18th ASEP INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE: “Creative Structural Engineering” [25-27 May 2017]

SEISMIC SCALING USING ENERGY METHOD

Carlos M. Villaraza

ABSTRACT: Earthquake Engineering is both a science and an art. Knowledge of the

principles of seismology, earthquake engineering and structural dynamics is of utmost
importance. But experience and understanding of these important principles and their
interplay during actual events will assist in the better understanding of structural
behavior during earthquakes.

Current data and observed behavior of structures differed from the computational
results particularly in the use of time-series averaging. The provision of NSCP Vol. 1
6th Edition is well versed and captures the importance of reading the signature of the
time history to be used in the analysis.

The Energy Method produces a result nearer the time series of actual earthquake
records considering the effects of energy losses and the type of sol at the site.

KEYWORDS: Energy Method, Response Spectrum Analysis, Time Series Averaging,

Power Spectrum Method, Law of Energy Conservation.

Introduction

Earthquake is an energy transmitted through a medium of the earth – the surface wave (Love
and Rayleigh waves) that travels through the surface of the earth; the body wave (P-S waves}
travelling through the earth. What is of importance to seismologists are the Body Waves. The
P-S waves arrival determine the hypocenter location. The Rayleigh Wave is used to compute
the transmission of the bedrock wave to the surface in terms of g’s. What affects the structures
are the love waves that travel on the surface. It is a form of energy expressed in g’s.

While PBEED is increasingly gaining attraction among engineers in recent years, structural
codes have yet to be revised to include performance-based concepts. Current structural codes
are prescriptive; hence, an engineer has to follow what is stated in the code in order to ensure
that collapse is avoided. Yet the approach in PBEED encourages the use of Time-Series
Analysis, the use of averaging seven events of similar character or using the highest value
among three earthquakes events with similar characteristic pose some problems. When these
are initially transformed into power spectra and averaged, the earthquake signature may change
significantly in the long period.

NSCP 6th Edition and the ASCE-05 Provisions

The NSCP 6th Edition, Section 208.6.2 states: “Ground motion time histories developed for
the specific site shall be representative of actual earthquake motions.” Although quite general
in description, it actually presupposes that a site specific is required in order to arrive at a
time-history compatible with the site.

The ASCE 7-05 Chapter 21: Section 21.1.1 Base Ground Motions states: “A maximum
considered earthquake (MCE) response spectrum shall be developed for bedrock, using the
procedure of Sections 11.4.6 or 21.2. … At least five recorded or simulated horizontal ground
motion acceleration time histories shall be selected from events having magnitudes and fault
distances that are consistent with those that control the MCE. Each selected time history shall
be scaled so that its response spectrum is, on average, approximately at the level of the MCE
rock response spectrum over the period range of significance to structural response.”
Section 16.2.5 Design Review states: “A design review … in the appropriate disciplines ….
The design review shall include, but need not be limited to, the following: Review of any site-
18th ASEP INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE: “Creative Structural Engineering” [25-27 May 2017]

specific seismic criteria employed in the analysis including the development of site-specific
spectra and ground motion time histories.

In this provision, time-history averaging will be near the actual but problems will arise in the
longer period of the time-history for the predominant characteristic of the larger earthquake
tends to control the average value.

Seismic Scaling Using the Energy Method

The Conservation of Energy Law expresses: “The total energy at the end of any event is equal
to the total energy at the beginning of the event.” Energy can be transferred through work or
through heat. In structural engineering, it is through heat that energy is dissipated and the
remaining energy is the force on the building done through work.

In the paper on Energy Approach to PBEED7 (Villaraza, 2016) presented to the 6th Asia
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, a comparative analysis was done on a simple two-
dimensional frame using the Response Spectrum Method and the Energy Approach Method
was done. The earthquake time-history of the M6.4 Taiwan Earthquake recorded from STN
A370 located 15 km from the epicenter was applied to the portal frame model.

For the same frame, it was subjected to a M7.2 earthquake load. The procedure done in
scaling the M6.4 is through the use of the Power Spectrum Approach. A power spectrum for
the M6.4 was obtained from the time series record in STN A370 and is the reference power
spectrum in scaling up the M6.4 earthquake to M7.2 earthquake using the Energy Approach.
Time Series Stitching using a segment of the recorded M6.4 was introduced to the record until
it matches the target Power Spectrum

Site Classification: SD
Epicentral Distance: 15 km
Fault type: Strike-Slip

Figure 1. Seismic Parameters.

Figure 2. Record of the 2016 M6.4 Meinong earthquake [Taiwan].

18th ASEP INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE: “Creative Structural Engineering” [25-27 May 2017]

Figure 3. Scaled up M8.0 time-series based on 2016 M6.4 Meinong earthquake.

