Modeling of Earthquake Site Ground Motion Parameters Important for Damage Estimation
The time-dependent earthquake occurrence model of Kiremidjian and Anagnos is combined with a wave propagation model to simulate earthquake ground motions at a site. The time-dependent earthquake occurrences are represented by a Markov renewal process. Ground motion estimates at a site are obtained using the normal mode method. The ground motion forecasts are obtained in various forms including time histories, response spectral values, Fourier spectra, and power spectral densities. When the occurrence and wave propagation models are combined, the seismic risk to a structure over its economic life can be expressed in terms of any of these parameters. Applications to sites in Mexico City subjected to earthquakes along the Middle America Trench indicate that the consideration of seismic gaps is one important feature which is captured and well represented by the time-dependent recurrence model. From the same application it is shown that characteristics of ground motion important for design and damage evaluation, such as peak values, predominant frequencies, and duration are better represented provided the source mechanism can be described reasonably well.
KeywordsGround Motion Power Spectral Density Strong Motion Strong Ground Motion Seismic Hazard Analysis
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.A. Kiremidjian and T. Anagnos, ‘Stochastic slip predictable model for earthquake occurrences’, Dull. Seism. Soc. Am. 74(2), 739–755 (1984).Google Scholar
- 2.A. S. Kiremidjian and S. Suzuki, ‘A stochastic model for site ground motions from temporally dependent earthquakes’, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., August 1987.Google Scholar
- 3.S. H. Swanger and D. M. Boore, ‘Simulation of strong motion displacements using surface wave modal superposition’, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 68, 907–922 (1978).Google Scholar
- 7.H. Y. Takeuchi and M. Saito,’ seismic Surface Waves’, in Methods In Computational Physics, B. A. Bolt, ed., Vol. II (1972).Google Scholar
- 8.C Schoof, ‘Geophysical input for seismic hazard analysis’, Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 1984.Google Scholar
- 9.H. Kanamori and J. J. Cipar, ‘Focal processes of the great Chilean earthquake May 22, 1960’, Phys. Earth and Plan. Inter., Vol. 9 (197A).Google Scholar
- 10.K. Aki,’ strong motion seismology’, Proceedings of the International School of Physics, “Enrico Fermi”, Varenna, Italy, 1982.Google Scholar
- 11.A. S. Papageorgiou and K. Aki, ‘A specific barrier model for the quantitative description of inhomogeneous faulting and the prediction of strong motion. Part II, Applications of the model’, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 73, 953–978 (1983).Google Scholar
- 13.P. Molnar and R. L. Sykes, ‘Tectonics of the Caribbean and Middle America regions’, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 80, 1639–1684 (1969).Google Scholar
- 14.S. Suzuki and A. S. Kiremidjian, ‘A method for risk consistent response spectra from theoretical earthquake ground motions’, submitted to Int. Journ. Earthq. Engr. and Struct. Dyn., January (1987).Google Scholar
- 15.S. Suzuki and A. S. Kiremidjian, ‘Site hazard analysis methods with empirical and geophysical ground motion models’, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Report No. 80, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, August (1986).Google Scholar