Simulation of multi-support depth-varying earthquake ground motions within heterogeneous onshore and offshore sites

  • Chao Li
  • Hongnan LiEmail author
  • Hong Hao
  • Kaiming Bi
  • Li Tian
Special Section: Tenth Anniversary of the 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Tenth Anniversary of the 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake


This paper presents a novel approach to model and simulate the multi-support depth-varying seismic motions (MDSMs) within heterogeneous offshore and onshore sites. Based on 1D wave propagation theory, the three-dimensional ground motion transfer functions on the surface or within an offshore or onshore site are derived by considering the effects of seawater and porous soils on the propagation of seismic P waves. Moreover, the depth-varying and spatial variation properties of seismic ground motions are considered in the ground motion simulation. Using the obtained transfer functions at any locations within a site, the offshore or onshore depth-varying seismic motions are stochastically simulated based on the spectral representation method (SRM). The traditional approaches for simulating spatially varying ground motions are improved and extended to generate MDSMs within multiple offshore and onshore sites. The simulation results show that the PSD functions and coherency losses of the generated MDSMs are compatible with respective target values, which fully validates the effectiveness of the proposed simulation method. The synthesized MDSMs can provide strong support for the precise seismic response prediction and performance-based design of both offshore and onshore large-span engineering structures.


