Global Earthquake Model. KICK-OFF MEETING PEER UC Berkeley 16 th February Global Components - Hazard Ground Motion Prediction Equations (GMPEs)

Transcription

1 Global Earthquake Model Global Components - Hazard Ground Motion Prediction Equations (GMPEs) KICK-OFF MEETING PEER UC Berkeley 16 th February 2011 Carola Di Alessandro and Yousef Bozorgnia GMPEs Consortium

2 AGENDA and MINUTE AGENDA Please collaborate typing MINUTE at

3 THE GEM PROJECT GEM MISSION: to add sustainable social and economic development by providing free, reliable and uniform information on seismic risk and the impact of earthquakes around the world. GLOBAL GMPEs STUDY: GEM released a Request of Proposal aimed at selecting a suite of GMPEs that can be used at both the global and regional level for hazard and risk assessment, by using a collaborative approach. OUR RESPONSE TO GEM S CALL of PROPOSAL: We created an international Consortium and our call proposal was selected in January 2010 by GEM s Governing Board. Preliminary GEM Project Meeting

4 THE GEM PROJECT (cont d) DURATION: 24 months (starting from September 1 st, 2010). ORGANIZATION CHART: There is a project coordination committee consisting of 4 international experts (Abrahamson, Akkar, Bozorgnia, Erdik), who coordinate the tasks, and communicate with GEM s Executive Committee and the Regional Programs. In total there are 27 international experts participating in the project (from South Africa, Russia, China, Latin America, Europe Combined, they have extensive GMPE expertise worldwide. etc). Preliminary GEM Project Meeting

5 MAIN TASKS Task 1: Definition of a consistent strategy of modelling ground motion. This task is subdivided into two components: a. Consistent strategy for modelling ground motion and its parameters b. Estimating Site Effects in parametric ground motion models Task 2: Compilation and critical review of GMPEs Task 3: Selection or derivation of a Global Set of GMPEs. Task 4: Inclusion of near-fault effects Task 5: Database of Recorded Waveform Task 6: Specifications for compilation of a global database of Soil Classification.

6 PROJECT COORDINATION COMMITTEE Abrahamson - Akkar Bozorgnia - Erdik TASK 1: Define a Consistent Strategy to Model Ground Motion TASK 1a Akkar (Chair) Campbell Cotton / Douglas Silva Somerville TASK 1b Stewart (Chair) Boore Campbell Erdik Silva TASK 2: Compile and Critically Review GMPEs Cotton and Douglas (Co-Chairs) Abrahamson Akkar Boore Di Alessandro TASK 3: Select or Derive a Global Set of GMPEs WG Campbell (Chair) Abrahamson Bommer Boore Bozorgnia Di Alessandro Erdik Scherbaum Extended WG Akkar Arefiev Baker Boroschek Cheng Chiou Cotton & Douglas Fajfar McVerry Midorikawa Midzi Molas Saragoni Shoja Silva Somerville Stewart Wang

7 PROJECT COORDINATION COMMITTEE Abrahamson - Akkar Bozorgnia - Erdik TASK 4: Include Near-Fault Effects Baker (Chair) Chiou Erdik Somerville Silva TASK 5: Build a Database of Recorded Waveforms Akkar (Chair) Arefiev Boroschek Di Alessandro McVerry Midorikawa TASK 6: Design the Specifications to Compile a Global Database of Soil Classification Stewart (Chair) Boore Campbell Erdik Silva

8 TASK 1 STRATEGY FOR GROUND MOTION MODELLING Task 1a: Consistency in Model and Ground Motion Parameters. Magnitude, distance metrics Style of faulting classification Consistent GM component (geometric mean, maximum component or else) Intensity measures (PGA, PGV, elastic response-spectral ordinates) Balancing the approach to derive model; e.g., empirical versus simulationbased Task 1b: Consistency in site parameters Define a set of site parameters to be used, consistent with classification used in GMPEs Recommend simplification of GMPEs for regions with less data Correlating available site classification with other parameters (e.g. surface geology and topography) Provide specification on how to estimate the depth to basement rock (basin depth) Evaluate the alternative site parameters and site mapping approaches

9 TASK 2 COMPILATION AND CRITICAL REVIEW OF GMPEs Compile and review large set of GMPEs for FIVE TECTONIC CATEGORIES OF EARTHQUAKES: Shallow crustal earthquakes in active tectonic regions Earthquakes in stable continental regions Subduction zone interface earthquakes Subduction zone intraslab (Wadati-Benioff) earthquakes Volcanic regions earthquakes 3 PHASES: Compilation based on Doulgas s expertise, Initial screening based on exclusion criteria Selection of an initial subset of candidate GMPEs to be tested in the following Task 3

