1 Appropriate Translational Component for Simplified Extraction of Rotational Ground Motions

2 Gopala Krishna Rodda1 and Dhiman Basu2

3 Abstract

4 Rotational ground-- motion may contribute significantly to the response of certain structures. To date,
5 these components are not measured by the accelerographs deployed in free-field owing to the non-
6 availability of appropriate instruments and hence, their effects are generally ignored in seismic design.
7 Indirect methods that enable extraction of these components from the translational recording have been
8 reported in literature under some suitable assumptions. These methods which are computationally
9 indeterminate, do not always give better end product and may lead to unrealistic results because of the
10 required assumptions on compatibility. A simplified method has been proposed in this paper to extract
11 the rotational motion as a simple temporal derivative of an appropriate translational component (ATC)
12 followed by scaling with an apparent velocity. While the computation of apparent velocity has been
13 reported by the authors elsewhere (Rodda and Basu, 2016), this paper explores the existence of ATC
14 such that time derivative of which is closely related to the associated rotational component. Several
15 quantitative descriptions are included in this investigation including the response spectra, relative
16 energy build up and energy spectra to study the spectral similitude between the time derivative of ATC
17 and the respective rotational motion. Owing to the non-availability of design spectrum, similitude is
18 assessed on smoothened (by Hamming window) spectra. Parameters like spectral contrast angle (SCA),
19 distance correlation are used for assessing the spectral similitude. To differentiate the similar from non-
20 similar spectra, SCA corresponding to an acceptable degree of similarity is proposed by studying a large
21 ensemble of ground motions from the PEER database. In absence of surface waves, ATC for the
22 torsional component is horizontal motion normal to the principal plane (vertical plane joining epicentre
23 and recording station), owing to the contribution from only SH wave field, whereas, rocking motion
24 has contributions from both P and SV waves, and hence, a hypothetical translational motion, which is
25 a combination of both the horizontal motion along the principal plane and the vertical motion has been
26 proposed as the ATC for rocking motion.

27 Keywords: Rotational ground motion; appropriate translational component; spectral contrast angle.

28 1. Introduction

29 Rotational components of ground motion have been the interest of many researchers and the first study
30 probably dates back to late 1960s. Newmark (1969) reported the excitation of a symmetrical building
31 by the torsional ground motion on the basis of plane wave propagation with a constant velocity. A
32 number of researchers reported the effect of rotational ground motion on structural response including
33 Hart et al. (1975), Bycroft (1980), Wolf et al. (1983), De La Llera and Chopra (1994), Zembaty and
34 Boffi (1994), Zembaty (2009a), Politopoulos (2010), Ghafory-Ashtiany et al. (2010), Falamarz-
35 Sheikhabadi et al. (2012), Basu et al. (2014), Falamarz-Sheikhabadi (2014), Basu and Giri (2015), Basu
36 et al. (2015), Falamarz-Sheikhabadi et al. (2015) and Falamarz-Sheikhabadi et al. (2016). Despite these
37 efforts, agreement on the importance of rotational excitations on response of the structures does not
38 exist, possibly due to the different definitions of rotation, namely point rotation, chord rotation and
39 average rotation.
40 Many attempts have been made to date on measuring the rotational excitation and a comprehensive list
41 of literature up to 2009 was reported in the special publication of Bulletin of the Seismological Society
42 of America (BSSA), 99(2B). Nigbor et al. (2009) deployed micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS)-
43 based gyroscopic sensors (GyroChip) in Borrego Valley but did not record any rotational excitation
44 above the sensor noise level. Many researchers including Golitzin (1912), Kharin and Smirnov (1969),
45 Nigbor (1994), Stedman et al. (1995), Takeo (1998), Macleod et al. (1998), Pancha et al. (2000), Igel
46 et al. (2005), Igel et al. (2006), Shereiber et al. (2006), Cochard et al. (2006), Cowsik (2007), Igel et al.
47 (2007), Lee et al. (2007), Graizer (2009), Nigbor et al. (2009), Takamori et al. (2009), Schreiber et al.
48 (2009), Cowsik et al. (2009) also studied on the feasibility of direct recording of the rotational motion,

1
 1 but the measured rotational components demonstrated low signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Based on the
2 limited literature review presented above, the direct recording of rotational excitation is still at the
3 research level and it will take, perhaps, a long time before achieving a general agreement for its
4 deployment with desired confidence level on the expected outcome. Aki and Richards (2002) rightly
5 noted on page 608 that “..seismology still awaits a suitable instrument for making such measurement.”
6 Therefore, engineers will have to rely on the theoretical extraction of rotational motion in order to study
7 the associated effects on structural response and hazard estimation.

8 Owing to the challenges associated with direct recording of rotational motion, indirect methods, e.g.,
9 Single Station Procedure (SSP) and Multiple Station Procedure (MSP) are also used to extract the same
10 from the recorded three-component translational acceleration data. While data recorded at a single
11 station is sufficient for SSP, MSP needs the recording on a dense array. Defining the vertical plane
12 comprising of the epicentre and the recording station as the principal plane, most of the energy is
13 reported to be travelling on this principal plane to the station and the three rotated components along
14 and normal to the principal plane are uncorrelated [Penzien and Watabe (1974)]. Directly or indirectly,
15 most researchers used the existence of principal plane while extracting the rotational motion through
16 SSP. The available SSPs involve a number of assumptions, including the plane wave propagation, a
17 frequency-dependent angle of incidence, lateral homogeneity of the soil medium, the effect of
18 dispersion, and a number of other simplified scenarios to bypass the indeterminacy involved in
19 deconstruction of the recorded translational ground motion to contributions from different types of
20 surface and body waves. Extracted rotational components using SSP have been reported, either in the
21 form of spectral density function or time series [Bouchon (1979), Bouchon, (1980a, b), Trifunac (1982),
22 Bouchon and Aki (1982), Lee and Trifunac (1985), Castellani and Boffi (1986), Lee and Trifunac
23 (1987), Castellani and Boffi (1989), Hao (1996), Gomberg (1997), Li et al. (2002), Li et al. (2004),
24 Zembaty (2009b), Basu et al. (2012) and Falamarz-Sheikhabadi et al (2012)]. MSP is an alternative to
25 the SSP and it involves the use of data recorded over a dense seismic array, which consists of a number
26 of closely spaced, spatially distributed stations. An instantaneous best-fit surface is computed over the
27 footprint of the array and spatial derivative of which provides the rotational components at the same
28 instant. Rotational ground motions using MSPs have been reported by a number of researchers
29 including Niazi (1986), Spudich et al. (1995), Bodin et al. (1997), Singh et al. (1997), Lomnitz (1997),
30 Ghayamghamian and Nouri, (2007), Basu et al. (2013) and Basu et al. (2015). Generally, SSP is a more
31 common choice as the dense array recording is not available in most part of the world.

32 By definition (as stated above), rotational motion is a spatial derivative of the translational motion,
33 which is approximated (in SSPs) by the time derivative with due scaling through apparent velocity.
34 Extracted rotational motion has two components, namely, torsional and rocking components.
35 Neglecting the contribution from surface waves and assuming the plane wave propagation, horizontal
36 motion normal to the principal plane is contributed from the SH wave only while that along the principal
37 plane and vertical motion are due to both P and SV waves. Therefore, torsional component may be
38 extracted from the spatial derivative of the horizontal motion normal to the principal plane (in absence
39 of Love wave) while rocking motion can be extracted from the spatial derivative of either vertical
40 motion or horizontal motion along principal plane. Hence, extraction of rocking motion requires the P
41 and SV wave decomposition of recorded/rotated ground motion, which is computationally
42 indeterminate. Increasing the order of complexity does not always mean better endeavour and may lead
43 to unrealistic results because of the required assumptions on compatibility. Attempts have been made
44 (for example, Trifunac (1982), Gomberg (1997), Li et al. (2004) and Zembaty (2009b)) on extracting
45 the rotational motion without body-wave decomposition but assuming single wave incidence (P or S)
46 that seems to be overly simplistic. Hence, there is a scope of including simultaneous incidence of P and
47 S waves but without requiring the body wave decomposition to retain simplicity. Primary objective of
48 the present paper is to explore the feasibility of such an approach.