seismic motion simulation onshore and offshore sites ground motion spatial variation depth-varying motions transfer function 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Topography and Random Soil Properties on Coherency Loss of Spatial Seismic Ground Motions,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 40(9): 1045–1061.Google Scholar
  2. Bi KM and Hao H (2012), “Modelling and Simulation of Spatially Varying Earthquake Ground Motions at Sites with Varying Conditions,” Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 29: 92–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bi KM and Hao H (2013), “Numerical Simulation of Pounding Damage to Bridge Structures under Spatially Varying Ground Motions,” Engineering Structures, 46: 62–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boore DM and Smith CE (1999), “Analysis of Earthquake Recordings Otained from the Seafloor Earthquake Measurement System (SEMS) Instruments Deployed off the Coast of Southern California,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 89(1): 260–274.Google Scholar
  5. Boore DM, Stephens CD, and Joyner WB (2002), “Comments on Baseline Correction of Digital Strong-Motion Data: Examples from the 1999 Hector Mine, California, earthquake,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 92(4): 1543–1560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boulanger RW, Curras CJ, Kutter BL, Wilson DW and Abghari A (1999), “Seismic Soil-Pile-Structure Interaction Experiments and Analyses,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 125(9): 750–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen BK, Wang DS, Li HN, Sun ZG, and Shi Y (2015), “Characteristics of Earthquake Ground Motion on the Seafloor,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 19: 874–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clough RW and Penzien J (1993), Dynamic of Structures, McGraw Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Crouse CB and Quilter J (1991), “Seismic Hazard Analysis and Development of Design Spectra for Maul A Platform,” Proc. of Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering, New Zealand, 137–148.Google Scholar
  10. Der Kiureghian A (1996), “A Coherency Model for Spatially Varying Ground Motions,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 25(1): 99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deodatis G (1996), “Non-Stationary Stochastic Vector Processes: Seismic Ground Motion Applications,” Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 11(3): 149–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diao HQ, Hu JJ and Xie LL (2014), “Effect of Seawater on Incident Plane P and SV Waves at Ocean Bottom and Engineering Characteristics of Offshore Ground Motion Records off the Coast of Southern California, USA,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration 13(2): 181–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Guo X, Wu Y and Guo Y (2016), “Time-Dependent Seismic Fragility Analysis of Bridge Systems under Scour Hazard and Earthquake Loads,” Engineering Structures, 121: 52–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hao H, Oliveira CS and Penzien J (1989), “Multiple-Station Ground Motion Processing and Simulation Based on SMART-1. Array Data,” Nuclear Engineering and Design 111(3): 293–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hao H (1989), “Effects of Spatial Variation of Ground Motions on Large Multiply-Supported Structures,” UCB/EERC-89-06. University of California, Berkeley, California.Google Scholar
  16. Hao H and Chouw N (2006), “Modelling of Earthquake Ground Motion Spatial Variation on Uneven Sites with Varying Soil conditions,” Proc. of 9th International Symposium on Structural Engineering for Young Experts, Fuzhou, China, 79–85.Google Scholar
  17. Hu JJ, Diao HQ and Xie LL (2016), “Review of Observation and Characteristics of Seafloor Strong Motion,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Dynamics, 33(6): 1–8. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  18. Idriss I and Sun JI (1992), User’s Manual for SHAKE91 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California Davis.Google Scholar
  19. Liao S and Zerva A (2006), “Physically Compliant, Conditionally Simulated Spatially Variable Seismic Ground Motions for Performance-Based Design,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 35(7): 891–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Li C, Hao H, Li HN and Bi KM (2015), “Theoretical Modeling and Numerical Simulation of Seismic Motions at Seafloor,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 77: 220–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Li C, Hao H, Li HN and Bi KM (2016), “Seismic Fragility Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Bridges with Chloride Induced Corrosion Subjected to Spatially Varying Ground Motions,” International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics, 16(5): 1550010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Li C, Hao H, Li HN, Bi KM and Chen BK (2017), “Modeling and Simulation of Spatially Correlated Ground Motions at Multiple Onshore and Offshore Sites,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 21(3): 359–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Matlock H, Foo SHC and Bryant LM (1978), “Simulation of Lateral Pile Behavior under Earthquake motion,” Proc. of the Specialty Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, ASCE, California, USA, 600–619.Google Scholar
  24. Qi YH, Pei CY and An PC (2014), “Geological Analysis of DB01. Bid Section of Hong Kong-Zhu Hai-Macao Bridge Project,” Port Engineering Technology, 51(5): 82–85.Google Scholar
  25. Shinozuka M (1971), “Simulation of Multivariate and Multidimensional Random Processes,” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 49(1B): 357–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shinozuka M and Jan CM (1972), “Digital Simulation of Random Processes and Its Applications,” Journal of Sound and Vibration, 25(1): 111–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shinozuka M and Deodatis G (1991), “Simulation of Stochastic Processes by Spectral Representation,” Applied Mechanics Reviews 44(4): 191–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sobczky K (1991), Stochastic Wave Propagation, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  29. Soneji BB and Jangid RS (2008), “Influence of Soil-Structure Interaction on the Response of Seismically Isolated Cable-Stayed Bridge,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 28: 245–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Su QK and Xie HB (2016), “Summary of Steel Bridge Construction of Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge,” China Journal of Highway and Transport, 29(12): 1–9. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  31. Wang S, Kutter BL, Chacko MJ, Wilson DW, Boulanger RW and Abghari A (1998), “Nonlinear Seismic Soil-Pile-Structure Interaction,” Earthquake Spectra, 14(2): 377–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wang Z, Duenas-Osorio L and Padgett JE (2013), “Seismic Response of a Bridge-Soil-Foundation System under the Combined Effect of Vertical and Horizontal Ground Motions,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 42(4): 545–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wolf JP (1985), Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  34. Wu YX, Gao YF and Li DY (2011), “Simulation of Spatially Correlated Earthquake Ground Motions for Engineering Purposes,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 10(2): 163–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wu YX, Gao YF, Li DY, Xu CJ and Mahfouz AH (2013), “Approximation Approach to the SRM Based on Root Decomposition in the Simulation of Spatially Varying Ground Motions,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 12(3): 363–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yang J and Sato T (2000), “Interpretation of Seismic Vertical Amplification Observed at an Array Site,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 90(2): 275–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yang Q, Saiidi MS, Hang W and Itani A (2002), “Influence of Earthquake Ground Motion Incoherency on Multi-Support Structures,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 1(2): 167–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zhang DY, Liu W, Xie WC and Pandey MD (2013), “Modeling of Spatially Correlated, Site-Reflected, and Nonstationary Ground Motions Compatible with Response Spectrum,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 55: 21–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chao Li
    • 1
  • Hongnan Li
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Hong Hao
    • 3
    • 4
  • Kaiming Bi
    • 3
  • Li Tian
    • 5
  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Coastal and Offshore Engineering, Faculty of Infrastructure EngineeringDalian University of TechnologyDalianChina
  2. 2.School of Civil EngineeringShenyang Jianzhu UniversityShenyangChina
  3. 3.Center for Infrastructure Monitoring and Protection, School of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, Curtin UniversityKent StreetBentleyAustralia
  4. 4.School of Civil EngineeringGuangzhou UniversityGuangzhouChina
  5. 5.School of Civil EngineeringShandong UniversityJinanChina

Personalised recommendations