10 TASK 3 - Select or Derive a Global Set of GMPEs Task 3: Selection or adjustment of a Global Set of GMPEs For each tectonic region, a set of GMPEs will be selected to be - Applicable to a wide range of magnitude, distance etc - Compatible with the regional data The FINAL SETS of the SELECTED GMPEs, including their coefficients and definitions of various parameters, as well as coded and verified equations, will be organized in various FILES. They will include: - Definitions of all input parameters needed, such as distance metrics, focal depths, reference rock, original magnitude, moment magnitude (converted if necessary), site characterization, among others. - GMPE s coefficients for PGA, PGV, spectral acceleration, velocity and displacement, at the broadest possible period range. - Standard deviations of GMPEs at each period (specified if it is a function of magnitude or other parameters). - Inter-event and intra-event, if available, as well as the total, standard deviations

11 Date Mw and Distance Range Regression Method Extent of review Adequacy of Fun. form 4. GMPEs SUBSET SELECTION Summarization of their ATTRIBUTES: Characteristics of its database (e.g., number of earthquakes, number of recordings, magnitude and distance ranges in the database, etc.), Applicability of the GMPEs for ranges of distance, magnitude, site effect, etc. Evaluation process used for each tectonic category 1. INITIAL SCREENING How well do the GMPEs that pass it fit the available worldwide data for the applicable tectonic category? 2. INTER-EVENT, EVENT, INTRA-EVENT and TOTAL Residuals Computation Dependence of the residuals on: GMPEs predictive parameters (such as magnitude, distance, style-of-faulting, depth and site classification 3. Robust GMPEs evaluation

12 TASK 4 - Inclusion of near-fault effects Task 4: Inclusion of near-fault effects A working group of experts will provide recommendations regarding correction of GMPEs for near-fault effects, - Examine various adjustments to GMPES to include directivity and directionality effects. - Collect feedbacks and comments on tentative recommendations from the larger team members Landers, CA, EQ Lucerne Valley 136 cm/sec Forward directivity region Latitude Rupture propagation Epicenter 34 Joshua Tree 43 cm/sec Backward directivity region Longitude

13 TASKS 5 - Build a Database of Recorded Waveform Task 5: Database of Waveforms 1) SHALLOW CRUSTAL EQs. In ACTIVE REGIONS expand PEER s pre-existing database of waveforms by: - Including waveforms for recorded ground motions recorded after Creating a user-friendly web-based interface from PEER to select, plot, and download the waveforms from the Internet. - Link to European Countries databases with their meta-data without reprocessing the data. 2) STABLE CONTINENTAL REGIONS This database is being developed as part NGA-East program with separate funding. The plan is to complete the database of SCRs by September ) SUBDUCTION REGIONS This less comprehensive database is being developed by PEER with other sources of funding Magnitude Previous DataNew Data Distance (km)

14 TASK 6 - Design the Specifications to Compile a Global Database of Soil Classification Task 6: Specifications to Compile Soil Database A working group of experts will: - Propose a framework to compile a global database of geological soil characteristics under a precise hierarchical structure. Soil classifications based on Vs30 and designed to be consistent with the soil categories in the NEHRP and EuroCode 8 building codes Use results from Task 1.b to map alternative site classification into the selected soil categorization scheme Recommendations will be provided to the larger group of team members for comments be collected under this task No soil data will be collected under this task

15 MILESTONES and SCHEDULE (Cont d) WG Schedule: Ongoing activity for Tasks 1.a, 1.b and 2 31st AUGUST 2012 is the PROJECT s END 1 month of buffer to write final report!

16 MILESTONES and SCHEDULE (Cont d) DELIVERABLES: Each WG will produce a deliverable explaining the activities, findings and recommendations (due at the end of their scheduled period). REPORTS: Mid-Term Report to GEM (due 31st August 2011) Up-to-dates activities, findings, expenditures, detailed budget etc.. Final Report to GEM (due 31st August 2012) Each Chapter will be dedicated to each specific Task

17 MILESTONES and SCHEDULE (Cont d) MEETINGS: Extensive usage of web casting (ReadyTalk) meetings, supported by PEER (hosted by Carola Di Alessandro) Regular meetings inside each working group (promoted by Tasks Chairs, including PEER representative) Global Communication after initial selection of GMPEs models to test regionally, followed by face to face meeting with all, possibly in Turkey around Spring 2012 (date to be decided). EVERY 6 MONTHS THE COORDINATORS REPORT THE WG S ACTIVITIES IN A GEM PROGRESS REVIEW MEETING! Next one at 2 nd week of June 2011 in. (TBD)