The M6.4-D15 earthquake time series was scaled up to M8.0-D15 (Figure 3) earthquake to
represent an earthquake of M8 occurring in close proximity to the site. The waveform of the
scaled-up time-series was then compared to the 2015 M8.3-D92 Chile earthquake (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Time series of 2015 M8.3 Chile earthquake, epicenter 92 kms from station.

To properly scale the time-series (scale-up to a higher magnitude or scale-down to a lower

magnitude), it is necessary to use the Energy Method. This approach is better than averaging
time-series because it is based on total earthquake energy released. The Energy Method is only
influenced by distance to the source and rupture length. Energy loss is influenced only by the
distance and not so much by the soil characteristics along its direction propagation. Direct
influence will only be influential to the wave characteristic at the site of the structure being
considered in the design.

The occurrence of an earthquake is a complex energy conversion process. When an earthquake

occurs, much of the available local energy is used to power earthquake fracture growth,
producing heat rather than generating seismic waves which radiate outward and are detected by
seismographs.
18th ASEP INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE: “Creative Structural Engineering” [25-27 May 2017]

The United States Geologic Survey (USGS) has an earthquake energy calculator which is the
basis for time series scaling. Seismic moment energy is a measure of the total amount of energy
that is transformed during an earthquake. Usually, only 1-10% of an earthquake’s total energy
(Seismic Energy) is released in the form of radiated seismic waves.

Table 1. Computed Seismic Moment Energy and Actual Seismic Energy

for M5.0 – M8.0 earthquakes.

From Table 1, the seismic energy radiated by a M8.0 earthquake is higher than a M6.4
earthquake by approximately 11,000%. When scaling-up the time-series, it can be expected that
the energy of the signal will be increased by about the same percentage as well. Power Spectral
Density (PSD) is a measure of the energy of the signal. Therefore, scaling-up the earthquake
signal (time-series) to a certain higher magnitude will increase the energy of the signal
accordingly.
18th ASEP INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE: “Creative Structural Engineering” [25-27 May 2017]

Figure 5. Actual Power Spectral Density for the 2016 M6.4 Meinong earthquake.

Scaling the M6.4 earthquake signal to M8.0 indicated a 2,784.11% energy increase. Comparing
it with the USGS seismic energy calculator, this percentage increase is 75% lower than expected.

Figure 6. Scaled Power Spectral Density for the M8.0 earthquake.

The discrepancy can be attributed to the losses in earthquake signal energy as it radiates from
the source towards the observation station 15 km away. These losses occur due to the presence
of cracks along the path of the waves where heat is generated. The USGS seismic energy
calculator is based on the earthquake signal traveling through bedrock from source to the site.
Therefore, there is very little loss in energy. This justifies the discrepancy in the results.
18th ASEP INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE: “Creative Structural Engineering” [25-27 May 2017]

Acceleration Response Spectrum

The data from the original recording, as well as the scaled, was processed to produce the
Acceleration Response Spectra (AARS and SARS) as seen in Figures 7 & 8 below. At a glance,
it can be observed that the spectral acceleration values for the scaled earthquake time series is
1000% larger than the spectral acceleration values for the actual recording.

Figure 7. Actual Acceleration Response Spectrum (AARS)

for the 2016 M6.4 Meinong earthquake.

Figure 8. Scaled Acceleration Response Spectrum (SARS) for M8.0 earthquake.

Ground Motion Scaling Based on ASCE 7-10

Chapter 16 of ASCE 7-10 provides requirements for performing linear and nonlinear response
history analysis. One of the requirements is the selection of ground motions and appropriate
scaling of these motions.

The ground motions are taken from actual seismic records. These events should have seismic
parameters such as magnitude, fault distance, and source mechanism similar to the Maximum
Considered Earthquake (MCE). Section 16.1.4 requires that at least three (3) record sets be
used for analysis. If fewer than seven (7) sets are used, then the response parameters to be
applied for design shall be the maximum values obtained from the analysis. If seven (7) or
more record sets are used, the design can be based on the average values obtained from the
analysis.
18th ASEP INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE: “Creative Structural Engineering” [25-27 May 2017]

In this paper, four (4) record sets were used and averaging was done for illustrative purposes
only. Record sets for notable California earthquakes in the last 80 years were used. These are
as follows: 1940 Imperial Valley Earthquake, 1966 Parkfield Earthquake, 1971 San Fernando
Earthquake, and 1994 Northridge Earthquake. On Table 1 below are the significant data with
regards to the earthquakes above:

EARTHQUAKE Imperial Valley Parkfield San Fernando Northridge

DATE 18 May 1940 27 June 1966 9 February 1971 17 January 1994
MAGNITUDE M6.9 M6.0 M6.7 M6.7
EPICENTER 32.73°N 115.5°W 35.93°N 120.5°W 34.41°N 118.4°W 34.21°N 118.54°W
DEPTH 16 km 8.6 km 13 km 18.3 km
FAULT TYPE Strike-slip Strike-slip Thrust Thrust
Orion Blvd. Olive View Hospital
STATION El Centro, CA Cholame, CA
(Sylmar, CA) (Sylmar, CA)
EPICENTRAL
7 km 31 km 24 km 15 km
DISTANCE
SITE CLASS D D D D

Table 2. Major California Earthquakes Data.

