SPATIAL VARIATION OF EARTHQUAKE

GROUND MOTION

What is it, how do we model it, and

what are its engineering implications?

by

Ronald S. Harichandran
Professor and Chairperson

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824-1226

Phone: (517) 355-5107

Fax: (517) 432-1827
E-Mail: harichan@egr.msu.edu
Web: http://www.msu.edu/~harichan

November 1999
 Abstract
Observations from closely-spaced seismograph arrays since the late 1970’s have shown that
earthquake ground accelerograms measured at different locations within the dimensions of typical
large engineered structures are significantly different. This has led to considerable research in the
last decade on modeling spatially varying earthquake ground motion (SVEGM) and on determin-
ing its effect on the seismic response of large structures such as bridges, pipelines, dams, and so
on. A modification of the popular response spectrum method has also been developed to include
SVEGM. An overview of SVEGM, modeling approaches, methods for computing structural re-
sponses, and case studies are presented.

Table of Contents
1. What is SVEGM and is it Important? .........................................................................1
2. Causes of SVEGM......................................................................................................2
3. Measuring SVEGM ....................................................................................................2
4. Analyzing Recorded Data ...........................................................................................3
5. Observations and Synthesis ........................................................................................4
6. Probabilistic Modeling of SVEGM ............................................................................6
7. Analysis of Structural Response .................................................................................6
8. Theoretical Background on Stationary RVA..............................................................7
8.1 Direct Transfer Function Approach ..........................................................8
8.2 Modal Decomposition Approach..............................................................8
9. Random Vibration Analysis using ANSYS..............................................................10
10. Response Spectrum Method .....................................................................................10
11. Response of Structures to SVEGM...........................................................................11
11.1 Structures on Rigid Mat Foundations .....................................................11
11.2 Long-Span Bridges .................................................................................12
11.3 Earth Dams..............................................................................................15
11.4 Other Selected References Related to SVEGM......................................17
12. References.................................................................................................................18
1. What is SVEGM and is it Important?
Earthquake accelerograms measured at different locations within the dimensions of an engi-
neered structure are typically different. This is SVEGM! Fig. 1 shows two accelerograms recorded
at stations separated by 200 m. In spite of the similarities, there are also some differences. For larg-
er separations the differences become more noticeable.
Current engineering practice assumes:
1. Excitations at all support points are the same; or
2. Excitations are different by only a wave propagation time delay.
i.e., Excitations at all locations are assumed to be fully coherent.
Can differences in earthquake accelerograms over the dimensions of engineered structures
be neglected? Is current engineering practice reasonable/conservative?
To answer these questions we must:
1. Measure earthquake ground accelerations at closely-spaced locations.
2. Analyze and quantify the differences in observed accelerations.
3. Build suitable models for use in structural analysis.
4. Compute structural responses using models that include SVEGM and compare these with
those obtained using models that neglect SVEGM.
5. Classify the effect of SVEGM on the response of different classes of structures.

20 Station C00

0
Acceleration (gals)

-20

20 Station I06

-20

0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (sec)
Figure 1 Recorded accelerograms at stations 200 m apart

1
2. Causes of SVEGM
1. Wave passage effect: Seismic waves arrive at different times at different stations.
2. Incoherence effect: Differences in the manner of superposition of waves (a) arriving from
an extended source, and (b) scattered by irregularities and inhomogeneities along the path
and at the site, causes a loss of coherency.
3. “Local” site effect: Differences in local soil conditions at each station may alter the ampli-
tude and frequency content of the bedrock motions differently.
An illustration of the scattering of seismic waves from an extended source through layered
strata and a dense soil pocket is given in Fig. 2.

3. Measuring SVEGM
1. Seismograph arrays that can record ground motions simultaneously at several locations are
required.
2. The seismographs must be synchronized.
3. For engineering purposes, the seismographs must be closely-spaced, with separations that
span the dimensions of most engineered structures.
Desirable features of arrays are that they should:
• be useful to both engineers and seismologists
• record all three components of ground motion
• be located in highly seismic areas and in a variety of site conditions
The configuration of the SMART 1 seismograph array located in Lotung, Taiwan is shown
in Fig. 3.

Site

Direct waves
Path Reflected wave

Source

Figure 2 lllustration showing seismic wave propagation and scattering

2
 Figure 3 The SMART 1 seismograph array

4. Analyzing Recorded Data

Recorded signals are usually treated as random time series. If u̇˙l(t) and u̇˙m(t) are accelero-
grams at locations l and m, then using spectral estimation techniques, we estimate
(Harichandran 1991):
1. The real-valued, positive, auto spectral density functions (SDFs), Sl(f) and Sm(f). These
characterize the power at different frequencies. Fig. 4(a) shows a typical SDF.
2. The complex-valued cross SDF, Slm(f).
3. The complex-valued coherency spectrum
S lm( f )
γ lm( f ) = -----------------------------
- (1)
S l( f )S m( f )
|γlm(f)| describes the maximum correlation between the harmonics of u̇˙l(t) and u̇˙m(t) at fre-
quency f. |γlm(f)|2 is called the coherence. Fig. 4(b) shows a typical coherency spectrum.
4. The real-valued phase spectrum
Im [ S lm( f ) ]
φ lm( f ) = tan –1 --------------------------- (2)
Re [ S lm( f ) ]
This is the phase change required at frequency f to achieve the correlation |γlm(f)|. i.e., It de-
scribes the lead/lag of the harmonics of u̇˙l(t) and u̇˙m(t) at frequency f. Fig. 4(c) shows a
typical phase spectrum that is wrapped between −90° and 90°. By piecing together the seg-
ments of the wrapped phase spectrum, an unwrapped phase spectrum such as that shown in
Fig. 4(d) can be obtained.

