This study extends the stochastic finite-fault model (SFFM) to simulate spatially correlated and coherent records for a scenario seismic event and estimates the seismic loss of spatially distributed buildings using the simulated records. The extension incorporates the spatial coherency and the spatially correlated disturbance. The simulated records are used to evaluate nonlinear inelastic responses of buildings modeled as nonlinear single-degree-of-freedom systems and to estimate their aggregate seismic loss. Use of the simulated records in such a manner is advantageous since it is applicable to buildings modeled as single- or multi-degree-of-freedom systems with different hysteretic behaviors. The procedure is used to investigate the sensitivity of the seismic loss of a portfolio of hypothetical buildings in downtown Vancouver subjected to a scenario event. The results show that the probability distribution and the quantile of the seismic loss are influenced significantly by the degree of spatial correlation and by nonlinear inelastic behavior.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbrahamsonN. A.SchneiderJ. F. and SteppJ. C.1991. Spatial coherency of shear waves from the Lotung, Taiwan, large-scale seismic test, Struct. Saf.10, 145–162.
2.
AtkinsonG. M.AssatouriansK.BooreD. M.CampbellK. and MotazedianD.2009. A guide to differences between stochastic point-source, and stochastic finite-fault simulations, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am.99, 3192–3201.
3.
AtkinsonG. M. and GodaK.2010. Inelastic seismic demand of real versus simulated ground-motion records for Cascadia subduction earthquakes, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am.100, 102–115.
4.
AtkinsonG. M. and MaciasM.2009. Predicted ground motions for great interface earthquakes in the Cascadia subduction zone, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am.99, 1552–1578.
5.
BeresnevI. A. and AtkinsonG. M.1997. Modeling finite-fault radiation from ωn spectrum, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am.87, 67–84.
6.
BooreD. M.2003. Simulation of ground motion using the stochastic method, Pure appl. Geophys.160, 635–676.
7.
BooreD. M.2009. Comparing stochastic point-source, and finite-source ground-motion simulations: SMSIM, and EXSIM, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am.99, 3202–3216.
8.
BooreD. M.GibbsJ. F.JoynerW. B.TinsleyJ. C. and PontiD. J.2003. Estimated ground motion from the 1994 Northridge, California, earthquake at the site of the Interstate 10, and La Cienega Boulevard Bridge collapsed, West Los Angeles, California, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am.93, 2737–2751.
9.
CassidyJ. F. and RogersG. C.2004. Variation in ground shaking on the Fraser River delta (Greater Vancouver, Canada) from analysis of moderate earthquakes, Proceedings, 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada, Paper No. 1010.
10.
Der KiureghianA.1996. A coherency model for spatially varying ground motions, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dynam.25, 99–111.
11.
EllingwoodB. R.GalambosT. V.MacGregorJ. G. and CornellC. A.1980. Development of a Probability Based Load Criterion for American National Standard A58, National Bureau of Standards Special Publication No. 577, Washington, D.C.
12.
EstevaL.1992. Nonlinear seismic response of soft-first-story buildings subjected to narrow-band accelerograms, Earthquake Spectra8, 373–389.
13.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS), 2003HAZUS-Earthquake: Technical Manual, Washington, D.C.
14.
FolienteG. C.1995. Hysteresis modeling of wood joints, and structural systems, J. Struct. Eng.121, 1013–1022.
15.
GodaK. and AtkinsonG. M.2010. Intraevent spatial correlation of ground-motion parameters using SK-net data, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am.100, 3055–3067.
16.
GodaK. and HongH. P.2008a. Spatial correlation of peak ground motions, and response spectra, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am.98, 354–365.
17.
GodaK. and HongH. P.2008b. Estimation of seismic loss for spatially distributed buildings, Earthquake Spectra24, 889–910.
18.
GodaK.HongH. P. and LeeC. S.2009. Probabilistic characteristics of seismic ductility demand of SDOF systems with Bouc-Wen hysteretic behavior, J. Earthquake. Eng.13, 600–622.
19.
GuptaA. and KrawinklerH.2000. Dynamic P-Delta effects for flexible inelastic steel structures, J. Struct. Eng.126, 145–154.
20.
HaoH.1989Effects of Spatial Variation of Ground Motions on Large Multiple Supported Structures, Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Berkeley.
21.
HaoH.OliveiraC. S. and PenzienJ.1989. Multiple-station ground motion processing, and simulation based on SMART-1 array data, Nucl. Eng. Des.111, 293–310.
22.
HarichandranR. S.1991. Estimating the spatial variation of earthquake ground motion from dense array recordings, Struct. Safety10, 213–233.
23.
HarichandranR. S. and VanMarckeE. H.1986. Stochastic variation of earthquake ground motion in space, and time, J. Eng. Mech.112, 154–174.
24.
HongH. P. and GodaK.2006. A comparison of seismic hazard, and risk deaggregation, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am.96, 2021–2039.
25.
HongH. P. and GodaK.2007. Orientation-dependent ground-motion measure for seismic-hazard assessment, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am.97, 1525–1538.
26.
HongH. P.ZhangY. and GodaK.2009. Effect of spatial correlation on estimated ground motion-prediction equations, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am.99, 928–934.
27.
IbarraL. F.2003. Global Collapses of Frame Structures under Seismic Excitations, Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
28.
JayaramN. and BakerJ. W.2009. Correlation model for spatially distributed ground-motion intensities, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dynam.38, 1687–1708.
29.
LiuT. J.AtkinsonG. M.HongH. P. and AssatouriansK.2012. Intraevent spatial correlation characteristics of stochastic finite-fault simulations. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am.102, 1740–1747.
30.
LiuT. J. and HongH. P.2013. Simulation of multiple-station ground motions using stochastic point-source method with spatial coherency, and correlation characteristics, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am.103, 1912–1921.
31.
MaF.ZhangH.BockstedteA.FolienteG. C. and PaevereP.2004. Parameter analysis of the differential model of hysteresis, J. Appl. Mech.71, 342–349.
32.
MacRaeG. A.1994. P-Δ effects on single-degree-of-freedom structures in earthquakes, Earthquake Spectra10, 539–568.
33.
MotazedianD. and AtkinsonG. M.2005. Stochastic finite-fault modeling based on a dynamic corner frequency, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am.95, 995–1010.
34.
Munich Reinsurance Company of Canada (Munich Re, 1992). A Study of the Economic Impact of a Severe Earthquake in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
35.
National Research Council of Canada (NRCC, 2005). National Building Code of Canada 2005, Ottawa, Canada.
36.
NazmyA. S. and Abdel-GhaffarA. M.1992. Effect of ground motion spatial variability on the response of cable-stayed bridges, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dynam.21, 1–20.
37.
OnurT.2001. Seismic Risk Assessment in Southwestern British Columbia, Ph.D. Thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
38.
ShinozukaM. and JanC. M.1972. Digital simulation of random processes, and its applications, J. Sound. Vib.25, 111–128.
39.
SokolovV.WenzelF.JeanW. Y. and WenK. L.2010. Uncertainty, and spatial correlation of earthquake ground motion in Taiwan, Terr. Atmos. Ocean. Sci.21, 905–921.
40.
WangM. and TakadaT.2005. Macrospatial correlation model of seismic ground motions, Earthquake Spectra21, 1137–1156.
41.
WhitmanR.V.AnagnosT.KircherC. A.LagorioH. J.LawsonR. S. and SchneiderP.1997. Development of a national earthquake loss estimation methodology, Earthquake Spectra13, 643–661.
42.
ZervaA.2009Spatial Variation of Seismic Ground Motions: Modeling and Engineering Applications, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 486 pp.