18 PROPOSED WORKFLOW AND ACTIVITIES for each TASK Akkar (Chair) Campbell Cotton / Douglas Silva Somerville Plan for Task 1.a Sinan Akkar

19 Task 1.a Consistency in model parameters DELIVERABLES in TASK 1.a consistent magnitude and distance metrics to be used in ground motions, classification of style-of-faulting, horizontal ground-motion component definitions, ground-motion intensity measures (i.e., engineering demand parameters such as spectral ordinates, PGA, PGV etc), possible conversion factors for different distance, magnitude and horizontal component definitions, scaling of GMPEs for regions of sparse data

20 USE OF TASK 1.A BY OTHER TASKS DELIVERABLES OF THIS TASK will be of use by Tasks 2 (compilation of GMPEs), 3 (testing of GMPEs) and 4 (inclusion of near-fault effects). may also have an influence on Task 5 that will collect a strong-motion database that would be a source for testing and selecting GMPEs.

21 POSSIBLE STRATEGY Magnitude: M w, Distance measure: R jb, R rup, R hyp, R epi Classification based on plunges of P- and T-axes or rake angle (?) GMRotI50, RotD50, GM PGA, PGV and PSA for T 3s or 4s, Other issues to be discussed: Horizontal comp. conversion; M L to M w conversion; Distance conversion: known fault geometry, R jb R epi and R rup R hyp for small magnitude events (?) Host-to-Target relationships or adopting GMPEs from regions of similar seismotectonics (?)

22 PROPOSED WORKFLOW AND ACTIVITIES for each TASK Stewart (Chair) Boore Campbell Erdik Silva Plan for Task 1.b Jonathan Stewart

23 TASK 1.b: Site effects in parametric ground motion models SCOPE Identify principal site classification methods used world-wide (categories, Vs30, depth, site period) Identify data sources broadly available for site classification (surface geology, slope, terrain) Recommend approaches for estimating site parameters from available data sources The outcome will be used as part of Task 3, provide input on procedures needed to evaluate site effects from analyses of regional data

24 TASK 1.b: Site effects in parametric ground motion models DELIVERABLES Recommended site parameters for global GMPEs Consider correlations for site parameters Recommendations for local data collection to enhance applicability of global GMPEs SCHEDULE Group consensus on scope/deliverables, Feb 2011 Draft internal report on committee recommendations, May 2011 Final internal report for use within GEM project, June 2011

25 PROPOSED WORKFLOW AND ACTIVITIES for each TASK Cotton and Douglas (Co-Chairs) Abrahamson Akkar Boore Di Alessandro Plan for Task 2 Fabrice Cotton John Douglas

26 Task 2. Compile and Critically Review GMPEs 1. Compile recent GMPEs for these types: Shallow crustal earthquakes in active tectonic regions Shallow crustal earthquakes in stable continental regions Subduction zone interface earthquakes Subduction zone intraslab earthquakes And if possible, for earthquakes in volcanic regions too 2. Make an initial screening using a PRP-type approach 3. Summarize remaining models 4. Make a preliminary check of models w.r.t.: Between(inter)-event residuals Within(intra)-event residuals Against various independent parameters (M, R, site, etc.) Using the available strong-motion database 5. Provide most promising GMPEs to Task 3 To be completed after eight months of project

27 Distribution of subtasks Summary of empirical GMPEs for all types of earthquakes provided by report of Douglas (2011) Boore is currently summarizing stochastic-based models Di Alessandro is currently summarizing simulation-based and hybrid models The above subtasks will be completed by March 2011 Pre-selection of GMPEs will be made within task group during March 2011 Residual plots will be made by Di Alessandro (or regional experts) during April and May 2011 Final pre-selection (in the form of an internal report) will be made in June 2011 by whole task group

28 PROPOSED WORKFLOW AND ACTIVITIES for each TASK McVerry with the collaboration of Members of Tasks 2 and 3 Any others?? Volcanic GMPEs An approach for GEM ground-motion modelling Graeme McVerry

29 Volcanic GMPEs Modeling Approach Low-Q and high attenuation rates in volcanic & mantle-wedge zones Kindly provided by John Zhao, BSSA April 2010

30 Volcanic GMPEs Modeling Approach INCREASED VOLCANIC ATTENUATION Peak ground acceleration (g) Crustal Strike-Slip Weak rock PGAs M = 6.5 Nonvolcanic path Volcanic path Source distance (km) A factor of 2 by 20 km distance for TVZ in New Zealand

