Geology topics

Erol Kalkan

Publications and source records attributed to Erol Kalkan.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2020

Ground-motion predictions for California — Comparisons of three prediction equations

We systematically evaluate datasets, functional forms, independent parameters of estimation, and resulting ground-motion predictions (as median and aleatory variability) of the Graizer and Kalkan (2015, 2016) (GK15) ground-motion prediction equation (GMPE) with the next generation of attenuation project (NGA-West2) models of Abrahamson and others (2014) (ASK14) and Boore and others (2014) (BSSA14) for application to earthquakes in California. This evaluation is performed in three stages: (1) by comparing attenuation, magnitude scaling, style-of-faulting effects, site response, response-spectral shape and amplitude, and standard deviations; (2) by comparing median predictions, standard deviations, and analyses of residuals with respect to near-field (within 20 kilometers [km] of the fault) and intermediate-field (50 to 70 km from the fault) records from major earthquakes in California, and (3) by comparing total, intra-event, and inter-event residual distributions among the GMPEs with respect to a near-source (within 80 km of the fault) subset of the NGA-West2 database covering 975 ground motions from 73 events in California ranging from moment magnitude 5 to 7.36. The results reveal that the scaling features of the GK15 GMPE and the ASK14 and BSSA14 GMPEs are, in general, similar in terms of distance attenuation but differ in terms of scaling with magnitude, style of faulting, and site effects. The original standard deviations of GMPEs are also different. For the near-source California subset, the three GMPEs result in standard deviations that are similar to each other. The mixed-effect residuals analysis shows that the GK15 GMPE has no perceptible trend with respect to the independent predictors.

California↗

USGS2018

Improved ASCE/SEI 7-10 ground-motion scaling procedure for nonlinear analysis of buildings

An improved ASCE/SEI 7–10 ground-motion scaling procedure for three-dimensional (3D) response history analysis (RHA) of buildings is presented. In this procedure, different scale factors for two horizontal components of the ground motion are used, and their spectral shapes are considered in ground-motion selection stage. The accuracy of the improved procedure is evaluated by utilizing 3D models of nine asymmetric-plan buildings. It is demonstrated that the improved procedure provides on average 15% conservative estimates of engineering demand parameters while the original version underestimates them on average 29%. Thus, the improved ground-motion selection and scaling procedure is found to be appropriate for nonlinear RHAs of multi-story plan-asymmetric buildings.

Journal of Earthquake Engineering↗

USGS2017

U.S. Geological Survey National Strong-Motion Project strategic plan, 2017–22

The mission of the National Strong-Motion Project is to provide measurements of how the ground and built environment behave during earthquake shaking to the earthquake engineering community, the scientific community, emergency managers, public agencies, industry, media, and other users for the following purposes: Improving engineering evaluations and design methods for facilities and systems; Providing timely information for earthquake early warning, damage assessment, and emergency response action; and Contributing to a greater understanding of the mechanics of earthquake rupture, groundmotion characteristics, and earthquake effects.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2017

PRISM software—Processing and review interface for strong-motion data

Rapidly available and accurate ground-motion acceleration time series (seismic recordings) and derived data products are essential to quickly providing scientific and engineering analysis and advice after an earthquake. To meet this need, the U.S. Geological Survey National Strong Motion Project has developed a software package called PRISM (Processing and Review Interface for Strong-Motion data). PRISM automatically processes strong-motion acceleration records, producing compatible acceleration, velocity, and displacement time series; acceleration, velocity, and displacement response spectra; Fourier amplitude spectra; and standard earthquake-intensity measures. PRISM is intended to be used by strong-motion seismic networks, as well as by earthquake engineers and seismologists.