49 Proposed simplified method aims to extract the rotational motion as a simple temporal derivative of an
50 appropriate translational component (ATC) followed by scaling with the apparent velocity associated
51 with that component (or apparent incident wave). However, this is possible provided the associated
52 translational component is contributed from a single (type) wave filed and the apparent velocity belongs

2
 1 to the associated wave filed. Clearly existence of ATC is apparent for the torsional component owing
2 to the contribution from only SH wave field (which is given by the horizontal ground motion normal to
3 the principal plane). This, however, is not the case with rocking motion owing to the contributions from
4 both P and SV waves to the rotated horizontal motion along the principal plane and the recorded vertical
5 motion. Hence, this paper seeks a hypothetical translational motion, which may be a combination of
6 both the horizontal motion along the principal pane and the vertical motion, such that its time derivative
7 is closely correlated to the actual rocking motion. But, time series in itself usually do not provide any
8 meaningful characteristics and hence, the resulting time series are usually converted into other useful
9 representations like response spectra, auto-spectral density etc. to draw meaningful conclusions. In
10 extracting the rotational spectra from the ATC, the role apparent velocity is to scale the spectral
11 amplitude (acceleration spectra, energy spectra etc.) of the time derivative of ATC but not to alter the
12 spectral shape. In other words, the degree of similarity in spectral shape between the time derivative of
13 ATC and the actual rotational component is independent of the apparent velocity. Nevertheless, the
14 estimation of the required apparent velocities without the knowledge of rotational motion a priori has
15 been presented elsewhere (Rodda and Basu, 2016). Hence, objective of this paper reduces to study the
16 feasibility of an appropriate translational component for the rotational ground motion (Rocking and
17 Torsional motion).

18 Owing to the challenges in recording rotational component through the accelerometers deployed in free-
19 field, SSP described in Basu et al. (2012) is taken as the reference in this paper for benchmark and
20 referred to ‘original’ henceforth. Various representations are used for assessing the existence of ATC
21 including response spectra, energy spectra, relative energy build-up etc. The ‘distance correlation’
22 (Szekely et al., 2014) and ‘spectral contrast angle’ are used as a quantitative measure of the similarity
23 in smoothened (smoothened with hamming window) spectral shapes.

24 Before demonstrating the existence of ATC, it would be wise to briefly describe the dense array and
25 recorded events considered in this paper and background of the various tools employed for comparison
26 of the ground motion characteristics for ready reference.

27 2. Description of Seismic Array and Events Considered

28 The Large Scale Seismic Test (LSST) array in Lotung, Taiwan is a part of the much larger SMART1
29 array. Figure 1 shows the layout of the surface stations: three arms at an interval of approximately 120o
30 with five stations each. Length of each arm is about 50 m and the spacing between the surface stations
31 is in the range of 3 - 90 m. The stations in each arm are numbered from 1 to 5, starting at the centre of
32 the array. For example, FA3_5 denotes the outermost station (station 5) located on arm 3. The average
33 wave velocities at the surface of the recording site are: 595 m/sec and 140 m/sec for the P and S waves,
34 respectively (Wen and Yeh, 1984).

35 Ground motion is recorded in LSST array along the East-West (EW), North-South (NS) and vertical
36 directions. But the recorded horizontal accelerations (EW and NS) are rotated along and normal to the
37 principal plane to enable extraction of the rotational components. The rotated horizontal components
38 along and normal to the principal planes are denoted in this paper as ag1 and a g 3 , respectively, and the
39 vertical acceleration is a g 2 . Three strong motions events recorded at the LSST array are considered for
40 illustration in this paper and a brief description of each event is presented in Table 1. Event-3 may
41 exhibit some near-filed characteristics as the epicentral distance is approximately 20 km. Only surface
42 stations are considered in the analysis and out of 15, usually, 10-14 actually functioned during the
43 events. Hence, number of surface stations analysed here varies from one event to another.

44 3. Tools Considered for Comparing the Characteristics of Ground Motion

45 3.1. Spectral Representation

46 The objective of this study is to seek an ATC such that the time derivative of which is closely correlated
47 with that of the rotational motion. Owing to the difficulty in extracting any meaningful conclusion from

3
 1 the time series, correlation between the time derivative of ATC and the rotational motion is studied
2 through response spectrum here. Response spectra for time derivative of ATC and rotational motion are
3 calculated separately for comparison. Spectral ordinate of the time derivative of ground acceleration
4 stands for the peak (absolute maxima) response of a Single Degree of Freedom system subjected to the
5 derivative time series as input acceleration. Similarly, response spectra of rotational motion is computed
6 from the peak rotational response of a rotational oscillator subjected to the rotational ground motion.
7 Figure 2a presents the response spectrum of ag1 at station FA1_1 in Event-1. A sample rotational
8 spectrum (torsional) is included in Figure 2b (the same station and the same event). Unless otherwise
9 stated, all the spectra considered in this paper are 5% damped.

10 3.2. Smoothening with Hamming Window

11 Response spectrum of one ground motion is usually sporadic in nature and hence, of no specific
12 importance in seismic design /performance assessment, which uses the design spectrum instead. Design
13 spectrum, an ensemble average of the spectrum of consistent ground motions, conditioned to a specific
14 spectral ordinate exhibits a smoother spectral shape. Measuring the similitude between the spectra of
15 rotational motion and that of derivative of ATC is more relevant in terms of design spectrum rather than
16 individual spectrum. Non-availability of sufficient number of recordings for ensembles poses a serious
17 challenge to the construction of design spectra. Another way of smoothening involves the use of
18 Hamming window that consists of a set of weights, which are used to average the spectral ordinate
19 around a point. The weights w  m  of a M -point symmetric window are given by

  (m  M ) 
0.54  0.46cos M 
20 w(m)  , For m  - M , - M  1, , M – 1, M (1)
1.08M
21 Resulting smoothened spectral ordinate is given by the weighted average of all the surrounding points
22 within the window:
j  M
23 SAsmooth (Ti )   SA(T  jT )w( j )
j  M
i (2)

24 It has been observed in this study that the smoothening of a response spectrum with a moving window
25 closely resembles the design spectrum calculated from the ensemble average. In order to illustrate this
26 application, an ensemble comprising of ground motion recordings (Table 1) along EW direction over
27 the footprint of the LSST array is considered. Design spectrum, conditioned to Peak Ground
28 Acceleration (PGA) of 1g is computed through ensemble average. Also computed are the spectra with
29 bounds   1.67 and  -1.67 , with  and  denoting the ensemble mean and standard deviation,
30 respectively. Next, a moving Hamming window (20 points @ 0.005 sec) on the individual response
31 spectrum is applied followed by scaling of resulting spectrum to a PGA of 1g. Design spectra,
32   1.67 and  -1.67 spectra are then computed. The smoothening operation did not significantly
33 affect the spatial variability of individual spectra as both the design spectra are remarkably similar to
34 each other (Figure 3). Also shown in Figure 3 are similar comparison for   1.67 and  -1.67
35 spectra. Close resemblance of these spectra indicates that smoothening does not alter the statistical
36 properties of ensemble.
37 Similar observation is noted along other recording directions also. Even though, the smoothened
38 spectrum does not exactly match the shape of design spectrum, it is wise to measure the spectral
39 similarity in terms of smoothened spectra (with Hamming window) in case of insufficient recordings
40 for computation of design spectrum. Therefore, smoothened spectra using Hamming window is
41 considered as a representation of the design spectrum and smoothened spectra (instead of unsmoothed)
42 are used for comparison in the remainder of this paper.
43

4
 1 3.3. Distance Correlation as a Measure of the Similitude of Spectral Shape

2 Distance correlation is chosen here to measure the resemblance between the shapes of two response
3 spectra. Note that correlation being zero does not imply the independence while the distance correlation
4 being zero does imply the independence. Calculation of distance correlation is reviewed below for the
5 ready reference (Szekely et al., 2014).