3
 S(f) |γ(f)|
1

f f
0
(a) (b)

φ(f) φ(f)
90o

0 f

-90o f
0
(c) (d)

Figure 4 Typical shapes of: (a) Auto SDF; (b) absolute coherency; (c) wrapped phase; (d) unwrapped phase

5. Observations and Synthesis

The various spectra are estimated for numerous (or all available) accelerogram pairs. Exten-
sive analysis of data from SMART 1 indicate that (Harichandran and Vanmarcke 1986,
Harichandran 1991):
1. The auto SDFs of accelerograms at locations within the dimensions of engineered struc-
tures are similar. i.e., Local site effect can often be neglected.
2. Typically, coherency becomes smaller as the distance between stations l and m increase.
3. Typically, coherency decreases with increasing frequency f.
4. The decay of |γlm(f)| is not overly direction sensitive.
5. The gross lead/lag between signals (estimated using linear trends in the phase spectra at low
frequencies) display some deterministic features. Fig. 5 shows contours of the times at
which the seismic waves arrive at each station, relative to the center station C00. Fig. 6
shows a plot of the relative arrival times vs. the absolute separation along the direction of
propagation used to estimate the gross apparent propagation velocity.
The observations suggest the following simplifications:
1. The auto SDF at any location can be given by a point SDF S(f) estimated as the average of
all the auto SDFs.
2. The absolute coherency decay between all pairs of stations can be described by a single
function |γ(ν, f)|, where ν = separation between l and m.
3. The phase spectra can be (grossly) simplified as
φ(ν, f ) = – 2πd (3)
where d = V.ν/|V|2 = gross propagation time delay, and V = gross apparent propagation ve-
locity vector.

4
 Figure 5 Contours of relative arrival times for Figure 6 Plot of estimated gross propagation velocity
SMART 1 Event 20 for SMART 1 Event 20

To aid visualization of |γ(ν, f)|, the pair-wise coherencies γlm(f) can be smoothed using:
n
ν – νi
∑γ (ν i, f ) w  -------------
 ∆ν 
γ̂ (v, f ) = ------------------------------------------------------
i=1
(4)
n
ν – ν i
 -------------
∑  ∆ν w
i=1

where νi = scalar separation between stations l and m, w(x) = exp(–x2/2) = a smoothing window,
and ∆ν = a smoothing parameter. Figs 7 and 8 show the variation of the smoothed estimated abso-
lute coherency for the radial components of two events recorded by the SMART 1 array.

Figure 7 Smoothed estimated coherency for radial Figure 8 Smoothed estimated coherency for radial
component of SMART 1 Event 20 component of SMART 1 Event 24

5
 A word of caution is in order regarding spectral estimation, which is as much an art as it is a
science. Various parameters and smoothing options must be used to obtain meaningful results. In-
correct application of the techniques can produce poor or erroneous results (Harichandran 1987a).

6. Probabilistic Modeling of SVEGM

Based on the observations, if local site effects are neglected SVEGM can be modeled as a
homogeneous random field with cross SDF
iφ ( ν, f )
C(ν, f ) = S( f ) γ ( ν, f ) e (5)
Note that the cross SDF for accelerograms at l and m is
S lm( f ) = C ( ν lm, f ) (6)
where νlm = separation between stations l and m.
A popular functional form for S(f) is the filtered Kanai-Tajimi spectrum (Clough and
Penzien 1993)

1 + 4ξ g2 ( f ⁄ f g ) 2 ( f ⁄ f f )4
S( f ) = ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
- S (7)
[ 1 – ( f ⁄ f g ) 2 ] 2 + 4ξ g2 ( f ⁄ f g ) 2 [ 1 – ( f ⁄ f f ) 2 ] 2 + 4ξ 2f ( f ⁄ f f ) 2 0

The parameters ξg, fg, ξf, and ff control the shape of the spectrum. S0 is an intensity factor. ξg and fg
may be interpreted as the “soil damping” and “soil frequency.” The first term on the RHS in Eq. 7
is the Kanai-Tajimi spectrum, and the second term is a modifier that makes the mean square ground
displacement finite. Fig. 9 shows typical estimated and fitted auto SDFs.
Different empirical forms have been suggested for |γ(ν, f)|. Harichandran and Vanmarcke
(1986) suggested the sum of two exponentials:

2ν 2ν
γ ( ν, f ) = Aexp – -------------- ( 1 – A + αA ) + ( 1 – A )exp – ---------- ( 1 – A + αA ) (8)
αθ( f ) θ( f )
in which θ(f) = k[1 + (f/f0)b]−1/2 is the frequency-dependent spatial scale of fluctuation. Hindy and
Novak (1980), Loh (1985), Luco and Wong (1986) and others have used single exponential func-
tions, which may all be written in the form
µ
γ ( ν, f ) = exp [ – λ ( fν ) ] (9)
Other more complex models have been proposed by Hao et al. (1989) and Abrahamson (1993).
Fig. 10 shows the double exponential coherency function fitted to the radial component of Event
20 recorded by the SMART 1 array (c.f. Fig. 7).

7. Analysis of Structural Response

Three techniques are available for analyzing structural response due to SVEGM:
1. Random vibration analysis (RVA).
Advantages: Consistent with probabilistic modeling. Input is specified directly in terms of
cross SDFs.

6
 Disadvantages: Not commonly used in practice. Including non-stationary effects is cum-
bersome. Non-linear analysis is very difficult.
2. Time history analysis.
This requires deterministic acceleration time-histories to be used as input ground motions.
The time-histories can be obtained from: (a) those measured at a suitable array; (b) by mod-
eling the seismic source and propagation of waves in an elastic medium; or (c) through sim-
ulation based on the probabilistic SVEGM model.
Advantages: Can include non-stationary excitation and non-linear behavior.
Disadvantages: Results are specific to the selected excitation time histories. Used in prac-
tice only for important structures.
3. Response spectrum method.
This should include the effect of SVEGM.
Advantages: Commonly used in practice. Inherently includes non-stationarity of excita-
tion.
Disadvantages: Cannot include non-linear behavior. Is approximate.