Earthquake Event Descriptions:

• 1940 IMPERIAL VALLEY EARTHQUAKE

The Magnitude 6.9 earthquake occurred on 18 May 1940 in the Imperial Valley in
Southern California. The earthquake was characterized as a typical moderate-sized
destructive event with a complex energy release signature.

• 1966 PARKFIELD EARTHQUAKE

Despite being a fairly strong earthquake, the 1966 Parkfield earthquake caused very
little damage, even near the epicenter. This is due to the fact that the epicentral region
is sparsely inhabited.

• 1971 SAN FERNANDO EARTHQUAKE

The Magnitude 6.7 earthquake occurred early in the morning of 9 February 1971 in the
foothills of San Gabriel Mountains in southern California. Damage was locally severe
in the San Fernando Valley.

The event affected a number of hospitals in Sylmar, California, including Olive View
Medical Center, which experienced very heavy damage. It was eventually demolished
in 1973 and rebuilt in 1987.

• 1994 NORTHRIDGE EARTHQUAKE

The Magnitude 6.7 earthquake occurred on 17 January 1994 and has its epicenter in
north central San Fernando Valley. It had a duration of 10-20 seconds and produced a
ground acceleration that was the highest-ever recorded in an urban area (PGA = 1.8g).
18th ASEP INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE: “Creative Structural Engineering” [25-27 May 2017]

Actual Response Spectra of Major California Earthquakes

The acceleration response spectrum for the lmperial Valley earthquake has lower values than
expected. There are several reasons for these such as: the quality of instrument installed at
that time; the size of the base supporting the equipment; and orientation of the accelerometers.
It is imperative that the data acquisition method should be known, the type of equipment, the
mounting of the equipment, and the type of soil supporting the base of the equipment be
known. Otherwise, the data cannot be relied upon in the analysis of structures. The present
Guidelines on Instrumentation of the NSCP 7th Edition covers all of these conserns.8

The station which provided data for the 1971 and the 1994 earthquakes is located at Sylmar,
California. It can be noted that for the 1994 earthquake, acceleration values recorded were
significantly lower than the one in 1971 although they have the same magnitudes. This is
because the 1994 record was obtained from the instrument installed at the rebuilt Olive View
Medical Center.

Figure 9. Actual Acceleration Response Spectrum (AARS) of the 1940 M6.9

Imperial Valley Earthquake.

Figure 10. Actual Acceleration Response Spectrum (AARS) of the 1966 M6.0
Parkfield Earthquake.
18th ASEP INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE: “Creative Structural Engineering” [25-27 May 2017]

Figure 11. Actual Acceleration Response Spectrum (AARS) of the 1971 M6.7
San Fernando Earthquake.

Figure 11 shows the earthquake AARS that heavily-damaged the Olive View Medical Center
in Sylmar, California.

Figure 12. Actual Acceleration Response Spectrum (AARS) of the 1994 M6.7
Northridge Earthquake

Following the destructive 1971 earthquake, there was an initiative in California to use base
isolators in building to prevent or minimize structural damage during earthquakes. Olive View
Medical Center was one of the buildings to have base isolators installed. Referring to Figures
11 & 12, it shows the advantage of base isolation in lowering the seismic energy transmitted
to the building due to the dissipation characteristics of the base isolators.

Comparison Between Averaging and Scaling Using the Energy Method

The grey line in Figure 13 below represents the average spectral acceleration response for the
four (4) earthquake record sets used. The trend of the average spectral acceleration curve is
18th ASEP INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE: “Creative Structural Engineering” [25-27 May 2017]

skewed towards the long period response due to the influence of the San Fernando record set.
This result shows the importance of choosing the right set of seismic records. It cannot be
done arbitrarily as required by the NSCP 6th Edition, Section 208.6.2 that states: “Ground
motion time histories developed for the specific site shall be representative of actual
earthquake motions.”

Figure 13. Average Acceleration Response Spectrum [in grey] for four (4) earthquakes:
Imperial Valley, Parkfield, San Fernando and Northridge.