6 Let X k , Yk , k  1,2,.., n be two vectors, whose distance correlation is to be determined. First, compute
7 all possible pairwise distances, as follows,

8 a j ,k  X j  X k , b j ,k  Yj  Yk , j, k  1, 2, ...., n (3)

9 where || ⋅ || denotes the Euclidean norm. Next, compute the matrices A and B, as follows,

A j , k  a j , k  a j  aˆk  a
10 (4)
B j , k  b j , k  b j  bˆk  b

11 where a j and aˆk are the mean of j th row and k th column, respectively, and a is the grand mean of the
12 matrix [a] . Analogous notations are used for [b] . The squared sample distance covariance is given by
13 the average of the products A j , k and B j , k , as follows:
n
1
dCovn2 ( X , Y ) 
n2
A
j , k 1
j ,k B j ,k
14 (5)
dCovn ( X , Y )
dCor ( X , Y ) 
dVarn ( X , X )dVarn (Y , Y )

15 The distance correlation of two random variables is obtained through dividing their distance covariance
16 by the product of their distance standard deviations.
17 3.4. Spectral Contrast Angle as a Measure of the Similitude of Spectral Shape

18 3.4.1 Spectral contrast angle based on correlation

19 Another useful tool to measure similitude of two spectra is the Spectral Contrast Angle (SCA),
20 calculation of which is reviewed below for the ready reference.
21 Let X k , Yk , k  1,2,.., n be two spectra with spectral contrast angle (SCA-  ), cosine of which is given
22 by (Wan et al., 2002)
n

X Y i i
23 cos  SCA-   i 1
(6)
n n

X j 1
j X j  Yk Yk
k 1

24 Therefore, an angle close to zero degrees indicates two nearly identical spectra, while an angle of 90
25 degrees indicates no spectral similarity.
26 3.4.2 Spectral contrast angle based on distance correlation
27 A new definition is also explored here by replacing the correlation between the spectra with the distance
28 correlation, which is expected to show better sensitivity against the change in spectral shape:
dCovn ( X , Y )
29 cos SCA-    (7)
dVarn ( X , X )dVarn (Y , Y )

5
 1 3.4.3 Sensitivity of proposed and existing spectral contrast angles
2 Three ground motions from PEER database (http://ngawest2.berkeley.edu/) have been selected (Table
3 2) and termed as GM_1, GM_2 and GM_3 here for identification purpose. Three different levels of
4 Gaussian white noise (SNR 30, 1 and 0.1) are added to the GM_1 in order to simulate the spectra with
5 various degrees of similitude. SCA-  and SCA-   between spectra of GM_1 and GM_1 with noise are
6 computed and compared (Table 2 and Figure 4). Proposed SCA-   clearly shows more sensitivity (4o
7 to 23o) as compared to existing SCA-  (3o to 15o). The SCA-   is also observed to be decreasing with
8 the increase in SNR.
9 Next, the similitude between the spectra of GM_2 and GM_3 with GM_1 is calculated (Table 2 and
10 Figure 4) and the resulting SCA-   (greater than 40o) is much greater compared to the previous set of
11 observations (less than 23o). This is expected as the ground motions considered are independent. These
12 observations are based on the limited data considered and hence, cannot be generalised.

13 In order to study the sensitivity of SCA-  and SCA-   , similar study has been done with a larger
14 database of events with magnitudes ranging from 6 to 7 and shear wave velocities with 200 to 400 m/sec
15 (from PEER database, described in Table 3). Design spectrum is computed for the ensemble,
16 conditioned to the PGA of 1g. SCA-  and SCA-   have been calculated between the design spectrum
17 and the individual spectra (Table 3). Again it is observed that the SCA-   is more sensitive to the
18 change in spectral shape in most of the cases. Range of values of SCA-   between design spectrum
19 (smoothened because of ensemble averaging) and individual spectrum varies from 14o to 65o, whereas
20 for SCA-  it is 9o to 59o. Once again SCA-   shows better sensitivity as compared to SCA-  as
21 expected. In view of these observations, SCA-   is used as a measure of spectral similitude in the
22 remainder of this paper.
23 3.4.4 SCA-   for acceptable degree of similarity
24 Rigid boundary does not exist to differentiate the similar spectra from the non-similar spectra. Because
25 of large variation in SCA, average (50 percentile) value cannot be taken as the suitable limit. In order
26 to select an SCA for acceptable degree of similarity, SCA-   between design spectrum and individual
27 spectrum from a larger ensemble is studied and an acceptable limit is chosen corresponding to the 10%
28 non-exceedance probability. This is done in two steps. First step involves assumption of a particular
29 probability distribution and parameters of which are estimated from the observed sample space. This
30 distribution with estimated parameters is defined here as the theoretical probability distribution. Several
31 such theoretical distributions are selected for the chi-squared goodness-of-fit test against the observed
32 sample and the distribution with least  2 value at the 5% significance level is accepted. Burr distribution
33 qualifies in the present case with  2 score =7.7 against 5,2 0.05  11.1 ( The degrees of freedom five was
34 calculated as 9 (no of bins in histogram) – 3 (no of parameters in distribution) – 1 = 5;). The distribution
35 was compared against the numerical data in the form of histogram (Figure 5) and the cumulative
36 distribution function (Figure 6). Next step involves the calculation of SCA-   using the theoretical
37 cumulative distribution function. The SCA-   corresponding to 10% non-exceedance is found to be
38 around 20o, which is considered in the remainder of this paper for an acceptable degree of similarity.
39 4. Existence of Appropriate Translational Component (ATC)

40 An appropriate translational component (ATC) is defined such that time derivative of which is closely
41 correlated to the associated rotational component. Proposed simplified procedure seeks the existence of
42 ATC for both torsional motion and rocking motion, but one at a time. A part of the following text in
43 this section is also summarized elsewhere in context with the apparent velocity (Rodda and Basu, 2016).

44

45

6
 1 4.1. Existence of ATC for Torsional Ground Motion

2 Under the assumption of negligible surface wave contribution, torsional ground motion is contributed
3 from the SH wave component of the body wave field. SH wave component can be extracted through
4 rotating the recorded ground motion normal to the principal plane. Assuming the plane wave
5 propagation, torsional component contributed from the r th harmonic is given by (Basu et al., 2012)

1 sin  0
6 
sh
r x1 x3 (t )  sh
r ag 3 (t ) (8)
2 cT

7 Here, left superscript sh denotes the contribution from the SH wave, cT is the SH-wave velocity and
8  o is the angle of incidence, which are frequency dependent. Torsional component is calculated in this
9 paper (following Basu et al., 2012) by the spatial derivative of a g 3 in frequency domain. In other words,
10 even if the SH-wave velocity is assumed to be frequency independent, linearity between the torsional
11 motion and temporal derivative of a g 3 is not warranted owing to the frequency dependent incident
12 angles. Nevertheless, one may start with a g 3 while seeking the ATC for torsional ground motion:

1
13  x x (t )  a g 3 (t ) (9)
1 3
2C3

14 where, C 3 may be considered as the proportionality constant representing some form of frequency
15 independent apparent velocity. The next task is to investigate the similarity in spectral shapes as
16 presented below.

17 Torsional (original) spectrum is first smoothened (20-point Hamming window @0.005 sec) and
18 compared with that of a g 3 (unsmoothed) for the spectral contrast angle. Resulting SCA-   (Table 4) is
19 noted to be varying within a range space of 6o to 12o, which is within the acceptable limit of similarity
20 (20o). This comparison is analogous to that presented in Section 3.4.4 between the design and individual
21 spectra in an ensemble. However, comparison of spectral shape between design spectra is more
22 meaningful and hence, a g 3 spectrum is smoothened (20-point Hamming window @0.005 sec) and
23 similar comparison is repeated. Resulting SCA-   (Table 4) resembles better similarity with a range
24 space of 2o to 11o. Hence, torsional spectra based on the proposed simplified procedure may be
25 considered of similar shape as that of the original.
26 Therefore, despite the dependency through frequency dependent incident angle, torsional acceleration
27 (time series) can be well characterized through a g 3 and hence, a g 3 component may be identified as the
28 ATC for torsional ground motion.
29 4.2. Existence of ATC for Rocking Ground Motion

30 Even though torsional motion is fully described by a single translational component, a g 3 , rocking
31 motion is contributed from the both ag1 and a g 2 . Therefore, ATC for rocking motion is not intuitive
32 and needs an approach to be derived from the first principles under suitable assumptions.