Techniques and Methods↗

USGS2017

PRISM Software: Processing and Review Interface for Strong‐Motion Data

A continually increasing number of high‐quality digital strong‐motion records from stations of the National Strong Motion Project (NSMP) of the U.S. Geological Survey, as well as data from regional seismic networks within the United States, calls for automated processing of strong‐motion records with human review limited to selected significant or flagged records. The NSMP has developed the Processing and Review Interface for Strong Motion data (PRISM) software to meet this need. In combination with the Advanced National Seismic System Quake Monitoring System (AQMS), PRISM automates the processing of strong‐motion records. When used without AQMS, PRISM provides batch‐processing capabilities. The PRISM software is platform independent (coded in Java), open source, and does not depend on any closed‐source or proprietary software. The software consists of two major components: a record processing engine composed of modules for each processing step, and a review tool, which is a graphical user interface for manual review, edit, and processing. To facilitate use by non‐NSMP earthquake engineers and scientists, PRISM (both its processing engine and review tool) is easy to install and run as a stand‐alone system on common operating systems such as Linux, OS X, and Windows. PRISM was designed to be flexible and extensible to accommodate implementation of new processing techniques. All the computing features have been thoroughly tested.

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS2017

Processing and review interface for strong motion data (PRISM) software, version 1.0.0—Methodology and automated processing

A continually increasing number of high-quality digital strong-motion records from stations of the National Strong-Motion Project (NSMP) of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), as well as data from regional seismic networks within the United States, call for automated processing of strong-motion records with human review limited to selected significant or flagged records. The NSMP has developed the Processing and Review Interface for Strong Motion data (PRISM) software to meet this need. In combination with the Advanced National Seismic System Quake Monitoring System (AQMS), PRISM automates the processing of strong-motion records. When used without AQMS, PRISM provides batch-processing capabilities. The PRISM version 1.0.0 is platform independent (coded in Java), open source, and does not depend on any closed-source or proprietary software. The software consists of two major components: a record processing engine and a review tool that has a graphical user interface (GUI) to manually review, edit, and process records. To facilitate use by non-NSMP earthquake engineers and scientists, PRISM (both its processing engine and review tool) is easy to install and run as a stand-alone system on common operating systems such as Linux, OS X, and Windows. PRISM was designed to be flexible and extensible in order to accommodate new processing techniques. This report provides a thorough description and examples of the record processing features supported by PRISM. All the computing features of PRISM have been thoroughly tested.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2017

Systematic comparisons between PRISM version 1.0.0, BAP, and CSMIP ground-motion processing

A series of benchmark tests was run by comparing results of the Processing and Review Interface for Strong Motion data (PRISM) software version 1.0.0 to Basic Strong-Motion Accelerogram Processing Software (BAP; Converse and Brady, 1992), and to California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program (CSMIP) processing (Shakal and others, 2003, 2004). These tests were performed by using the MatLAB implementation of PRISM, which is equivalent to its public release version in Java language. Systematic comparisons were made in time and frequency domains of records processed in PRISM and BAP, and in CSMIP, by using a set of representative input motions with varying resolutions, frequency content, and amplitudes. Although the details of strong-motion records vary among the processing procedures, there are only minor differences among the waveforms for each component and within the frequency passband common to these procedures. A comprehensive statistical evaluation considering more than 1,800 ground-motion components demonstrates that differences in peak amplitudes of acceleration, velocity, and displacement time series obtained from PRISM and CSMIP processing are equal to or less than 4 percent for 99 percent of the data, and equal to or less than 2 percent for 96 percent of the data. Other statistical measures, including the Euclidian distance (L 2 norm) and the windowed root mean square level of processed time series, also indicate that both processing schemes produce statistically similar products.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2017

System identification based on deconvolution and cross correlation: An application to a 20‐story instrumented building in Anchorage, Alaska

