J.

Baker 1

An Introduction to the
Conditional Mean Spectrum

Jack Baker
Assistant Professor
Civil & Environmental Engineering
Stanford University
J. Baker 2

Motivation

• What does probabilistic seismic hazard analysis tell us about future ground
motions at our site?

• How can we best use that information to select appropriate ground

motions for structural analysis?
J. Baker 3

Outline

• Quick overview of
– Probabilistic
P b bili i seismic
i i hhazard
d
– Uniform hazard spectrum

• A look
l k at ground
d motions
i associated
i d with
i h high-amplitude
hi h li d response
spectra

• Development of the Conditional (Mean) Spectrum

p
• Implications
J. Baker 4

Background: seismic hazard and deaggregation results

Hazard maps

From USGS Hazard deaggregation

f

Site specific
hazard

From USGS
J. Baker 5

The Uniform Hazard Spectrum (UHS) for a given site

J. Baker 6
Motivation: hazard analysis results and
the Uniform Hazard Spectrum
Distribution of magnitude,
UHS for Riverside, California distance, and ε given Sa(1s)=0.9g
# of standard deviations above median Sa
J. Baker 7

This “ε effect” is a real phenomenon

Response spectra from real ground motions having approximately

magnitude = 7 and distance = 12 km
J. Baker 8

Calculation of ε values at three periods

ln Sa (T ) − μln Sa ( M , R, T )
ε (T ) =
σ ln Sa (T )
J. Baker 9

ε values at 1s and 2s, from many ground motions

με ( 2 s ) = ρ (2 s,1s ) ⋅ ε (1s )
= 0.75 ε (1s )

σ ε ( 2 s ) = 1 − ρ (2 s,1s )
= 0.5
J. Baker 10

ε values at varying periods, from many ground motions

με ( 2 s ) = 0.75 ε (1s ) με ( 0.2 s ) = 0.44 ε (1s )
σ ε ( 2 s ) = 0.5 σ ε ( 0.2 s ) = 0.75

Using these data, we can find the mean and standard deviation of ε at all periods,
conditional on a target ε at T*, the period of primary interest
J. Baker 11
Conditional mean values of spectral acceleration
at all periods, given the target Sa(1s)

μln Sa (T )|ln Sa (T *) = μln Sa ( M , R, Ti ) + ρ (Ti , T *)ε (T *)σ ln Sa (Ti )

i
J. Baker 12
Conditional distribution of spectral acceleration
at all periods, given the target Sa(1s)
μln Sa (T )|ln Sa (T *) = μln Sa ( M , R, Ti ) + ρ (Ti , T *)ε (T *)σ ln Sa (Ti )
i

σ ln Sa (T )|ln Sa (T *)) = σ ln Sa (Ti ) 1 − ρ (Ti , T *) 2

i
J. Baker 13
We can select and scale ground motions to
match this Conditional (Mean) Spectrum

Match target mean and sigma Match target mean only

(minimizing sigma)
J. Baker 14
Ground motion selection at four intensities,
for the Riverside site
J. Baker
Using a conditional mean spectrum instead of a 15

UHS can have a large impact on fragility curves

Collapse fragility curves for a midrise building, from nonlinear dynamic analysis

1
Analysis using uniform
hazard spectrum
0.8
Collapse))

0.6

Analysis using conditional

04
0.4
P(C

mean spectrum

0.2
ε Neutral Set
ε Set
1.0
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Sa(T1 = 1.0, ζ = 0.05)

Haselton C.B. and Baker J.W. (2006). "Ground motion intensity measures
for collapse capacity prediction: Choice of optimal spectral period and
effect of spectral shape,” 8th National Conference on Earthquake Engineering.
J. Baker 16

Pros and cons of the conditional mean spectrum

Pros Cons

• A more “realistic” spectrum than • Less widely available than the

the UHS (given Sa(T*)) UHS (so far)

• Less conservative than UHS • Less conservative than UHS

• Utilizes
Ut es deaggregation
eagg egat o information
o at o • Structure
St uctu e and
a site-specific:
s te spec c:
(magnitude, distance, ε) to predict requires re-selection of ground
spectral shape motions as each case changes

• The spectrum changes in shape as • The spectrum changes with

you increase in amplitude, increasing amplitude, requiring
consistent with intuition p ground
multiple g motion sets
J. Baker 17

Resource: CMS and ground motion selection algorithms

http://www.stanford.edu/~bakerjw/gm_selection.html
J. Baker 18

Resource coming soon: CMS calculation tools from USGS

“USGS is adding output of Conditional

Mean Spectrum (for seismogram
selection) that is fully
fully-consistent
consistent with
USGS-NSHMP hazard & deaggregation
computations.”

Acknowledgement: Steve Harmsen,

Harmsen Eric
Martinez and Nicolas Luco (USGS)
J. Baker 19

More resources

• This information in journal paper format:

Baker, J. W. (2011). "The Conditional Mean Spectrum: a tool for ground

motion selection." Journal of Structural Engineering (in press).

• Beta version of user-friendly software to compute CMS and select

matching ground motions:

http://peer2.berkeley.edu/peer_ground_motion_database

• Related publications and (non-user-friendly) research software:

http://www.stanford.edu/~bakerjw
J. Baker 20

Conclusions
– The Conditional Mean Spectrum answers the question: “What is the
expected response spectrum associated with a target Sa(T*)?” using knowledge
of the magnitude, distance and ε value that caused occurrence of that
S (T*)
Sa(T*)

– The variability in spectral values can also be computed (“Conditional

Spectrum )
Spectrum”)

– For large-amplitude (ε>0) Sa levels, this spectrum has a peak at the period
(T*) used for conditioning, and decays to relatively lower amplitudes at
periods
i d that
h differ
diff greatly
l from
f T*

– This may be a useful target spectrum for ground motion selection in many
applications (as the alternative Uniform Hazard Spectrum is conservative
relative to this target)

– Structural responses from ground motions matching the CMS may be

significantly
f l smaller
ll than
h the
h responses from
f groundd motions matching
h theh
UHS and having the same Sa(T*) level