8. Theoretical Background on Stationary RVA

The dynamic equations of motion of a structure discretized using the finite element method
may be written in the partitioned form:

M M C  u̇˙  C CC  u̇  K KC u 0

 ˙ +  + u  =   (10)
M CT M R  u̇ R  C CT C R  u̇ R  K CT K R  R R 

where
• M, C and K are mass, damping and stiffness matrices associated with the unrestrained
DOF u

Figure 9 Estimated and fitted auto SDFs for radial Figure 10 Fitted coherency function for radial
components of SMART 1 Event 20 component of SMART 1 Event 20

7
 • MR, CR and KR are mass, damping and stiffness matrices associated with the restrained
DOF uR
• MC, CC and KC are coupling mass, damping and stiffness matrices
• R is the reaction force vector
The structure is excited by r stationary support accelerations, u̇˙Rl(t) , l = 1, 2, …, r. The sup-
port excitations are characterized by their cross SDF, Slm(ω), where l and m denote the indices on
the support accelerations.

8.1 Direct Transfer Function Approach

If the transfer (frequency response) function relating the lth harmonic excitation to a given
displacement, strain or stress response z is denoted by Ĥ l(ω) for support excitations, then the
mean-square response is given by (Newland 1984)
∞ r r
 
σ z2 = ∫  ∑ ∑ Ĥ l*(ω)Ĥ m(ω)S lm(ω) dω (11)

0 l = 1m = 1


in which Ĥ l*(ω) is the complex conjugate of Ĥ l(ω) . The RVA capability of many software pack-
ages (e.g., I-DEAS Master Series 1.3) is limited to this. Versions of ANSYS prior to 5.0 also used
this approach, and were even more restrictive because only a single excitation was allowed. Al-
though simple to implement, the main shortcoming of this method is that transfer functions must
be obtained for each excitation and each response through harmonic analyses, and separate numer-
ical integrations must be performed for each physical response. Hence, the method is not efficient
if a very large number of responses are required.

8.2 Modal Decomposition Approach

The graphical display of contours of root-mean square (r.m.s.) responses over an entire struc-
ture or component requires the computation of numerous r.m.s. responses, which is most efficient-
ly performed using modal decomposition (Harichandran and Wang 1990b).
The displacements are decomposed into dynamic and pseudo-static components:
u = ud + us (12)
The pseudo-static displacements are obtained from Eq. 10 by neglecting inertia and damping forc-
es, and are
u s = – K –1 K C u R = Au R (13)
in which A = −K−1KC = matrix of influence coefficients whose ith column constitutes the unre-
strained nodal displacements due to a unit value of the ith restrained support displacement. Substi-
tuting Eqs. 12 and 13 into the equation of motion yields
Mu̇˙d + Cu̇ d + Ku d = – ( MA + M C ) u̇˙R – ( CA + C C ) u̇ R ≈ ( MA – M C )u̇˙R (14)
The damping forces neglected on the RHS of Eq. 14 are small compared to the inertia forces, and
are identically zero for stiffness proportional damping.

8
 The undamped free vibration modes of the restrained structure are used to uncouple the eqs.
of motion into

Ẏ˙ j + 2ξ j ω j Y˙ j + ω 2j Y j = Γ Tj u̇˙R (15)

where
( MA + M C ) T φ j
Γ j = – -----------------------------------------
- (16)
φ Tj Mφφ j
is a modal participation vector, φ j = mode shape vector, ωj = modal circular frequency (in radi-
ans), and ξj = modal damping ratio.
Any displacement, strain or stress response z is separated into dynamic and pseudo-static
parts:
z = zd + zs (17)
The variance (or mean-square since the mean is zero)) of the response is
σ z2 = σ z2d + σ z2s + 2Cov(z s, z d) (18)

where
n n ∞ r r
 
σ z2d = ∑ ∑ ψ jψk ∫
 ∑ ∑ Γ lj Γ mk H *(ω)H (ω)S (ω) dω
j k lm

(19)
j = 1k = 1 –∞ l = 1 m = 1

r r ∞
1
σ zs = ∑ ∑ B l B m ∫ -----4-S lm(ω) dω
ω
(20)
l = 1m = 1 0

n r ∞ r
1
Cov(z s, z d) = – ∑∑ ψ j B l ∫ -----2-
ω ∑ Γ mj Ĥ j(ω)S lm(ω) dω (21)
j = 1l = 1 0 m=1

In Eqs. 19 to 21
• n = no. of modes, r = no. of support DOF;
• ψj = response z from the jth mode (for the ith displacement response ψj ≡ φij);
• Bl = response z due to a unit displacement of support DOF l (for the ith displacement re-
sponse Bl ≡ Ail);
• Γlj = lth element of the participation vector Γj;
• Hj(ω) = (ωj2 − ω2 + 2iωjξjω)−1 = jth modal frequency response function; and
• Slm(ω) = cross SDF of accelerations along DOF l and m.
The efficiency of the modal analysis method lies in the fact that the integrals in Eqs. 19 to 21
are independent of the response quantity z, and need to be computed and stored only once. In ad-
dition, for some forms of excitation cross SDFs commonly used in practice, closed-form results
can be used to compute the integrals in a fraction of the time required for numerical integration

9
(Harichandran 1992). Previously computed integrals can then be re-used to efficiently compute
mean-square values for a very large number of responses (Harichandran 1993).
The mean peak response may be obtained through
E [ max z(t) ] = p z σ z (22)
in which pz = peak factor for given duration s of stationary response (Der Kiureghian 1980).