Deconvolution and cross‐correlation techniques are used for system identification of a 20‐story steel, moment‐resisting frame building in downtown Anchorage, Alaska. This regular‐plan midrise structure is instrumented with a 32‐channel accelerometer array at 10 levels. The impulse response functions (IRFs) and correlation functions (CFs) are computed based on waveforms recorded from ambient vibrations and five local and regional earthquakes. The earthquakes occurred from 2005 to 2014 with moment magnitudes between 4.7 and 6.2 over a range of azimuths at epicenter distances of 13.3–183 km. The building’s fundamental frequencies and mode shapes are determined using a complex mode indicator function based on singular value decomposition of multiple reference frequency‐response functions. The traveling waves, identified in IRFs with a virtual source at the roof, and CFs are used to estimate the intrinsic attenuation associated with the fundamental modes and shear‐wave velocity in the building. Although the cross correlation of the waveforms at various levels with the corresponding waveform at the first floor provides more complicated wave propagation than that from the deconvolution with virtual source at the roof, the shear‐wave velocities identified by both techniques are consistent—the largest difference in average values is within 8%. The median shear‐wave velocity from the IRFs of five earthquakes is 191 m/s for the east–west (E‐W), 205 m/s for the north–south (N‐S), and 176 m/s for the torsional responses. The building’s average intrinsic‐damping ratio is estimated to be 3.7% and 3.4% in the 0.2–1 Hz frequency band for the E‐W and N‐S directions, respectively. These results are intended to serve as reference for the undamaged condition of the building, which may be used for tracking changes in structural integrity during and after future earthquakes.

Alaska↗

USGS2016

Experimental evaluation of four ground-motion scaling methods for dynamic response-history analysis of nonlinear structures

This paper experimentally evaluates four methods to scale earthquake ground-motions within an ensemble of records to minimize the statistical dispersion and maximize the accuracy in the dynamic peak roof drift demand and peak inter-story drift demand estimates from response-history analyses of nonlinear building structures. The scaling methods that are investigated are based on: (1) ASCE/SEI 7–10 guidelines; (2) spectral acceleration at the fundamental (first mode) period of the structure, S a ( T 1 ); (3) maximum incremental velocity, MIV ; and (4) modal pushover analysis. A total of 720 shake-table tests of four small-scale nonlinear building frame specimens with different static and dynamic characteristics are conducted. The peak displacement demands from full suites of 36 near-fault ground-motion records as well as from smaller “unbiased” and “biased” design subsets (bins) of ground-motions are included. Out of the four scaling methods, ground-motions scaled to the median MIV of the ensemble resulted in the smallest dispersion in the peak roof and inter-story drift demands. Scaling based on MIV also provided the most accurate median demands as compared with the “benchmark” demands for structures with greater nonlinearity; however, this accuracy was reduced for structures exhibiting reduced nonlinearity. The modal pushover-based scaling (MPS) procedure was the only method to conservatively overestimate the median drift demands.

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering↗

USGS2016

An automatic P‐Phase arrival‐time picker

Presented is a new approach for picking P ‐phase arrival time in single‐component acceleration or broadband velocity records without requiring detection interval or threshold settings. The algorithm P PHASE P ICKER transforms the signal into a response domain of a single‐degree‐of‐freedom (SDOF) oscillator with viscous damping and then tracks the rate of change of dissipated damping energy to pick P ‐wave phases. The SDOF oscillator has a short natural period and a correspondingly high resonant frequency, which is higher than most frequencies in a seismic wave. It also has a high damping ratio (60% of critical). At this damping level, the frequency response approaches the Butterworth maximally flat magnitude filter, and phase angles are preserved. The relative input energy imparted to the oscillator by the input signal is converted to elastic strain energy and then dissipated by the damping element as damping energy. The damping energy yields a smooth envelope over time; it is zero in the beginning of the signal, zero or near zero before the P ‐phase arrival, and builds up rapidly with the P wave. Because the damping energy function changes considerably at the onset of the P wave, it is used as a metric to track and pick the P ‐phase arrival time. The P PHASE P ICKER detects P ‐phase onset using the histogram method. Its performance is compared with picking techniques using short‐term‐average to long‐term‐average ratio, and a picking method that finds the first P ‐phase arrival time using the Akaike information criterion. A large set of records with various intensities and signal‐to‐noise ratios is used for testing the P PHASE P ICKER , and it is demonstrated that P PHASE P ICKER is able to more accurately pick the onset of genuine signals against the background noise and to correctly distinguish between whether the first arrival is a P wave (emergent or impulsive) or whether the signal is from a faulty sensor.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS2016

Summary of the GK15 ground‐motion prediction equation for horizontal PGA and 5% damped PSA from shallow crustal continental earthquakes