33 Formulation of ATC for rocking motion from first principles

34 The approach is based on the assumption of near vertical incidence of P and S-waves, regardless of the
35 harmonics. Since the density of soil increases with depth, near vertical incidence is a reasonable
36 assumption, especially at some distance away from the hypocenter. Contribution of P-wave in the
37 estimated rocking motion in r th harmonic on the principal plane may be expressed as (Basu et al., 2012)

7
 sin 0 p (  2  2sin 2 0 p )
1 p
 (t )   p
ag 2 (t )   p
ag1 (t ) (10)
2cL (  2  sin 2 0 p )0.5
r x1 x2 r r
cL

2 Here,  0 p denotes the angle of incidence, and   cL cT is the ratio of P to S wave velocity. First and
3 second parts of Eq (10) estimate the same rocking component but from the derivative of the vertical
4 and horizontal motions, respectively. Assuming the same angle of incidence, regardless of the
5 harmonics, and using the superposition of all harmonics, one may show that

sin 0 p (  2  2sin 2 0 p )
6  x x (t )  
p p
ag 2 (t )   p
ag1 (t ) (11)
1 2
cL 2cL (   sin 0 p )
2 2 0.5

7 Note that the subscript r is dropped while the superscript p is retained to emphasis the P-wave
8 contribution. Further, with near vertical incidence ( op  0 ), one may prove that (Basu et al., 2012)

9 p
ag 2 (t )  p ag1 (t )  0 (12)

10 SV-wave field, on the other hand, depends on the angle of incidence with respect to a critical angle.
11 However, restricting to a case of near vertical incidence, angle of incidence will be always less than the
12 critical. Accordingly, contribution of SV wave in the rocking motion on the principal plane in r th
13 harmonic may be expressed as (Basu et al., 2012)

sin 0 s s 2sin 2 0 s (1   2 sin 2 0 s )0.5 s

14 s
 (t )   r ag 2 (t )  r ag 1 (t ) (13)
 cT 1  2sin 2 0 s
r x1 x2
cT
15 Assumption of constant (near vertical) angle of incidence and superposition of all harmonics lead to the
16 rocking motion as

sin 0 p 2sin 2 0 s (1   2 sin 2 0 s )0.5 s

17  x x (t )   p
ag 2 (t )  ag1 (t ) (14)
1 2
cL  cT 1  2sin 2 0 s
18 Note the presence of superscript s to signify the contribution from SV-wave. Further, with near vertical
19 incidence (  os  0 ), one may prove that (Basu et al., 2012)

20 s
ag1 (t )  s ag 2 (t )  0 (15)

21 Based on near vertical but simultaneous incidence of P and SV waves, rocking component can
22 expressed as

sin 0 p 2sin 2 0 s (1   2 sin 2 0 s )0.5 s

23  x x (t )   p
ag 2 (t )  ag1 (t ) (16)
1 2
cL  cT 1  2sin 2 0 s
24 Note that total rocking is expressed as the superposition of P and SV wave contributions. Based on Eq
25 (12) and Eq (15), and hence, assuming

26 p
ag 2 (t )  ag 2 (t ) and s ag1 (t )  ag1 (t ) (17)

27 rocking components may be expressed as

sin 0 p 2sin 2 0 s (1   2 sin 2 0 s )0.5

28  x x (t )   ag 2 (t )  ag1 (t ) (18)
1 2
cL  cT 1  2sin 2 0 s

8
 1 Note that the time derivative of ATC, which involves time derivative of ag1 and a g 2 , is directly related
2 to the rocking motion. It is observed in this paper that, below a cut-off frequency, a g 2 has negligible
3 energy and above that ag1 has negligible energy. But, the temporal derivative may amplify ag1 at higher
4 frequencies and a g 2 at lower frequencies on account of noise. In order to eliminate these amplifications,
5 filtering using a cut-off frequency is required, detailed description of which is given in the following
6 section.

7 Cut-off Frequency
8 One way of obtaining the information about the frequency content and distribution of energy over a
9 frequency band of ground motion is through its auto-spectral density (ASD). Assuming the recorded
10 time series ( x(t ) ) as the product of a finite duration strong motion window and one sample function of
11 a stationary random process, and further imposing the condition of ergodicity, the ASD may be
12 calculated using the finite Fourier Transform of x(t ) , i.e., X ( f ) as follows:

1 *
13 S xx  f   X  f X  f  (19)
T
14 where the superscript * denotes the complex conjugate. Figure 7 presents a comparison of the auto-
15 spectral densities for the time derivative of ag1 and a g 2 . Clearly, there exists a distinct frequency in
16 (Figure 7 for Event 2 at FA1_1) below which is richer in the auto-spectral density of ag1 and above
17 which is richer in the auto-spectral density of a g 2 . This is defined as the cut-off frequency in this paper.
18 In contrast, such a cut-off frequency is not observed in the comparison of auto-spectral densities of ag1
19 and a g 2 . Therefore, ag1 and a g 2 may be assumed to be richer in low and high frequency range separated
20 by a cut-off frequency. The observation is true regardless of the surface stations and events studied in
21 this paper.

22 Owing to the existence of cut-off frequency, it is recommended to i) filter the a g 2 through a band pass
23 filter with a pair of frequencies, f c and f max , where f c is the cut-off frequency described above
24 (separating low and high frequency range) and f max is the Nyquist frequency; and ii) filter the ag1

if
25 through a low pass filter with a frequency same as f c . Denoting the filter by , Eq (18) can be
26 expressed as
.. sin 0 p if 2sin 2 0 s (1   2 sin 2 0 s )0.5 if
27  x x (t )    ag 2 (t )    ag1 (t )  (20)
 cT 1  2sin 0 s
1 2 2
cL
28 Defining the following two constants,
cL cT
29 C2  and C1 = (21)
sin 0 p  1   2 sin 2 0 s  
0.5

 2sin 2
 0 s 
  1  2sin 2 0 s 
 
30 Eq (20) may be rewritten for the rocking component as
.. 1 if 1 if
 x x (t )  
1 2
 ag 2 (t )    ag1 (t ) 
C2 C1 C2
31 and   (22)
1 1 if if if  C1
    ag 2 (t )    ag1 (t )  
C1  

9
 1 Main objective of this paper is to find an ATC such that derivative of which can fully describe the
2 rocking motion on principal plane. Therefore, ATC ( a ) for the rocking motion may be defined as

1 
3 a    ag 2  ag1  (23)
 
4 Next, task is to explore the possible linearity between the rocking component and a . Such a linearity
5 may be considerably influenced by the parameter  and hence, it is mandatory to seek for the best
6 possible estimate of  .
7 Best Estimate of Alpha

8 Best estimate of  may be defined as the one that exhibits best resemblance between the spectra of
9 rocking ground motion and that of the time derivative of ATC. One way of measuring the similitude
10 uses the smoothened spectra. Deviation spectra is next defined as the square of difference between the
11 spectral ordinates of unsmoothed and smoothened response spectra. The resemblance is measured using
12 the distance correlation of the smoothened spectra and that of the deviation spectra. For example, the
13 distance correlation coefficients computed between deviation spectra is plotted against that of smoothed
14 spectra in Figure 8a for Event-2 at some of the stations. Smoothened and deviation spectra do not
15 necessarily yield the same  at respective maximum correlations (Figure 9a). Hence, total distance
16 correlation, defined by SRSS of distance correlation of smoothed spectra and deviation spectra, is now
17 considered as the measure of resemblance and  associated with the maximum total distance
18 correlation is considered as the best estimate. Following step-by-step procedure is adopted in this paper:
19 1) Assume a possible estimate for  and calculate the ATC; 2) Plot the response spectra of rocking
20 motion and a , and smooth each spectrum using a Hamming window (20 points @0.005sec in this
21 paper); 3) Compute the distance correlation coefficient between these smoothen spectral-pair; 4)
22 Calculate the deviation spectra for rocking and a , and compute the distance correlation coefficient for
23 these deviation spectral-pair; 5) Repeat these steps for a range of assumed  (0.1 to 20 @ 0.1 in this
24 paper) and calculate the total distance correlation as the SRSS of distance correlation computed in steps-
25 3 and -4; 6) Plot the total distance correlation as a function of assumed  and pick the estimate
26 associated with the maximum total distance correlation.
27 For example, Figures 8b and 9b present total distance correlation against the parameter  for Event-2.
28 Even though the best estimate of  differs from one station to another (for the same seismic event),
29 the variation of total correlation with respect to  is reasonably flat around the peak. This is observed
30 in all three events analysed in this paper. Resulting best estimate of  are presented in Table 5.
31 However, owing to the flat plateau around the peak, it may be sufficient to work with any  around the
32 peak without losing the correlation significantly.
33 Empirical Prediction of the Best Estimate of Alpha