9. Random Vibration Analysis using ANSYS

The author has collaborated with ANSYS, Inc., to implement extensive random vibration
analysis capability in the popular ANSYS finite element package. Version 5.0 of ANSYS is capa-
ble of performing random vibration analysis under SVEGM.
Coherency functions supported are:
• Fully coherent excitations: |γlm(f)| = 1
• Uncorrelated excitations: |γlm(f)| = 0
γlm
1
• Linear variation:
νmax νlm

µ
• Exponential variation: γ lm ( f ) = exp [ – λ ( f ν lm ) ]

10. Response Spectrum Method

Der Kiureghian and Neuenhofer (1992) have developed the most comprehensive response
spectrum method, and this is based on random vibration theory. The method accounts for cross cor-
relations between support motions and between different modes of vibration (the latter being im-
portant for closely-spaced modes).
We denote the displacement response spectrum by D(ω, ξ), and the maximum ground dis-
placement by ug,max. Note that ug,max = D(0, ξ). Neglecting local site effects (i.e., assuming Sl(ω) =
Sm(ω)), the mean peak response is approximated by
n n r r
E [ max z(t) ] ≈ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ψ j ψ k Γ lj Γ mk ρ djklm D(ω j, ξ j)D(ω k, ξ k)
j = 1k = 1l = 1m = 1
(23)
r r n r r
1⁄2
+ ∑ ∑ B l B m ρ lm
s u2
g, max + 2 ∑∑ ∑ B l ψ j Γ mj ρ sd
jlm u g, max D(ω j, ξ j) ]
l = 1m = 1 j = 1l = 1m = 1

The only new parameters are the correlation coefficients ρ djklm , ρ lm

s and ρ sd
jlm which depend
on the response spectrum, coherency function and propagation time delay, and must be obtained
by numerical integration of the following expressions:

10
 ∞
1
ρ djklm = -----------
σ j σk ∫ H *j (ω)H k(ω)S lm(ω)dω (24)
–∞

∞
1 1
ρ lm
s = -------
σ u2g
- ∫ ω-----4-S lm(ω)dω (25)
–∞

∞
1 1
ρ sd
jlm = – -------------
σ ug σ j ∫ ω-----2-H j(ω)S lm(ω) dω (26)
–∞

∞
σ 2j = ∫ H j(ω) 2 S(ω)dω (27)
–∞

∞
1
σ u2g = -----4-
ω ∫ S(ω)dω (28)
–∞

The cross SDF Slm(ω) is obtained from the SVEGM model

S lm(ω) = S ( ω ) γ lm(ω) e –iωd (29)
with S(ω) being the auto SDF that is equivalent to the design response spectrum D(ω, ξ), |γlm(ω)|
is an appropriate coherency function for the site, and d is the wave propagation delay from l to m.
To first-order
2ξω 3 D(ω, ξ) 2
S(ω) ≈ ------------- ------------------ , ω≥0 (30)
π p s(ω)

in which ps(ω) = peak factor for oscillator with frequency ω and response duration s
(Der Kiureghian 1980), and ξ is the modal damping ratio assumed to be the same for all modes.
Fortunately ps(ω) is not too sensitive to the parameters s and ω and may be assumed to be constant
if necessary.

11. Response of Structures to SVEGM

11.1 Structures on Rigid Mat Foundations
A simplfied model of a structure on a non-embedded rigid mat foundation is shown in
Fig. 11. Harichandran (1987b) investigated the effect of SVEGM on the response of the oscillator.
The foundation averages the ground accelerations u̇˙g(x, y, t) along its bottom surface to produce
an effective acceleration at the base of the structure of
∆1 ∆2
1
u̇˙eff(t) = ------------ ∫ ∫ u̇˙g(x, y, t)dxdy (31)
∆1 ∆2
0 0

11
We define the base reduction factor which describes the effect of base averaging on the oscillator
response as
max. response of oscillator accounting for SVEGM
BRF = --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (32)
max. response of oscillator for identical excitation
The BRF for square foundations of area 2,500 m2 and 5,000 m2 are shown in Fig. 12 for ap-
parent propagation velocities of 1,000 m/s and 3,600 m/s along the x direction. The following con-
clusions emerged from this study:
1. Base averaging always reduces the effective excitation, with high frequencies being filtered
out more severely than low frequencies.
2. Response of stiff structures is reduced more than the response of flexible structures.
3. The response reduction is more sensitive to the aspect ratio of rectangular foundations for
smaller apparent wave propagation velocities.

11.2 Long-Span Bridges

Harichandran, Hawwari and Sweidan (1996) investigated the effect of SVEGM on: (a) the
lateral response of the Golden Gate suspension bridge (GGB) in California with a 4,200 ft center
span and 1,125 ft side spans; and (b) the longitudinal and lateral responses of the 1,700 ft New Riv-
er Gorge arch bridge (NRGB) in West Virginia, and the 700 ft Cold Spring Canyon arch bridge
(CSCB) in California.
Two-dimensional finite element models were used for all the bridges. For the suspension
bridge, the model developed by Abdel-Ghaffar and Rubin (1983) was used, with the corrections
made by Castellani and Felloti (1986). For the arch bridges, the models developed by Dusseau and
Wen (1989) were used.
Linear stationary random vibration analysis was performed. Total mean-square displacement
and force responses were computed from the dynamic and static variances, and the (possibly neg-
ative) covariances between the dynamic and static responses. Due to the flexibility of the bridges,
the dynamic variances were the most dominant, typically contributing between 80% and 110% to
the arch bridge member forces, and about 100% to the suspension bridge member forces.