We present a revised ground‐motion prediction equation (GMPE) for computing medians and standard deviations of peak ground acceleration (PGA) and 5% damped pseudospectral acceleration (PSA) response ordinates of the horizontal component of randomly oriented ground motions to be used for seismic‐hazard analyses and engineering applications. This GMPE is derived from the expanded Next Generation Attenuation (NGA)‐West 1 database (see Data and Resources ; Chiou et al. , 2008 ). The revised model includes an anelastic attenuation term as a function of quality factor ( Q 0 ) to capture regional differences in far‐source (beyond 150 km) attenuation, and a new frequency‐dependent sedimentary‐basin scaling term as a function of depth to the 1.5  km/s shear‐wave velocity isosurface to improve ground‐motion predictions at sites located on deep sedimentary basins. The new Graizer–Kalkan 2015 (GK15) model, developed to be simple, is applicable for the western United States and other similar shallow crustal continental regions in active tectonic environments for earthquakes with moment magnitudes ( M ) 5.0–8.0, distances 0–250 km, average shear‐wave velocities in the upper 30 m ( V S 30 ) 200–1300  m/s, and spectral periods ( T ) 0.01–5 s. Our aleatory variability model captures interevent (between‐event) variability, which decreases with magnitude and increases with distance. The mixed‐effect residuals analysis reveals that the GK15 has no trend with respect to the independent predictor parameters. Compared to our 2007–2009 GMPE, the PGA values are very similar, whereas spectral ordinates predicted are larger at T <0.2  s and they are smaller at longer periods.

Alaska, California, Nevada↗

USGS2015

Update of the Graizer-Kalkan ground-motion prediction equations for shallow crustal continental earthquakes

A ground-motion prediction equation (GMPE) for computing medians and standard deviations of peak ground acceleration and 5-percent damped pseudo spectral acceleration response ordinates of maximum horizontal component of randomly oriented ground motions was developed by Graizer and Kalkan (2007, 2009) to be used for seismic hazard analyses and engineering applications. This GMPE was derived from the greatly expanded Next Generation of Attenuation (NGA)-West1 database. In this study, Graizer and Kalkan’s GMPE is revised to include (1) an anelastic attenuation term as a function of quality factor (Q0) in order to capture regional differences in large-distance attenuation and (2) a new frequency-dependent sedimentary-basin scaling term as a function of depth to the 1.5-km/s shear-wave velocity isosurface to improve ground-motion predictions for sites on deep sedimentary basins. The new model (GK15), developed to be simple, is applicable to the western United States and other regions with shallow continental crust in active tectonic environments and may be used for earthquakes with moment magnitudes 5.0–8.0, distances 0–250 km, average shear-wave velocities 200–1,300 m/s, and spectral periods 0.01–5 s. Directivity effects are not explicitly modeled but are included through the variability of the data. Our aleatory variability model captures inter-event variability, which decreases with magnitude and increases with distance. The mixed-effects residuals analysis shows that the GK15 reveals no trend with respect to the independent parameters. The GK15 is a significant improvement over Graizer and Kalkan (2007, 2009), and provides a demonstrable, reliable description of ground-motion amplitudes recorded from shallow crustal earthquakes in active tectonic regions over a wide range of magnitudes, distances, and site conditions.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2014

Pros and cons of rotating ground motion records to fault-normal/parallel directions for response history analysis of buildings

According to the regulatory building codes in the United States (e.g., 2010 California Building Code), at least two horizontal ground motion components are required for three-dimensional (3D) response history analysis (RHA) of building structures. For sites within 5 km of an active fault, these records should be rotated to fault-normal/fault-parallel (FN/FP) directions, and two RHAs should be performed separately (when FN and then FP are aligned with the transverse direction of the structural axes). It is assumed that this approach will lead to two sets of responses that envelope the range of possible responses over all nonredundant rotation angles. This assumption is examined here, for the first time, using a 3D computer model of a six-story reinforced-concrete instrumented building subjected to an ensemble of bidirectional near-fault ground motions. Peak values of engineering demand parameters (EDPs) were computed for rotation angles ranging from 0 through 180° to quantify the difference between peak values of EDPs over all rotation angles and those due to FN/FP direction rotated motions. It is demonstrated that rotating ground motions to FN/FP directions (1) does not always lead to the maximum responses over all angles, (2) does not always envelope the range of possible responses, and (3) does not provide maximum responses for all EDPs simultaneously even if it provides a maximum response for a specific EDP.