34 The procedure described above for the best estimate of  requires the rotational ground motion to be
35 known a priori, which is usually not the case. The objective here is to explore the possibility of
36 predicting the best estimate of  empirically, without using the knowledge of rotational component. If
37 such a prediction is possible, which is close to the best if not the best, but without sacrificing total
38 distance correlation significantly, it would enable the computation of ATC completely based on the
39 information of translational ground motion. Following step-by-step empirical procedure is proposed
40 and illustrated for the Event 1 recorded at FA1_4 (Figure 10):
41 1) Normalize the translational motions ag1 , a g 2 and ATC (a) with respect to acceleration due to gravity,
42 g and term ag1 , a g 2 and a , respectively; 2) Consider two limiting cases of a (time derivative of a ),
if if
43 namely, the ag1 (t ) and  ag 2 (t )  , and plot the respective response spectra (It is apparent from Eq

(23) that when  is close to zero, a  ag 2 (t ) and when  is large, a  ag1 (t ) ); 3) Note the time
if if
44

10
 1 periods associated with the peak spectral ordinates, say, T1 and T2 respectively; 4) Assume any value
2 for  close to zero, say 0.1 and plot the response spectrum for a ; 5) Compute the geometric mean
3 SAGM of the spectral ordinates at T1 and T2 ; 6) Repeat steps-4 and -5 for a wide range of  (for
4 example, 0.1~15 @ 0.1 in this paper) and plot the SAGM against  (see Figure 10, for example); 7)
5 Resulting plot will be always asymptotic to the horizontal axis and identify the least  beyond which
6 it can be considered horizontal for all practical purpose and hence, for the best empirical estimate.
7 Table 6 summarises the empirically estimates for all three events recorded over the footprint of the
8 array.
9 Comparison of Alpha—Best and Empirical Estimates

10 It is instructive to compare the empirical estimates (Table 6) with the associated best estimates furnished
11 in Table 5. The bounds on  for 90% of maximum total correlation are also noted (see for example,
12 Figure 9b) and presented in Table 6. Empirical estimates are mostly within these bounds.
13 Results and Discussions

14 Rocking (original) spectrum is first smoothened (20-point Hamming window @0.005 sec) and
15 compared with that of a (unsmoothed) for the spectral contrast angle. Resulting SCA-   (Table 7) is
16 noted to be varying within a range space of 12o to 24o, which is within the acceptable limit of similarity
17 (20o) at most of the stations; even in other stations, it is noted as close to the limit. This comparison is
18 analogous to that presented in Section 3.4.4 between the design and individual spectra in an ensemble.
19 However, comparison of spectral shape between design spectra is more meaningful and hence, a
20 spectrum is smoothened (20-point Hamming window @0.005 sec) and similar comparison is repeated.
21 Resulting SCA-   (Table 7) resembles better similarity with a range space of 8o to 22o. Hence, rocking
22 spectra based on the proposed simplified procedure may be considered of similar shape as that of the
23 original.
24 Based on these observed results, the component a , defined per Eq (23), may be considered as the ATC
25 for rocking motion.

26 5. Demonstration of Existence of ATC through Energy Considerations

27 Energy measures are also used as alternative indices to the response quantities such as forces or
28 displacements and thereby, enabling the direct inclusion of duration-related seismic damage. Hence,
29 existence of ATC for rotational motion has been demonstrated through various energy considerations
30 like relative energy build-up and energy spectra in the following sections. Energy based method has the
31 merit of replacing the vector quantities by the scalar energy parameters. Let one SDOF moves through
32 an increment of displacement du at any instant under a seismic excitation ug . Relative energy input
33  E t  by the effective force peff (t )  mug (t ) is given by

t t t
34 E (t)    mu g (t )du    mu g (t )udt  E (t)   u g (t )u t (24)
m 0
0 0

35 Here, u is the relative velocity with respect to ground. Relative energy imparted per unit mass is often
36 used to characterize the structural response and is generally believed to be an indicator of the damage
37 potential of a ground motion. Note that rigid body movement of the oscillator is not included in the
38 formulation of cumulative relative energy build up [Eq (24)]. Figure 11 presents an illustration for a 5%
39 damped oscillator with natural period 1 sec and subjected to the ground motion recorded along ag1 at
40 station FA1_1 during Event-1. Note that Eq (24) is specific to the oscillator chosen and hence, to enable
41 a comparative description over a band of natural periods, energy spectrum is often used: A plot of

11
 1 maximum cumulative relative energy imparted to a spectrum of SDOFs with constant damping ratio. A
2 sample illustration of 5% damped energy spectrum is shown in Figure 12 for ag1 at FA1_1 in Event-1.

3 5.1. Energy Time History

4 Cumulative relative energy build-up (in %) over time is considered for comparing the rotational motion
5 and derivative of ATC, and the sample data are presented in Figures 13 (torsional motion and a g 3 ) and
6 14 (rocking motion and a ). In order to measure the degree of similitude, the SCA-   has been
7 calculated between the rotational motion and derivative of ATC (Table 8) and a strong correlation has
8 been observed between rotational motion and the derivative of ATC.

9 5.2. Energy Spectra

10 Percentage energy build up compared above reflects the behaviour of one oscillator ( T  1 sec in this
11 case). Such comparison is further extended by considering a spectrum of oscillators and the obtained
12 energy spectra is used to study the correlation between the rotational motion and derivative of the ATC.
13 In order to study the correlation, energy spectra is first smoothened with a Hamming window and the
14 resulting SCA-   calculated between the smoothened energy spectra of rotational motion and
15 derivative of ATC is given in Table 9 and a strong correlation is noted.

16 6. Conclusions
17 This paper aims to extract the rotational motion as a simple temporal derivative of an appropriate
18 translational component followed by the scaling with apparent velocity associated with that component.
19 While estimation of the apparent velocity has been reported elsewhere (Rodda and Basu, 2016), this
20 paper explores the existence of such an appropriate translational component for the rotational ground
21 motions (both rocking and torsion). Following conclusions may be arrived at based on the results of
22 this paper:
23 1) An appropriate translational component (ATC) is defined such that time derivative of which is
24 closely related with the respective rotational motion. Various representations including the
25 response spectra, energy spectra, relative energy build-up etc. are used to study the spectral
26 similitude between the time derivative of ATC and the respective rotational motion.
27 2) Smoothening of spectral shape using Hamming window is shown to be not altering the statistical
28 properties of ensemble. Hence, similitude is assessed on smoothened (by Hamming window)
29 spectra.
30 3) A new definition of ‘spectral contrast angle (SCA)’ based on ‘distance correlation’ is proposed
31 and noted to be more sensitive to the change in spectral shape as compared to the existing
32 definition. Proposed definition is used throughout this paper for assessing the spectral similitude.
33 4) Rigid boundary does not exist to differentiate the similar from non-similar spectra. SCA
34 corresponding to an acceptable degree of similarity is proposed (20o) by studying a large
35 ensemble of ground motions from the PEER database
36 5) ATC for the torsional component is horizontal ground motion normal to the principal plane, owing
37 to the contribution from only SH wave field (in absence of surface wave).
38 6) Rocking motion has contributions from both P and SV waves (even if surface wave is neglected),
39 and hence, a hypothetical translational motion, which is a combination of both the horizontal
40 motion along the principal plane and the vertical motion is proposed as the ATC for rocking
41 motion. This involves estimation of a parameter called  and an empirical procedure is also
42 proposed for the same.
43 Both rocking and torsional components are found to be reasonably well described by the respective
44 ATC. The rotational motions considered as ‘original’ here are not recorded from the accelerographs
45 deployed in the free field. Instead, one of the various available methods is used to extract these
46 components from the recorded translational motion and hence, the conclusions drawn in this paper is
47 likely to be biased of the method of extraction. Nevertheless, the framework presented in this paper will

12
 1 still be applicable if any other method is used for extracting the rotational motion and it will be
2 interesting to explore some of these methods.
3 Acknowledgement