∆2

x
∆1

Figure 11 Idealized oscillator on a rigid mat Figure 12 BRFs for two different foundation sizes and
foundation two different apparent propagation velocities

12
 28 2 166
4 164
26 6 162
24

18 82 84 86
16
14

4 6
2

1 3 5 13 15 17 23 25 27 1 3 5 81 83 85 161 163 165

Figure 13 Model of GGB side span Figure 14 Model of GGB main span

Suspension Bridge Lateral Responses

Figs. 13 and 14 show schematics of the finite element models used for the side and main
spans of the Golden Gate Bridge, and the node numbering scheme. The main towers are extremely
stiff compared to the suspended structure, and were assumed to be rigid. As a result, the excitations
at the cable and deck supports at each end were assumed to be identical, and the side and main
spans were analyzed independently. The hangers were considered to be inextensible and the deck
was modeled using beam elements. All elements were 50 ft long in the longitudinal direction. Con-
sistent mass matrices were used in the analyses.
Table 1 shows force response ratios for the two bridges due to longitudinal and lateral exci-
tations, respectively. The ratios were computed by dividing each mean-square response due to
identical and delayed excitation by the corresponding mean-square response due to general exci-
tation. The maximum and minimum ratios that were obtained from all deck and cable members,
respectively, are shown in the tables, and the node numbers at which the extreme ratios occur are
shown within parentheses. The increase in cable tension due to the excitations was small, and
hence for the cable the response ratios are given only for displacements. The ratios indicate how
close responses computed using the more common excitation types are when compared to respons-
es due to the general spatially varying ground motion model, and indicate the following trends:
1. The use of identical excitations significantly over-estimates the responses at some locations
and under-estimates the responses at others, the relative deviations being more severe for
the longer main span. The shear near the mid-spans is drastically under-estimated because
anti-symmetric modes are not excited by identical excitations.
2. The use of delayed excitations gives acceptable results for the side span, but shows greater
deviations for the main span in which the deck moment and shear are sometimes signifi-
cantly under-estimated. This indicates that the loss of correlation is important for long span
suspension bridges.

TABLE 1 LATERAL RESPONSE RATIOS FOR GGB SIDE AND MAIN SPANS
Side Span Main Span
Range
Ratio

Deck Nodes Cable Deck Nodes Cable

Moment Shear Displ. Displ. Moment Shear Displ. Displ.
Identical Max. 1.23 (15) 1.41 (5) 1.17 (13) 1.18 (14) 2.24 (83) 1.54 (93) 1.54 (83) 1.84 (84)
---------------------
General Min. 0.80 (23) 0.00 (13) 1.04 (27) 0.98 (28) 0.37 (69) 0.04 (81) 0.84 (23) 0.78 (100)
Delayed Max. 1.09 (17) 1.03 (27) 1.11 (15) 1.11 (16) 1.16 (129) 1.16 (117) 1.22 (89) 1.21 (96)
--------------------
General Min. 0.96 (27) 0.85 (19) 1.05 (1) 1.01 (2) 0.72 (115) 0.78 (131) 0.97 (153) 0.99 (6)

13
 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 1

39 40 41 42 24 25 43 44
38 43 23
37 44 22 45
36 45
21 46
35 46
34 47 20 47

Figure 15 Model of NRG bridge Figure 16 Model of CSC bridge

Arch Bridge Responses

Figs. 15 and 16 show schematics of the finite element models used for the two arch bridges
and member numbering along the decks and arches. Beam elements with additional warping d.o.f.
were used to model the decks and end towers. Equivalent properties for each element were derived
from the complex arrangement of members in the actual bridges. The columns connecting the
decks to the arches and the diagonal bracing were modeled as struts, with the former assumed to
be inextensible. Bracing elements in the CSCB were cables. Lumped mass matrices were used in
the analyses. At each end, identical excitations were used at the deck, tower and arch supports.
Tables 2 and 3 show force response ratios for the two bridges due to longitudinal and lateral
excitations, respectively. The ratios were computed by dividing each mean-square response due to
identical and delayed excitation by the corresponding mean-square response due to general exci-
tation. The maximum and minimum ratios that were obtained from all deck, arch and bracing mem-
bers, respectively, are shown in the tables, and the member numbers at which the extreme ratios
occur are shown within parentheses. The response ratios for the two bridges indicate the following
trends:
1. For the longitudinal response, the use of identical excitations severely under-estimates the
axial force in all arch members, and the moment and shear in some deck and arch members;
and over-estimates the axial force in the deck and bracing.
2. For the longitudinal response, the use of delayed excitations yields acceptable results for
most members. However, for the NRGB, the shear in some arch members and the axial
force in the bracing is significantly under-estimated.
3. For the lateral response, the use of identical excitations over-estimates the forces in some
members and under-estimates them in others. The moments in some arch members are
quite significantly under-estimated.

TABLE 2 LONGITUDINAL FORCE RESPONSE RATIOS FOR ARCH BRIDGES

Min. Max. Min. Max. Range

Deck Members Arch Members Bracing

-------------------- --------------------- Ratio

Bridge
Moment Shear Axial Moment Shear Axial Axial
NRGB 0.87 (5) 1.03 (5) 2.03 (6) 1.19 (40) 2.69 (39) 0.15 (34) 2.02
Delayed Identical
General General

CSCB 0.70 (7) 1.61 (6) 1.30 (10) 0.72 (26) 1.60 (25) 0.06 (30) 0.95
NRGB 0.27 (1) 0.27 (1) 1.66 (1) 0.10 (39) 0.11 (38) 0.06 (40) 1.82
CSCB 0.07 (5) 0.03 (5) 1.23 (1) 0.08 (24) 0.03 (24) 0.01 (25) –
NRGB 1.22 (4) 1.22 (3) 1.09 (1) 1.18 (34) 1.22 (38) 1.20 (40) 0.91
CSCB 1.10 (8) 1.14 (10) 0.98 (1) 1.10 (27) 1.14 (29) 1.16 (all) 0.97
NRGB 1.07 (5) 1.09 (5) 0.85 (6) 0.93 (40) 0.68 (39) 1.19 (34) 0.83
CSCB 0.94 (2) 0.92 (6) 0.97 (10) 0.93 (28) 0.92 (25) 1.16 (all) –

14
 TABLE 3 LATERAL FORCE RESPONSE RATIOS FOR ARCH BRIDGES

Min. Max. Min. Max. Range

Deck Members Arch Members

Ratio
Bridge
Moment Shear Torsion W. Mom. Moment Shear Torsion
NRGB 1.40 (8) 1.70 (13) 1.70 (7) 1.27 (6) 1.31 (45) 1.07 (45) 2.37 (40)