Journal of Structural Engineering↗

USGS2013

UNLV’s environmentally friendly Science and Engineering Building is monitored for earthquake shaking

The University of Nevada Las Vegas’ (UNLV) Science and Engineering Building is at the cutting edge of environmentally friendly design. As the result of a recent effort by the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Strong Motion Project in cooperation with UNLV, the building is now also in the forefront of buildings installed with structural monitoring systems to measure response during earthquakes. This is particularly important because this is the first such building in Las Vegas. The seismic instrumentation will provide essential data to better understand the structural performance of buildings, especially in this seismically active region.

Nevada↗

USGS2012

Real-time seismic monitoring of instrumented hospital buildings

In collaboration with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the U.S. Geological Survey's National Strong Motion Project has recently installed sophisticated seismic monitoring systems to monitor the structural health of two hospital buildings at the Memphis VA Medical Center in Tennessee. The monitoring systems in the Bed Tower and Spinal Cord Injury buildings combine sensing technologies with an on-site computer to capture and analyze seismic performance of buildings in near-real time.

Tennessee↗

USGS2012

Helping safeguard Veterans Affairs' hospital buildings by advanced earthquake monitoring

In collaboration with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the National Strong Motion Project of the U.S. Geological Survey has recently installed sophisticated seismic systems that will monitor the structural integrity of hospital buildings during earthquake shaking. The new systems have been installed at more than 20 VA medical campuses across the country. These monitoring systems, which combine sensitive accelerometers and real-time computer calculations, are capable of determining the structural health of each structure rapidly after an event, helping to ensure the safety of patients and staff.

Fact Sheet↗

USGS2012

Evaluation of fault-normal/fault-parallel directions rotated ground motions for response history analysis of an instrumented six-story building

According to regulatory building codes in United States (for example, 2010 California Building Code), at least two horizontal ground-motion components are required for three-dimensional (3D) response history analysis (RHA) of buildings. For sites within 5 km of an active fault, these records should be rotated to fault-normal/fault-parallel (FN/FP) directions, and two RHA analyses should be performed separately (when FN and then FP are aligned with the transverse direction of the structural axes). It is assumed that this approach will lead to two sets of responses that envelope the range of possible responses over all nonredundant rotation angles. This assumption is examined here using a 3D computer model of a six-story reinforced-concrete instrumented building subjected to an ensemble of bidirectional near-fault ground motions. Peak responses of engineering demand parameters (EDPs) were obtained for rotation angles ranging from 0° through 180° for evaluating the FN/FP directions. It is demonstrated that rotating ground motions to FN/FP directions (1) does not always lead to the maximum responses over all angles, (2) does not always envelope the range of possible responses, and (3) does not provide maximum responses for all EDPs simultaneously even if it provides a maximum response for a specific EDP.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2012

Advanced earthquake monitoring system for U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs medical buildings–Instrumentation

In collaboration with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the National Strong Motion Project (NSMP; http://nsmp.wr.usgs.gov/ ) of the U.S. Geological Survey has been installing sophisticated seismic systems that will monitor the structural integrity of 28 VA hospital buildings located in seismically active regions of the conterminous United States, Alaska, and Puerto Rico during earthquake shaking. These advanced monitoring systems, which combine the use of sensitive accelerometers and real-time computer calculations, are designed to determine the structural health of each hospital building rapidly after an event, helping the VA to ensure the safety of patients and staff. This report presents the instrumentation component of this project by providing details of each hospital building, including a summary of its structural, geotechnical, and seismic hazard information, as well as instrumentation objectives and design. The structural-health monitoring component of the project, including data retrieval and processing, damage detection and localization, automated alerting system, and finally data dissemination, will be presented in a separate report.

Open-File Report↗