Problems with the Current PBEED Approach

Current state-of-the-art Performance Based Earthquake Engineering Design (PBEED)

quantifies the inelastic deformation capacity of structural elements as denoted by Δ M, which is
then proportional to a building’s R-value. In doing so, the expected level of base shear is
reduced since the ductility of the system is taken advantage of by allowing the elements to
undergo deformations. This assumes that the structure has ample time to distribute the
earthquake load among its elements.

However, this becomes inappropriate for very short and very long period structures and
uncertain for medium-period structures when the hysteretic character significantly differs from
its elasto-plastic behavior. Furthermore, R-values are assumed based on the structural systems
used in the design without considering a wide range of factors such as the structural geometry,
reinforcement ratio and axial load ratio.

Because a lot of factors were not incorporated in the initial assumptions, the uncertainty
increases and it will be hard to obtain the selected performance objective.

Selection of Performance Objectives

Performance objectives can be:

1. Intensity-based. An example of an intensity-based Performance Objective is no life

loss and the building must be operational within a certain period of time if an event
with a 475-year return period occurs.
18th ASEP INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE: “Creative Structural Engineering” [25-27 May 2017]

2. Scenario-based. Scenario-based Performance Objective considers a particular event

(deterministic), which means that a similar event has occurred in the area at least once
before. An example of this is if a M7.0 event occurs, there should be no life loss;
building must be operational within a week after the event; and repair costs should only
be 5% of building replacement cost.
3. Time-based. A time-based Performance Objective assumes that a given level of loss
would occur in a building’s lifetime after considering all the earthquakes that might
affect the building and computing the probability of occurrence of each. An example of
this is a 2% chance in 50 years that a life loss will occur and repair costs for the damage
building is 1% of the building replacement cost.

The current PBEED practice in deciding performance objectives is establishing limits based on
predicted story drifts and working backward to obtain design criteria and design earthquake.
Seismic Scaling using the Energy Method makes the analysis simpler for it goes directly into
the anticipated earthquake energy to be absorbed by the building but in the form of equivalent
seismic forces.

Checking If Performance Meets Objectives

A fundamental question in performance based design is the validation of selected performance

levels, the parameters used to define minimum performance, and the seismic hazard definitions.
In the case of three performance levels (serviceability, damage control and life safety or collapse
prevention), three corresponding structural characteristics (stiffness, strength and deformation
capacity) dominate the performance as illustrated in Figure 14.

Figure 14. Typical performance curve.

If the performance of the preliminary building design does not meet the objectives, the design
is revised accordingly. PBEED is therefore an iterative process.

CONCLUSION

The Seismic Scaling using the Energy Method is a simplified approach in Performance Based
Earthquake Engineering Design. PBEED encourages the use of Time-Series Analysis. The use
of averaging seven events of similar character or using the highest value among three
earthquakes events with similar characteristic pose some problems. When these are initially
transformed into power spectra and averaged, the earthquake signature may change
significantly in the long period.
18th ASEP INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE: “Creative Structural Engineering” [25-27 May 2017]

The Seismic Scaling using the Energy Method is better than averaging time-series because it is
based on total earthquake energy released. It makes the analysis simpler for it goes directly into
the anticipated earthquake energy to be absorbed by the building but in the form of equivalent
seismic forces. The Energy Method is only influenced by distance to the source and rupture
length. Direct influence by soil strata will only be on the wave characteristic at the site of the
structure being considered in the design. It is through heat that energy is dissipated and the
remaining energy is the force on the building done through work.

REFERENCES

1. Keiiti Aki & Paul G. Richards. QUANTITATIVE SEISMOLOGY Theory and

Methods, W.H. Freeman & Company (New York, 1980).
2. S.L. Kramer. GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING, Prentice Hall
(New Jersey, 1996).
3. Kawashima, K., Aizawa, K., and Takahashi, K. (1983), Attenuation of Peak Ground
Motion and Absolute Acceleration Response Spectra, Proceedings of the 8th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering.
4. Thenhaus, P.C., Hanson, S.L., Algermissen, S.T., et al. (1995). Estimates of the
Regional Ground-Motion Hazard in the Philippines, USGS/PHIVOLCS, Manila.
5. Villaraza, C.M. (1987), Simulation of Strong Ground Motion Based on the
Acceleration Response Spectrum, International Institute of Seismology and
Earthquake Engineering Journal, Japan.
6. Villaraza, C.M. (2004), Vulnerability Study of the Leyte Geothermal Project,
Proceedings of the ACEE 2004, Vol.2, Manila.
7. Villaraza, C.M. (2016), Anthropology of Earthquakes Towards a Simplified
Performance Based Earthquake Engineering Design, Proceedings of the ACEE
2016, Cebu.
8. National Structural Code of the Philippines 2010, Vol.1, 6th Edition.
9. F.A. Charney. Seismic Loads: Guide to the Seismic Load Provisions of the ASCE
7-05, ASCE (Virginia, 2010).