Identical
---------------------
General
CSCB 1.64 (4) 1.56 (5) 1.46 (4) 1.25 (6) 1.10 (23) 1.37 (23) 1.57 (25)
NRGB 0.88 (3) 0.74 (11) 0.59 (9) 0.69 (11) 0.38 (40) 0.63 (40) 0.89 (36)
CSCB 0.75 (10) 0.70 (6) 0.71 (2) 0.81 (7) 0.40 (25) 0.13 (25) 0.83 (28)
NRGB 1.14 (7) 1.12 (11) 1.05 (7) 1.13 (7) 1.12 (40) 1.09 (44) 1.05 (36)
Delayed
--------------------
General
CSCB 2.67 (6) 1.11 (10) 1.30 (2) 1.21 (9) 1.72 (29) 1.30 (26) 1.22 (20)
NRGB 0.92 (11) 0.78 (9) 0.69 (10) 0.84 (10) 0.78 (45) 0.89 (45) 0.84 (43)
CSCB 0.62 (8) 0.70 (6) 0.73 (5) 0.88 (8) 0.88 (23) 0.79 (27) 0.75 (26)

4. For the lateral response, the use of delayed excitations over-estimates the forces in some
members and under-estimates them in others. The level and number of members for which
the forces are under-estimated is greater for the shorter and stiffer CSC bridge.
General Conclusions
The use of identical excitations is in general unacceptable for these long-span bridges. The
use of delayed excitations is acceptable for the longitudinal response of short arch bridges, and the
lateral response of short suspension bridge side spans; however, it is unacceptable for the longitu-
dinal response of long arch bridges, the lateral response of short and long arch bridges, and the lat-
eral response of long suspension bridge main spans.

11.3 Earth Dams

Chen and Harichandran (1996) studied the effects of SVEGM on the Santa Felicia earth dam
located in Southern California. Fig. 17 shows the cross section of the dam. A 3-D finite element
model of the dam was used for the analysis. The contours in Figs. 18 and 19 show the variation of
the mean plus three standard deviation values of the maximum shear stress (τmax) along the base
and mid-length cross section due to general SVEGM, identical and delayed (wave propagation
only) excitations. While the magnitude and distribution of τmax is very similar for identical and de-

y
Upstream Downstream
2.25:1 2:1

Pervious Pervious
Shell 0.33:1 Shell 4:1
3:1
Impervious
Existing Stream Gravels Core Existing Stream Gravels x
Bedrock
Figure 17 Cross section of the Santa Felicia earth dam

15
 FRAME OF REF: GLOBAL
DISPLACEMENT - Z MIN: 507.72 MAX: 38806.00

1.86
38806.00

1.49
30500.00

1.12
23000.00

(a)

0.76
15500.00

8000.00

0.39

0.02
507.72

FRAME OF REF: GLOBAL

DISPLACEMENT - Z MIN: 180.11 MAX: 10399.00

0.50
10399.00

0.40
8355.22

0.30
6311.44

(b)

0.20
4267.67

0.11
2223.89

0.01
180.11

FRAME OF REF: GLOBAL

DISPLACEMENT - Z MIN: 204.75 MAX: 10669.00
10669.00

0.51

0.40
8355.22

(c) 0.30
6311.44

0.20
4267.67

0.11
2223.89

0.01
204.75

Figure 18 µ+3σ contours of τmax (MPa) at the base for: (a) general, (b) identical, and (c) delayed excitations

16
 (a) 0.50 0

0.40

0.30

0.20
(b)

0.11

0.01

(c)

Figure 19 µ+3σ contours of τmax (MPa) on the mid-length cross section for: (a) general, (b) identical, and
(c) delayed excitations

layed excitations, it is markedly different within the stiff gravel streambed for general SVEGM.
General conclusions that emerged were that:
1. SVEGM significantly increases the maximum shear stress in the stiff gravel streambed,
mostly due to the incoherence.
2. The wave passage effect is not as significant as coherency loss for the SVEGM model con-
sidered.
3. For displacement and maximum shear strain responses, and for maximum shear stresses
within the core, the use of identical ground motion yields slightly conservative results and
is acceptable.
4. A preliminary reliability analysis indicates that a larger variety of sliding failures may be
possible under SVEGM than under identical excitation.

11.4 Other Selected References Related to SVEGM

The modeling of SVEGM, techniques for analyzing structural response excited by it, its ef-
fect on various types of structures, and its simulation, have been studied by several investigators
and selected references are provided here:
• Analysis and modeling of ground motion(Harichandran 1987a, Loh and Yeh 1988, Zerva
and Shinozuka 1991, Spudich 1994, Boissieres and Vanmarcke 1995a, Boissieres and

17
 Vanmarcke 1995b, Chiu et al. 1995, Der Kiureghian 1996a, Der Kiureghian 1996b,
Nakamura 1996)
• Techniques for analyzing structural response (DebChaudhury and Gazis 1988, Yamamura
and Tanaka 1990, Heredia-Zavoni and Vanmarcke 1994, Heredia-Zavoni et al. 1996)
• Response spectrum techniques (Berrah and Kausel 1993, Zembaty and Krenk 1994)
• Response of beam-like structures (Harichandran and Wang 1988, Zerva et al. 1988, Datta
and Mashaly 1990, Harichandran and Wang 1990b, Harichandran and Wang 1990a,
Zerva 1990, Zerva 1991)
• Response of bridges (Abdel-Ghaffar and Rubin 1982, Wilson and Jennings 1985,
Zerva 1988, Loh and Lee 1990, Nazmy and Abdel-Ghaffar 1992, Hao 1993, Hao 1994,
Nazmy and Konidaris 1994)
• Response of buildings (Hahn and Liu 1994, Hao and Duan 1995, Herdia-Zavoni and
Barranco 1996, Hao 1997)
• Response of dams (Haroun and Abdel-Hafiz 1987, Novak and Suen 1987, Zhang and
Chopra 1991)
• Response of foundations; soil structure interaction (Luco and Wong 1986,
Harichandran 1987b, Luco and Mita 1987, Veletsos and Prasad 1989)
• Response of transmission lines (Ghobarah et al. 1996)
• Simulation of SVEGM (Shinozuka and Jan 1972, Wittig and Sinha 1975,
Abrahamson 1992, Zerva 1992, Ramadan and Novak 1993, Vanmarcke et al. 1993, Ra-
madan and Novak 1994)

