulators Subgroup Leader
Sanaz Rezaeian USGS/PEER
Jon Stewart UCLA
Farzin Zareian UCI
Others?


Table 7. Tasks of the "GMSV Simulators" subgroup (listed in Table 5) that will develop detailed plans for the simulations of the historical and scenario earthquakes listed in Tables 2 and 3, via the simulation models listed in Table 1.

ID Due Date Description
S1 April, 2012 Obtain from Abrahamson a final list of historical earthquakes, their recorded ground motions (or recording stations), and site corrections for adjusting their response spectra to a reference rock site (e.g. Vs30 of 865 m/s).
S2 May, 2012 Develop detailed plans, considering the broad tasks below.
S3 June, 2012 Complete simulations of the historical earthquakes selected by workshop participants and this subgroup for immediate use (see Table 2), via the models already on the Broadband Platform (see Table 1). Focus on simulating ground motions that correspond to the recorded ground motions obtained in Task S1.
S4 June, 2012 "Complete set up (e.g. 1-D Green's functions) of validation cases [i.e. all historical and scenario earthquakes listed in Tables 2 and 3] on Broadband Platform." (As requested by Abrahamson)
S5 July, 2012 "Additional existing methods [list above in Table 1] added to Platform." (As requested by Abrahamson)
S6 August, 2012 Review validations completed in Task V3 (below) of the ground motions simulated in Task S3 (above).
S7 September, 2012 Present progress of GMSV Simulators subgroup at GMSV workshop during SCEC Annual Meeting.
S8 October, 2012 Complete simulations of all the historical earthquakes listed in Table 2, via simulation models listed in Table 1. (Requested by Abrahamson)
S9 January, 2013 Complete simulations of scenario earthquakes listed in Table 3, for validation using the empirical GMPE's listed in Table 4. (Requested by Abrahamson)


Table 8. Tasks of the "GMSV Validators" subgroup (listed in Table 6) that will develop detailed plans for testing/rating the simulated ground motions from the GMSV Simulators subgroup.

ID Due Date Description
V1 May, 2012 Develop detailed plans for testing/rating, considering the broad tasks below and the validation plans that have been developed by the PEER NGA-East Project (courtesy of Christine Goulet) [2].
V2 June, 2012 Add the empirical GMPE's listed in Table 4 to the Broadband Platform.
V3 July, 2012 Complete validation of the ground motions simulated in Task S3.
V4 September, 2012 Present progress of GMSV Validators subgroup at GMSV workshop during SCEC Annual Meeting.
V5 November, 2012 Complete validation of the ground motions simulated in Task S8. (Requested by Abrahamson)
V6 February, 2013 Complete validation of the ground motions simulated in Task S9. (Requested by Abrahamson)
V7 March, 2013 Have validations from Tasks V5 and V6 reviewed by a SCEC panel, and list simulation models that "pass" the validations. (Requested by Abrahamson)


Return to Main Page