31 Volcanic GMPEs Modeling Approach PROPOSED APPROACH FOR CRUSTAL EARTHQUAKES Determine residuals w.r.t standard GMPEs as a function of volcanic path distance Fit additional term to standard model lnsa volc (T,M,R)=lnSA standard (T,M,R)+ C vol (T)R vol

32 PROPOSED WORKFLOW AND ACTIVITIES for each TASK Campbell (Chair) Abrahamson Bommer Boore Bozorgnia Di Alessandro Erdik Scherbaum Akkar Arefiev Cheng Chiou - Cotton / Douglas Fajfar - McVerry Midorikawa - Midzi Molas - Saragoni Shoja - Silva Somerville Stewart - Wang Plan for Task 3 Ken Campbell

33 Task 3: selection or derivation of GMPEs Plans for this WG will be distributed in the near future

34 PROPOSED WORKFLOW AND ACTIVITIES for each TASK Baker (Chair) Chiou Erdik Somerville Silva Plan for Task 4 Jack Baker

35 GEM Near-Fault Effects task PROJECT TEAM: Jack Baker (Chair) Brian Chiou Mustafa Erdik Paul Somerville Walt Silva TASK DESCRIPTION: Examine existing adjustments of GMPEs to include near-fault effects (directivity and directionality effects) Make tentative recommendations to the larger PEER team regarding how to apply or modify existing models to be used in other tectonic environments Collect feedback and finalize recommendations Task timeline: August June 2012

36 Ongoing related activities PEER NGA West 2 directivity working group Soon: report available on comparison of existing directivity predictions for a variety of test cases (various earthquake magnitudes, mechanisms, rupture geometries) May 2011: some directivity modelers produce updates to their models, based on above comparison and new data set PEER NGA West 2 directionality working group May 2011: draft report on directionality in NGA West 2 database (ratio of maxcomponent Sa to average Sa, correlations of ratios across periods), including comparison to previously published models Several of our GEM project members are participating in those activities.

37 Action items GEM Near-Fault Effects task timeline: August June 2012 Current activities: Monitor NGA West 2 project progress and recommendations Identify other resources on this topic August 2011 task group technical meeting: Review status and to-date recommendations from NGA West 2 and other similar projects Discuss applicability of those recommendations to GEM Identify test calculations or other analyses needed to support potential recommendations

38 PROPOSED WORKFLOW AND ACTIVITIES for each TASK Akkar (Chair) Arefiev Boroschek Di Alessandro McVerry Midorikawa Plan for Task 5 Sinan Akkar

39 Task 5: Build a DataBase of Recorded Waveforms DELIVERABLES in TASK 5 Collecting reliable strong-motion data for shallow active, stable continental, subduction and volcanic regions that can be of use for Tasks 2 (compiling GMPEs), 3 (selecting and testing GMPEs) and 4 (inclusion of near-fault effects), Providing the links of major strong-motion data providers to the end users

40 POSSIBLE STRATEGY Contacting other ongoing regional projects (e.g., SHARE, EMME) to make use of their data (upon the permission of their management). Contacting seismic agencies that are willing to collaborate (through the members of work package), Internet search to spot major data providers, public-open databases all around the world.

41 PROPOSED WORKFLOW AND ACTIVITIES for each TASK Stewart (Chair) Boore Campbell Erdik Silva Plan for Task 6 Jonathan Stewart

42 Task 6: Design specifications to compile a global site classification database OBJECTIVE: Define the region-specific work needed to produce maps of site categories based on Vs30 Similarly describe work needed to map sediment depth parameters These parameters will be correlated to site parameters in global GMPEs (Task 1b) DELIVERABLE: Brief report that can be used to guide possible GEM s RFP for this future work

43 Task 6: Design specifications to compile a global site classification database SCHEDULE: Group consensus on scope/deliverables, Feb 2011 Completion of Task 1b, June 2011 Final report for Task 6, July 2012

44 INTERFACE WITH OTHER PROJECTS Cooperation with other projects Cooperation with other Consortia and Regional Programmes on GMPE standards and use remains a key element: NGA WEST 2 NGA EAST SHARE EMME EMCA In the future: Sub-Sahara African Regional Program Any other?

45 CONTRACT STRATEGY INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS WITH PARTICIPANTS Most likely individual contract for each expert will be with a 3rd Party In very near future PEER will send instructions about consultancy agreement, payments, schedule of payments and travel reimbursement Roll over Terms and Conditions imposed by GEM Foundation U.S. Dollar payments

46 DEDICATED WEB-SITE ( CONTACTS: Heidi Faison (PEER Outreach Director: or Carola Di Alessandro:

47 QUESTIONS and DISCUSSIONS Any question?

48 Thank you for your attention and cooperation