4 This research is funded by SERB/DST, Government of India, under the Grant No.
5 SB/S3/CEE/012/2013 and the financial support is acknowledged. The authors gratefully acknowledge
6 the Institute of Earth Science, Academia, Sinica, Taiwan for sharing the strong motion data.
7 References
8 1. Aki, K. and Richards, P. G. (2002). Quantitative Seismology, Second Ed. Sausalito, California,
9 University Science Books.
10 2. Basu, D. and Giri, S. (2015). "Accidental eccentricity in multistory buildings due to torsional
11 ground motion." Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, Springer (DOI :10.1007/s10518-015-9788-0).
12 3. Basu, D., Constantinou, M. C., & Whittaker, A. S. (2014). "An equivalent accidental
13 eccentricity to account for the effects of torsional ground motion on structures." Engineering
14 Structures, 69, 1-11.
15 4. Basu, D., Whittaker, A. S., & Constantinou, M. C. (2012). "Estimating rotational components
16 of ground motion using data recorded at a single station." Journal of Engineering Mechanics,
17 ASCE, 138 (9): 1141-1156.
18 5. Basu, D., Whittaker, A. S. and Constantinou, M. C. (2013). "Extracting rotational components
19 of earthquake ground motion using data recorded at multiple stations." Earthquake Engineering
20 and Structural Dynamics, 42 (3): 451-468.
21 6. Basu, D., Whittaker, A. S., & Constantinou, M. C. (2015). "Characterizing rotational
22 components of earthquake ground motion using a surface distribution method and response of
23 sample structures." Engineering Structures, 99, 685-707.
24 7. Bodin, P., Gomberg, J., Singh, S. K. and Santoyo, M. (1997). "Dynamic deformations of
25 shallow sediments in the valley of Mexico, Part I: three-dimensional strains and rotations
26 recorded on a seismic array." Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, 87 (3): 528-539.
27 8. Bouchon, M. (1979). "Discrete wavenumber representation of elastic wave fields in three-space
28 dimensions." Journal of Geophysical Research, 84: 3609-3614.
29 9. Bouchon, M. (1980a). "The motion of the ground during an earthquake. Part 1: the case of a
30 strike-slip fault." Journal of Geophysical Research, 85: 356-366.
31 10. Bouchon, M. (1980b). "The motion of the ground during an earthquake. Part 2: the case of a
32 dip-slip fault." Journal of Geophysical Research, 85: 367-375.
33 11. Bouchon, M., & Aki, K. (1982). "Strain, tilt, and rotation associated with strong ground motion
34 in the vicinity of earthquake faults." Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 72(5),
35 1717-1738.
36 12. Bycroft, G. N. (1980). "Soil—foundation interaction and differential ground
37 motions." Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 8(5), 397-404.
38 13. Castellani, A. and Boffi, G. (1986). "Rotational components of the surface ground motion
39 during and earthquake." Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 14: 751-767.
40 14. Castellani, A. and Boffi, G. (1989). "On the rotational components of seismic motion."
41 Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 18: 785-797.
42 15. Cochard, A., Igel, H., Schuberth, B., Suryanto, W., Velikoseltsev, A., Schreiber, K. U.,
43 Wasserman, J., Scherbaum, F. and Volmer, D. (2006). "Rotational motions in seismology:
44 theory, observation, simulation. In Earthquake source asymmetry, structural media and rotation
45 effects (pp. 391-411). " Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
46 16. Cowsik, R. (2007). "An instrument for direct observations of seismic and normal-mode
47 rotational oscillations of the earth." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA:
48 6893-6898.
49 17. Cowsik, R., Madziwa-Nussinov, T., Wagoner, K., Wiens, D., and Wysession, M. (2009).
50 “Performance characteristics of a rotational seismometer for near-Field and engineering
51 applications.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 99 (2B): 1181-1189.

13
 1 18. De la Llera, J. C., & Chopra, A. K. (1994). "Accidental and natural torsion in earthquake
2 response and design of buildings." Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
3 California.
4 19. Falamarz-Sheikhabadi, M. R. (2014). "Simplified relations for the application of rotational
5 components to seismic design codes." Engineering Structures, 59, 141-152.
6 20. Falamarz-Sheikhabadi, M. R., & Ghafory-Ashtiany, M. (2012). "Approximate formulas for
7 rotational effects in earthquake engineering." Journal of seismology, 16(4), 815-827.
8 21. Falamarz-Sheikhabadi, M. R., & Ghafory-Ashtiany, M. (2015). "Rotational components in
9 structural loading." Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 75, 220-233.
10 22. Falamarz-Sheikhabadi, M. R., Zerva, A., & Ghafory-Ashtiany, M. (2016). "Mean absolute
11 input energy for in-plane vibrations of multiple-support structures subjected to non-stationary
12 horizontal and rocking components." Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 45, 87-101.
13 23. Ghafory-Ashtiany, M., & Falamarz-Sheikhabadi, M. R. (2010). Evaluation influence of
14 rotational components on the behavior of structures, Report International Institute of
15 Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, IIEES.
16 24. Ghayamghamian, M. R. and Nouri, G. R. (2007). "On the characteristics of ground motion
17 rotational components using Chiba dense array data." Earthquake Engineering and Structural
18 Dynamics, 36: 1407-1429.
19 25. Golitzin, B. B. (1912). Lectures on Seismometry, Russian Academy of Science, St. Petersburg
20 (in Russian).
21 26. Gomberg, J. (1997). "Dynamic deformations and M 6.7, Northridge, California earthquake."
22 Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 16: 471-494.
23 27. Graizer, V. M. (2009). "Tutorial on measuring rotations using multipendulum systems."
24 Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, 99 (2B): 1064-1072.
25 28. Hao, H. (1996). "Characteristics of torsional ground motions." Earthquake engineering &
26 structural dynamics, 25(6), 599-610.
27 29. Hart, G. C., Lew, M., & DiJulio, R. M. (1975). "Torsional response of high-rise
28 buildings." Journal of the Structural Division, 101(2), 397-416.
29 30. Igel, H., Cochard, A., Wassermann, J., Flaws, A., Schreiber, K. U., Velikoseltsev, A. and Dinh,
30 N. P. (2007). "Broad-band observations of earthquake-induced rotational ground motions."
31 Geophysical Journal International, 168: 182-196.
32 31. Igel, H., Lee, H. K. and Todorovska, M. I. (2006). "Inauguration of the International Working
33 Group on Rotational Seismology (IWGoRS)." AGU, Fall Meeting, Rotational Seismology
34 Sessions: S22A, S23B
35 32. Igel, H., Schreiber, K. U., Schuberth, B., Flaws, A., Velikoseltsev, A. and Cochard, A. (2005).
36 "Observation and modelling og rotational motions induced by distant large earthquakes: the M
37 8.1 Tokachi-oki earhquake September 25, 2003." Geophysical Research Letter, 32: L08309.
38 33. Kharin, D. A., and L. I. Simonov (1969). VBPP seismometer for separate registration of
39 translational motion and rotations, in Seism. Instrum. 5, 51–66 (in Russian).
40 34. Lee, H. K., Celebi, M., Todorovska, M. I. and Diggles, M. (2007). "Rotational seismology and
41 engineering." First International Workshop, US Geological Survey, Open file Report No. 2007-
42 1144, version 2.0.
43 35. Lee, V. W. and Trifunac, M. D. (1985). "Torsional accelerograms." Soil Dynamics and
44 Earthquake Engineering, 4: 132-139.
45 36. Lee, V. W. and Trifunac, M. D. (1987). "Rocking strong earthquake accelerations." Soil
46 Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 6: 75-89.
47 37. Li, H.-N., Sun, L.-Y. and Wang, S.-Y. (2002). "Frequency dispersion characteristics of phase
48 velocities in surface wave for rotational components of seismic motion." Journal of Sound and
49 Vibration, 258 (5): 815-827.
50 38. Li, H.-N., Sun, L.-Y. and Wang, S.-Y. (2004). "Improved approach for obtaining rotational
51 components of seismic motion." Nuclear Engineering and Design, 232: 131-137.
52 39. Lomnitz, C. (1997). "Frequency response of a strainmeter." Bulletin of Seismological Society
53 of America, 87 (4): 1078-1080.

