This report is one of a series of reports documenting the methods and findings of a multi-year, multi-disciplinary project coordinated by the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) and funded by the California Earthquake Authority (CEA). The overall project is titled “Quantifying the Performance of Retrofit of Cripple Walls and Sill Anchorage in Single-Family Wood-Frame Buildings,” henceforth referred to as the “PEER–CEA Project.”
The overall objective of the PEER–CEA Project is to provide scientifically based information (e.g., testing, analysis, and resulting loss models) that measure and assess the effectiveness of seismic retrofit to reduce the risk of damage and associated losses (repair costs) of wood-frame houses with cripple wall and sill anchorage deficiencies as well as retrofitted conditions that address those deficiencies. Tasks that support and inform the loss-modeling effort are: (1) collecting and summarizing existing information and results of previous research on the performance of wood-frame houses; (2) identifying construction features to characterize alternative variants of wood-frame houses; (3) characterizing earthquake hazard and ground motions at representative sites in California; (4) developing cyclic loading protocols and conducting laboratory tests of cripple wall panels, wood-frame wall subassemblies, and sill anchorages to measure and document their response (strength and stiffness) under cyclic loading; and (5) the computer modeling, simulations, and the development of loss models as informed by a workshop with claims adjustors.
This report is a product of Working Group 3 (WG3), Task 3.1: Selecting and Scaling Ground-motion records. The objective of Task 3.1 is to provide suites of ground motions to be used by other working groups (WGs), especially Working Group 5: Analytical Modeling (WG5) for Simulation Studies. The ground motions used in the numerical simulations are intended to represent seismic hazard at the building site. The seismic hazard is dependent on the location of the site relative to seismic sources, the characteristics of the seismic sources in the region and the local soil conditions at the site. To achieve a proper representation of hazard across the State of California, ten sites were selected, and a site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) was performed at each of these sites for both a soft soil (Vs30 = 270 m/sec) and a stiff soil (Vs30=760 m/sec). The PSHA used the UCERF3 seismic source model, which represents the latest seismic source model adopted by the USGS  and NGA-West2 ground-motion models. The PSHA was carried out for structural periods ranging from 0.01 to 10 sec.
At each site and soil class, the results from the PSHA—hazard curves, hazard deaggregation, and uniform-hazard spectra (UHS)—were extracted for a series of ten return periods, prescribed by WG5 and WG6, ranging from 15.5–2500 years. For each case (site, soil class, and return period), the UHS was used as the target spectrum for selection and modification of a suite of ground motions. Additionally, another set of target spectra based on “Conditional Spectra” (CS), which are more realistic than UHS, was developed [Baker and Lee 2018]. The Conditional Spectra are defined by the median (Conditional Mean Spectrum) and a period-dependent variance. A suite of at least 40 record pairs (horizontal) were selected and modified for each return period and target-spectrum type. Thus, for each ground-motion suite, 40 or more record pairs were selected using the deaggregation of the hazard, resulting in more than 200 record pairs per target-spectrum type at each site. The suites contained more than 40 records in case some were rejected by the modelers due to secondary characteristics; however, none were rejected, and the complete set was used.
For the case of UHS as the target spectrum, the selected motions were modified (scaled) such that the average of the median spectrum (RotD50) [Boore 2010] of the ground-motion pairs follow the target spectrum closely within the period range of interest to the analysts. In communications with WG5 researchers, for ground-motion (time histories, or time series) selection and modification, a period range between 0.01–2.0 sec was selected for this specific application for the project. The duration metrics and pulse characteristics of the records were also used in the final selection of ground motions. The damping ratio for the PSHA and ground-motion target spectra was set to 5%, which is standard practice in engineering applications.
For the cases where the CS was used as the target spectrum, the ground-motion suites were selected and scaled using a modified version of the conditional spectrum ground-motion selection tool (CS-GMS tool) developed by Baker and Lee . This tool selects and scales a suite of ground motions to meet both the median and the user-defined variability. This variability is defined by the relationship developed by Baker and Jayaram . The computation of CS requires a structural period for the conditional model. In collaboration with WG5 researchers, a conditioning period of 0.25 sec was selected as a representative of the fundamental mode of vibration of the buildings of interest in this study. Working Group 5 carried out a sensitivity analysis of using other conditioning periods, and the results and discussion of selection of conditioning period are reported in Section 4 of the WG5 PEER report entitled Technical Background Report for Structural Analysis and Performance Assessment.
The WG3.1 report presents a summary of the selected sites, the seismic-source characterization model, and the ground-motion characterization model used in the PSHA, followed by selection and modification of suites of ground motions. The Record Sequence Number (RSN) and the associated scale factors are tabulated in the Appendices of this report, and the actual time-series files can be downloaded from the PEER Ground-motion database Portal (https://ngawest2.berkeley.edu/(link is external).
Appendices (zip, 53 MB)
Full List of PEER Reports: click here.