Ground Motion Prediction Equation for Inelastic Spectral Displacement in Iran

Abstract

Abstract. This paper is devoted to investigating the inelastic displacement spectra compatible with Iran. Owing to inadequacy of code-compliant elastic design spectra to predict structural damage during sever earthquakes, di erent approaches are proposed to overcome this problem. Inelastic design spectrum is one of the most well-known methods introduced by researchers. In practice, attenuation relationships can be used in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis to obtain the inelastic design spectrum. In this paper, a new Ground Motion Prediction Equation (GMPE) has been proposed for inelastic spectral displacement. In this regard, 806 horizontal ground motions are utilized with magnitudes ranging from 4 to 7 and epicentral distances less than 200 Km, which are obtained from 330 earthquakes in Iran. According to the tectonic condition, Iran zone can be divided into two parts: Zagros and Alborz-central Iran. However, three equations have been presented for the whole country zone, Zagros and Alborz-central Iran zones, separately. The main parameters such as earthquake magnitude, site-source distance, and site conditions have been related to the inelastic spectral displacement. Based on average shear wave velocity to a depth of 30 m, sites have been categorized into three classes. For the purpose of practicality, simpli ed equations have been proposed to predict inelastic spectral displacements in Iran.

Ground Motion Model for Spectral Displacement of Intermediate-Depth Earthquakes Generated by Vrancea Seismic Source

“…Although GMPEs for peak ground displacement were available since 1974 [6,7], only in 1998 [8], then in 2004 [9], were significant efforts towards the development of GMPE for relative displacement response spectrum made. In recent years, the attenuation models for DRS began to receive researchers' attention due to increasing DBD popularity, in the studies of Akkar and Bommer [10], Cauzzi et al [11,12] and Faccioli et al [11][12][13], followed more recently in [14,15]. Some of the aforementioned models provide the DRS with different values of damping, all of them are valid for shallow earthquakes (note that the GMPE in [15] uses a database which also includes Romanian strong motion records generated by shallow earthquakes).…”

“…Unfortunately, the two models are calibrated against data from shallow earthquakes. The reference models are Cauzzi and Faccioli [11], presented with an orange dotted line, and Hassani et al [14], drawn with a blue dashed line. Measured data are shown with blue dots, and are from a M = 6.9 earthquake in Figure 22 and two M = 7.1 earthquakes in Figure 23.…”

Estimation of earthquake frequency content and its effect on dynamic analysis using continuous and discrete wavelet transform

“…The conventional and common method for making such an amendment is by applying upstream and downstream filters. Earthquake recording is mostly done using seismographs and accelerators [2][3][4][5]. Seismographs are very sensitive devices that can record extremely poor earth movements caused by earthquake events with high precision.…”