14
 1 40. McLeod, D. P., Stedman, G. E., Webb, T. H. and Schreiber, K. U. (1998). "Comparison of
2 standard and ring laser rotational seismograms." Bulletin of Seismological Society of America,
3 88: 1495-1503.
4 41. Newmark, N. M. (1969, January). "Torsion in symmetrical buildings." Proceeding Of World
5 Conference On Earthquake Engineering.
6 42. Niazi, M. (1986). "Inferred displacements, velocities and rotations of a long rigid foundation
7 located at El Centro differential array site during the 1979 Imperial Valley, California,
8 earthquake." Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 14: 531-542.
9 43. Nigbor, R. L. (1994). "Six degree-of-freedom ground-motion measurement." Bulletin of
10 Seismological Society of America, 84 (5): 1665-1669.
11 44. Nigbor, R. L., Evans, J. R. and Hutt, C. R. (2009). "Laboratory and field testing of commercial
12 rotational seismometers." Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, 99 (2B): 1215-1227.
13 45. Pancha, A., Webb, T. H., Stedman, G. E., McLeod, D. P. and Schreiber, K. U. (2000). "Ring
14 laser detection of rotations from teleseismic waves." Geophysical Research Letter, 27: 3553-
15 3556.
16 46. Penzien, J., & Watabe, M. (1974). "Characteristics of 3‐dimensional earthquake ground
17 motions." Earthquake engineering & structural dynamics, 3(4), 365-373.
18 47. Politopoulos, I. (2010). "Response of seismically isolated structures to rocking‐type excitations.
19 " Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 39(3), 325-342.
20 48. Rodda, G. K., & Basu, D. (2016). "On extracting rotational components of ground motion using
21 an empirical rotational window." International Journal of Earthquake and Impact Engineering,
22 1(3), 253-288.
23 49. Schreiber, K. U., Hautmann, J. N., Velikoseltsev, A., Wassermann, J., Igel, H., Otero, J.,
24 Vernon, F. and Wells, J.-P. R. (2009). "Ring laser measurements of ground rotations for
25 seismology." Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, 99 (2B): 1190-1198.
26 50. Schreiber, K. U., Stedman, G. E., Igel, H., & Flaws, A. (2006). "Ring laser gyroscopes as
27 rotation sensors for seismic wave studies. In Earthquake Source Asymmetry, Structural Media
28 and Rotation Effects (pp. 377-390)." Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
29 51. Singh, S. K., Santoyo, M., Bodin, P. and Gomberg, J. (1997). "Dynamic deformations of
30 shallow sediments in the valley of Mexico, Part II: single-station estimates." Bulletin of
31 Seismological Society of America, 87 (3): 540-550.
32 52. Spudich, P., Steck, L. K., Hellweg, M., Fletcher, J. B. and Baker, L. (1995). "Transient stress
33 at Parkfield, California, produced by the M 7.4 Landers earthquake of June 28, 1992:
34 Observations from the UPSAR dense seismograph array." Journal of Geophysical Research,
35 100: 675-690.
36 53. Stedman, G. E., Li, Z. and Bilger, H. R. (1995). "Sideband analysis and seismic detection in a
37 large ring laser." Applied Optics, 34: 5375-5385.
38 54. Szekely, G. J., & Rizzo, M. L. (2014). "Partial distance correlation with methods for
39 dissimilarities. " The Annals of Statistics, 42(6), 2382-2412.
40 55. Takamori, A., Araya, A., Otake, Y., Ishidoshiro, K. and Ando, M. (2009). "Research and
41 development status of a new rotational seismometer based on the flux pinning effect of a
42 superconductor." Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, 99 (2B): 1174-1180.
43 56. Takeo, M. (1998). "Ground rotational motions recorded in near-source region of earthquakes."
44 Geophysical Research Letter, 25 (789-792).
45 57. Trifunac, M. D. (1982). "A note on rotational components of earthquake motions for incident
46 body waves." Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 1: 11-19.
47 58. Wan, K. X., Vidavsky, I., & Gross, M. L. (2002). "Comparing similar spectra: from similarity
48 index to spectral contrast angle." Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry,
49 13(1), 85-88.
50 59. Wen, K. L. and Yeh, Y. T. (1984). "Seismic velocity structure beneath the SMART-1 array."
51 Bulletin of Institute of Earth Science, Academia Sinica, 4: 51-72.
52 60. Wolf, J. P., Obernhueber, P. and Weber, B. (1983). "Response of a nuclear plant on aseismic
53 bearings to horizontally propagating waves." Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,
54 11: 483-499.

15
 1 61. Zembaty, Z. (2009a). "Rotational seismic code definition in Eurocode 8, Part 6, for slender
2 tower-shaped structures." Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, 99 (2B): 1483-1485.
3 62. Zembaty, Z. (2009b). "Tutorial on surface rotation from wave passage effects: Stochastic
4 spectral approach." Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, 99 (2B): 1040-1049.
5 63. Zembaty, Z. and Boffi, G. (1994). "Effect of rotational seismic ground motion on dynamic
6 response of slender towers." European Earthquake Engineering, 8: 3-11.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53

16
 Figure 1: Location of free surface stations
1
3.5 0.07
Spectral Acceleration (m/sec2)

3 0.06
Spectral Acceleration

2.5 0.05
(rad/sec2)

2 0.04
1.5 0.03
1 0.02
0.5 0.01
0 0
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
Time Period (sec) Time Period (sec)
(a) Response spectrum for ag1 (b) Response spectrum for Torsion
Figure 2: Spectral Acceleration plot for Event 1 at Station FA1_1
2
5 Mean US
Normalized Spectral Acceleration

Mean + 1.67SD US
4
Mean - 1.67SD US

Mean SM
3
Mean + 1.67SD SM

2 Mean - 1.67SD SM

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Time Period (Seconds)
Figure 3: Design spectra in EW direction conditioned at period of 0 seconds
3

17
 0.3 0.3

Spectral Acceleration (m/sec2)

Spectral Acceleration (m/sec2) Reference SNR_30
0.25 0.25 Reference SNR_1

0.2 thetaproposed = 3.72 0.2

thetaproposed = 8.9
0.15 thetaexisting = 3.25 0.15
thetaexisting = 6.0
0.1 0.1

0.05 0.05

0 0
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
Time Period (Seconds) Time Period (Seconds)
a) GM_1 against GM_1 with SNR of 30 b) GM_1 against GM_1 with SNR of 1
0.4
Spectral Acceleration (m/sec2)

0.35 Reference SNR_0.1

0.3
0.25 thetaproposed = 22.5
0.2
thetaexisting = 14.3
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 1 2 3
Time Period (Seconds)
c) GM_1 against GM_1 with SNR of 0.1
0.3
0.3
Spectral Acceleration (m/sec2)

Spectral Acceleration (m/sec2)

0.25 Reference GM_2 Reference GM_3

0.25
0.2 thetaproposed = 41.9 0.2 thetaproposed = 43.4
0.15 thetaexisting = 29.6 0.15 thetaexisting = 29.2
0.1 0.1
0.05 0.05

0 0
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
Time Period (Seconds) Time Period (Seconds)
(d) GM_1 against GM_2 (e) GM_1 against GM_3
Figure 4: Comparison of proposed and existing spectral contrast angles
1
2
3
4
5

18
 Figure 5: Burr fitting (theoretical distribution) for the histogram
1
2

Figure 6: Cumulative distribution function

3
4

19
 Figure 7: Existence of cut-off frequency in auto-spectral densities of ag1 and a g 2 in Event-2 at
station FA1_1
1
1 1.6 FA1_1
FA1_2
Correlation of deviation

Total distance correlation

1.4 FA1_2
0.8 FA1_4 FA1_4
1.2
FA1_5 FA1_5
spectra

0.6 1
FA2_1
FA2_2 0.8
0.4 FA2_2
FA2_1 0.6
FA2_3
0.2 0.4
FA2_3 FA2_4
0 0.2
FA2_4 FA2_5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 FA3_5
Correlation of smoothed spectra 0.1 0.5
2.5 12.5 62.5
alpha
(a) Distance correlation of deviation spectra (b) Total distance correlation against alpha
against that of smoothed spectra
Figure 8: Variation of distance correlation for Event 2
2
0.7 1
Correlation of deviation

0.6 0.8
Total correlation
spectra

0.6
0.5
90% of maximum
0.4 totoal distance
0.4 correlation
0.2
0.3
0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0
0.1 0.5 2.5 12.5 62.5
Correlation of smoothed spectra
alpha
(a) Distance correlation of deviation spectra (b) Total distance correlation against alpha
against that of smoothed spectra
Figure 9: Variation of distance correlation for Event 2 at station FA1_3
3

20
1
16

GM of spectral ordinates
14
12
10

(rad/sec)
8
6
4
2
0
0 3 6 9 12 15
alpha
Figure 10: GM of spectral ordinates against alpha at FA1_4 for Event 1
2
3
4
0.30 0.35
Spectral Energy (m2/sec2)
Energy time history

0.25 0.30
0.20 0.25
(m2/sec2)

0.15 0.20
0.10 0.15
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (Seconds)
Time Period (seconds)
Figure 11: Relative energy time history for Event Figure 12: Relative energy spectra for Event 1 at
1 at FA1_1 for ag1 for T = 1 second FA1_1 for ag1
5
6