12. References
Abdel-Ghaffar, A. M., and Rubin, L. I. (1982). “Suspension bridge response to multiple-support excitations.” Journal
of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 108(EM2), 419–435.
Abdel-Ghaffar, A. M., and Rubin, L. I. (1983). “Lateral earthquake response of suspension bridges.” Journal of Struc-
tural Engineering, ASCE, 109(3), 664–675.
Abrahamson, N. A. (1992). “Generation of spatially incoherent strong motion time histories.” Proceedings, 10th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 10, Barcelona, Spain, 845–850.
Abrahamson, N. A. (1993). “Spatial variation of multiple support inputs.” Proceedings, 1st U. S. Seminar on Seismic
Evaluation and Retrofit of Steel Bridges, Department of Civil Engineering and California Department of Trans-
portation, University of California at Berkeley, San Francisco, California.
Berrah, M. K., and Kausel, E. (1993). “A modal combination rule for spatially varying seismic motions.” Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 22(9), 791–800.
Boissieres, H.-P., and Vanmarcke, E. H. (1995a). “Estimation of lags for a seismograph array: wave propagation and
composite correlation.” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 14(1), 5.
Boissieres, H.-P., and Vanmarcke, E. H. (1995b). “Spatial correlation of earthquake ground motion: Non-parametric
estimation.” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 14(1), 23.
Castellani, A., and Felloti, P. (1986). “Lateral vibration of suspension bridges.” Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, 112(9), 2169–2173.
Chiu, H.-C., Amirbekian, R. V., and Bolt, B. A. (1995). “Transferability of strong ground motion coherency between
the SMART1 and SMART2 arrays.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 85(1), 342. Short Notes.

18
Clough, R. W., and Penzien, J. (1993). Dynamics of structures. 2nd Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
Datta, T. K., and Mashaly, E. A. (1990). “Transverse response of offshore pipelines to random ground motion.” Earth-
quake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 19(2), 217–228.
DebChaudhury, A., and Gazis, G. D. (1988). “Response of MDOF systems to multiple support seismic excitation.”
Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 114(4), 583–603.
Der Kiureghian, A. (1980). “Structural response to stationary excitation.” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE,
106(6), 1195–1213.
Der Kiureghian, A. (1996a). “A coherency model for spatially varying ground motion.” Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, 25, 99–111.
Der Kiureghian, A., and Neuenhofer, A. (1992). “Response spectrum method for multi-support seismic excitations.”
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 21(8), 713–740.
Der Kiureghian, A. a. P. K. (1996b). “Effect of site reponse on spatial variability of ground motion.” Proceedings, 11th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Paper No. 705.
Dusseau, R. A., and Wen, Y. K. (1989). “Seismic response of deck-type arch bridges.” Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, 18, 701–715.
Ghobarah, A., Aziz, T. S., and El-Attar, M. (1996). “Response of transmission lines to multiple support excitation.”
Engineering Structures, 18(12), 936–946.
Hahn, G. D., and Liu, X. (1994). “Torsional response of unsymmetric buildings to incoherent ground motions.” Jour-
nal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 120(4), 1158–1181.
Hao, H. (1993). “Arch responses to correlated multiple excitations.” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynam-
ics, 22(5), 389–404.
Hao, H. (1994). “Ground-motion spatial variation effects on circular arch responses.” Journal of Engineering Mechan-
ics, ASCE, 120(11), 2326.
Hao, H. (1997). “Torsional response of building structures to spatial random ground excitations.” Engineering Struc-
tures, 19(2), 105–112.
Hao, H., and Duan, X. N. (1995). “Seismic response of asymmetric structures to multiple ground motions.” Journal
of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 121(11), 1557–1564.
Hao, H., Oliviera, C. S., and Penzien, J. (1989). “Multiple-station ground motion processing and simulation based on
SMART-1 array data.” Nuclear Engineering and Design, 111, 293–310.
Harichandran, R. S. (1987a). “Correlation analysis in space-time modeling of strong ground motion.” Journal of En-
gineering Mechanics, ASCE, 113(4), 629–634.
Harichandran, R. S. (1987b). “Stochastic analysis of rigid foundation filtering.” Earthquake Engineering and Struc-
tural Dynamics, 15(7), 889–899.
Harichandran, R. S. (1991). “Estimating the spatial variation of earthquake ground motion from dense array record-
ings.” Structural Safety, 10, 213–233.
Harichandran, R. S. (1992). “Random vibration under propagating excitation: Closed-form solutions.” Journal of En-
gineering Mechanics, ASCE, 118(3), 575–586.
Harichandran, R. S. (1993). “An efficient adaptive algorithm for large-scale random vibration analysis.” Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 22(2), 151–165.
Harichandran, R. S., and Chen, M.-T. (1996). “Reliability of an earth dam excited by spatially varying earthquake
ground motion.” Proceedings, 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Pa-
per No. 1287.
Harichandran, R. S., Hawwari, A., and Sweidan, B. (1996). “Response of long-span bridges to spatially varying

19
 ground motion.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 122(5), 476–484.
Harichandran, R. S., and Vanmarcke, E. H. (1986). “Stochastic variation of earthquake ground motion in space and
time.” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 112(2), 154–174.
Harichandran, R. S., and Wang, W. (1988). “Response of simple beam to spatially varying earthquake excitation.”
Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 114(9), 1526–1541.
Harichandran, R. S., and Wang, W. (1990a). “Effect of spatially varying seismic excitation on surface lifelines.” 4th
National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, May 20-24, 1990, Palm Springs, California, Vol. 1, 885–
894.
Harichandran, R. S., and Wang, W. (1990b). “Response of indeterminate two-span beam to spatially varying seismic
excitation.” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 19(2), 173–187.
Haroun, M. A., and Abdel-Hafiz, E. A. (1987). “Seismic response analysis of earth dams under differential ground
motion.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 77(5), 1514–1529.
Herdia-Zavoni, E., and Barranco, F. (1996). “Torsion in symmetric structures due to ground-motion spatial variation.”
Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 122(9), 834–843.
Heredia-Zavoni, E., Salgado, E., and Barranco, F. (1996). “Random vibration analysis of non-classically damped
multi-support structural systems.” Proceedings, 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Elsevier,
Amsterdam, Paper No. 1168.
Heredia-Zavoni, E., and Vanmarcke, E. H. (1994). “Seismic random-vibration analysis of multisupport-structural sys-
tems.” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 120(5), 1107–.
Hindy, A., and Novak, M. (1980). “Pipeline response to random ground motion.” Journal of Engineering Mechanics,
ASCE, 106(EM2), 339–360.
Loh, C.-H. (1985). “Analysis of the spatial variation of seismic waves and ground movements from SMART-1 array
data.” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 13, 561–581.
Loh, C.-H., and Lee, S. Z. (1990). “Aseismic displacement analysis of multi-supported bridge to multiple excitations.”
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 9(1), 25–33.
Loh, C.-H., and Yeh, Y.-T. (1988). “Spatial variation and stochastic modelling of seismic differential ground move-
ment.” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 16(4), 583–596.
Luco, J. E., and Mita, A. (1987). “Response of circular foundation to spatially varying random ground motion.” Jour-
nal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 113(1), 1–15.
Luco, J. E., and Wong, H. L. (1986). “Response of a rigid foundation to a spatially random ground motion.” Earth-
quake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 14, 891–908.
Nakamura, H. (1996). “Depth-dependent spatial variation of ground motion based on seismic array records.” Proceed-
ings, 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Ruiz, S., ed., Elsevier, Amsterdam, Paper No. 731.
Nazmy, A. S., and Abdel-Ghaffar, A. M. (1992). “Effects of ground motion spatial variability on the response of cable-
stayed bridges.” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 21(1), 1–20.
Nazmy, A. S., and Konidaris, E. G. (1994). “Nonlinear seismic behavior of steel deck-type arch bridges.” Proceed-
ings, Fifth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 1, Earthquake Engineering Research In-
stitute, Oakland, CA, 367–376.
Newland, D. E. (1984). An introduction to random vibrations and spectral analysis. 2nd Ed., Wiley, New York.
Novak, M., and Suen, E. (1987). “Dam-foundation interaction under spatially correlated random ground motion.” 3rd
International Conference on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, June 22-24, 1987, 25–39.
Ramadan, O., and Novak, M. (1993). “Simulation of spatially incoherent random ground motion.” Journal of Engi-
neering Mechanics, ASCE, 119(5), 997–1016.

20
Ramadan, O., and Novak, M. (1994). “Simulation of multidimensional, anisotropic ground motions.” Journal of En-
gineering Mechanics, ASCE, 120(8), 1773–1785.
Shinozuka, M., and Jan, C.-M. (1972). “Digital simulation of random processes and its applications.” Journal of Sound
and Vibration, 25(1), 111–128.
Spudich, P. (1994). New developments in earthquake ground motion estimation and implications for engineering de-
sign practice, Vol. ATC 35-1, Chap. Recent seismological insights into the spatial variation of earthquake
ground motions, 13–31.
Vanmarcke, E., Heredia-Zavoni, E., and Fenton, G. A. (1993). “Conditional simulation of spatially correlated earth-
quake ground motion.” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 119(11), 2333–2352.
Veletsos, A. S., and Prasad, A. M. (1989). “Seismic interaction of structures and soils: Stochastic approach.” Journal
of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 115(4), 935–956.
Wilson, J. C., and Jennings, P. C. (1985). “Spatial variation of ground motion determined from accelerograms record-
ed on a highway bridge.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 75(6), 1515–1533.
Wittig, L. E., and Sinha, A. K. (1975). “Simulation of multicorrelated random processes using the FFT algorithm.”
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 58(3), 630–634.
Yamamura, N., and Tanaka, H. (1990). “Response analysis of flexible MDF systems for multiple-support seismic ex-
citations.” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 19, 345–357.
Zembaty, Z., and Krenk, S. (1994). “Spatial seismic excitations and response spectra.” Journal of Engineering Me-
chanics, ASCE, 119(12), 2449–2460.
Zerva, A. (1988). “Effect of spatial variation of ground motions on bridges.” Proceedings of the 5th ASCE Specialty
Conference on Probabilistic Methods, 253–256.
Zerva, A. (1990). “Response of multi-span beams to spatially incoherent seismic ground motions.” Earthquake Engi-
neering and Structural Dynamics, 19, 819–832.
Zerva, A. (1991). “Effect of spatial variability and propagation of seismic ground motions on the response of muliply
supported structures.” Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 7, 217–226.
Zerva, A. (1992). “Seismic ground motion simulations from a class of spatial variability models.” Earthquake Engi-
neering and Structural Dynamics, 21, 351–361.
Zerva, A., Ang, A. H.-S., and Wen, Y. K. (1988). “Lifeline response to spatially variable ground motion.” Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 16, 361–379.
Zerva, A., and Shinozuka, M. (1991). “Stochastic differential ground motion.” Structural Safety, 10(1-3), 129–143.
Zhang, L., and Chopra, A. K. (1991). “Computation of spatially varying ground motion and foundation-rock imped-
ance matrices for seismic analysis of arch dams.” Report No. UCB/EERC 91/06, Earthquake Engineering Re-
search Center, University of California, Berkeley, California.

21