Torsional Motion Derivative of ag3 Rocking Motion Derivative of a

Energy time history (%)
Energy time history (%)

100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Time (Seconds) Time (Seconds)

Figure 13: Comparison of energy build-up for Figure 14: Comparison of energy build-up for
torsional motion and a g 3 for Event 1 at FA1_1 rocking motion and a for Event 1 at FA1_1 for
for T = 1 second T = 1 second
7
8

21
 1
2 Tables:
3
Table 1: Strong motion events considered
Sl No. Description Event-1 Event-2 Event-3
1. Date May 20, 1986 November 14, 1986 January 16, 1986
2. Latitude 24o 4’ 54’’ 23o 59’ 30.5’’ 24o 45’ 46.2’’
3. Longitude 121o 35’ 29.4’’ 121o 49’ 59.4’’ 121o 57’ 40.1’’
4. Focal Depth (kM) 15.8 15 10.2
5. Local Magnitude 6.2 6.5 6.1
6. Epicentral Distance (kM) 66 75 20
4
Table 2: Comparison of spectral contrast angles
Index (This paper) RSN of the record SCA-  SCA-  
(PEER database) (Existing) (Proposed)
GM_1 with SNR 30 579 3.2 3.7
GM_1 with SNR 1 579 6.0 8.9
GM_1 with SNR 0.1 579 14.3 22.5
GM_2 13 29.6 41.9
GM_3 1145 29.2 43.4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35

22
 1
Table 3: Comparison of spectral contrast angles – Design spectra
RSN of SCA-  SCA-   RSN SCA-  SCA-   RSN SCA-  SCA-  
the Existing Proposed of the Existing Proposed of the Existing Proposed
record record record
1107 15 25 2793 21 26 3933 25 24
1118 24 22 2795 22 19 453 11 21
166 19 21 2797 16 17 457 22 24
187 12 22 2813 26 42 460 36 34
188 23 29 2847 18 38 470 12 22
190 37 35 2851 13 33 548 20 22
2782 31 23 941 12 26 549 20 17
2065 23 58 2864 22 45 556 47 43
2067 29 65 2865 21 47 558 19 14
2069 19 40 2875 16 28 821 12 23
2070 23 53 2909 29 54 902 21 20
2071 15 39 2910 21 42 903 24 21
2072 24 60 2916 15 24 904 23 26
2073 20 50 2933 13 26 905 15 17
2074 12 22 3552 36 62 906 22 23
2077 19 36 37 26 60 907 16 27
2080 22 54 3856 35 28 908 19 19
2081 27 60 3870 56 52 910 20 16
2082 16 36 3872 43 47 911 12 34
2083 20 49 3878 39 36 912 17 19
2088 36 58 3880 46 39 914 15 17
2089 27 34 3886 51 49 916 16 21
2090 25 30 3889 38 34 918 14 28
2093 17 17 3896 59 56 919 13 21
2708 15 26 3902 50 49 921 18 39
2744 9 20 3910 34 40 923 18 34
2762 15 27 3912 52 47 926 10 19
2763 15 24 3913 47 42 929 19 20
2764 11 26 3917 31 43 930 11 18
2765 18 43 3918 45 46 932 17 16
2781 20 21 3921 32 27 3922 18 34
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

23
1
Table 4: Proposed SCA (   ) – Response spectra - Torsional Motion
Between smoothened original spectra
Between smoothened spectra
Stations and unsmoothened spectra of a g 3
Event 1 Event 2 Event 3 Event 1 Event 2 Event 3
FA1_1 10 6 6 11 8 8
FA1_2 10 5 3 12 8 6
FA1_3 10 5 4 12 8 6
FA1_4 10 5 4 12 8 7
FA1_5 10 5 2 12 8 6
FA2_1 8 5 3 9 8 6
FA2_2 8 5 2 10 7 7
FA2_3 11 5 4 12 8 8
FA2_4 6 9
FA2_5 8 6 5 11 10 8
FA3_1 8 5 10 7
FA3_2 9 11
FA3_3 8 4 10 8
FA3_4 8 10
FA3_5 6 4 10 7
2
Table 5: Best estimate of alpha
Stations Event 1 Event 2 Event 3
FA1_1 8.4 10.3 6.2
FA1_2 8 3.7 13.5
FA1_3 3.1 3.4 9.6
FA1_4 2.8 4.3 14.1
FA1_5 2.7 5.1 11.2
FA2_1 3.9 3.8 7.6
FA2_2 4.4 2.5 5.5
FA2_3 4.4 4.3 9.3
FA2_4 4.8
FA2_5 3.1 4.8 7.6
FA3_1 7.6 4.9
FA3_2 4.8
FA3_3 1.5 7.1
FA3_4 2
FA3_5 1.5 4.0

24
1
Table 6: Comparison of estimated alpha with the alpha bounds of 90% maximum total correlation
Event 1 Event 2 Event 3
Stations Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper
Estimated Estimated Estimated
limit limit limit limit limit limit
FA1_1 5.6 14 6 5.8 18.9 10 2.7 14 6
FA1_2 4.1 14 6 2 6.2 6 7.6 23.1 10
FA1_3 2.1 5.5 4 1.9 5.4 6.5 4.4 16.4 7
FA1_4 2 5.2 3.5 2.3 7.7 7 7 25 10
FA1_5 1.7 4.2 4.5 2.5 7.8 7 5.7 20.4 11
FA2_1 2.6 8.3 6 2 5.7 5 3.5 12 8.5
FA2_2 2.4 18.6 7 1.1 4.2 6 2.5 10.2 6.5
FA2_3 2.7 5.7 5 2.2 7.6 5 4.4 22.5 7
FA2_4 2.3 7.7 6
FA2_5 1.8 10.6 4 2.3 7.1 6 3.9 15.1 7
FA3_1 3.9 13.3 7.5 2.5 9.4 7
FA3_2 3.3 7.7 6.5
FA3_3 0.6 5.2 3 3.7 13.7 6
FA3_4 1.2 6.5 3
FA3_5 0.8 2.3 4 1.9 5.7 5
2
3
Table 7: Proposed SCA (   ) – Response spectra - Rocking Motion
Between smoothened original spectra
Between smoothened spectra
Stations and unsmoothened spectra of a
Event 1 Event 2 Event 3 Event 1 Event 2 Event 3
FA1_1 18 20 18 20 22 20
FA1_2 20 17 15 21 20 17
FA1_3 13 21 17 15 22 20
FA1_4 15 19 16 16 20 19
FA1_5 14 20 17 15 21 19
FA2_1 20 21 17 20 22 18
FA2_2 20 18 18 20 20 20
FA2_3 17 16 20 18 19 21
FA2_4 10 14
FA2_5 16 17 18 17 20 20
FA3_1 19 15 20 17
FA3_2 17 18
FA3_3 20 8 21 12
FA3_4 21 22
FA3_5 22 17 24 20

25
1
Table 8: Proposed SCA (   ) – Energy time history
Torsional Motion Rocking Motion
Stations
Event 1 Event 2 Event 3 Event 1 Event 2 Event 3
FA1_1 14 8 23 22 23 22
FA1_2 13 9 19 15 20 27
FA1_3 15 9 11 18 19 20
FA1_4 15 8 22 9 18 18
FA1_5 15 11 25 13 21 19
FA2_1 10 6 9 21 20 21
FA2_2 13 8 12 21 20 20
FA2_3 12 12 25 15 22 16
FA2_4 10 19
FA2_5 12 7 10 11 24 20
FA3_1 13 19 11 21
FA3_2 14 22
FA3_3 11 21 23 26
FA3_4 7 4
FA3_5 8 9 14 27
2

Table 9: Proposed SCA (   ) – Energy spectra

Torsional Motion Rocking Motion
Stations
Event 1 Event 2 Event 3 Event 1 Event 2 Event 3
FA1_1 12 10 18 22 20 21
FA1_2 16 11 18 18 23 23
FA1_3 18 8 13 17 20 18
FA1_4 15 9 20 10 23 16
FA1_5 17 9 22 11 21 19
FA2_1 7 7 9 23 24 22
FA2_2 12 5 12 21 18 21
FA2_3 15 10 22 15 23 18
FA2_4 7 23
FA2_5 15 4 12 14 24 19
FA3_1 14 21 14 18
FA3_2 11 20
FA3_3 13 19 17 22
FA3_4 10 12
FA3_5 9 6 12 21
3

26