Application of wavelet theory with denoising to estimate the parameters of an earthquake

Document Type : Article

Authors

Department of Civil Engineering, Shahrekord University, Shahrekord, Iran

Abstract

In this paper, strong ground mot (SGM) parameters are calculated using discrete wavelet transform (DWT) in different kinds of soils with different magnitudes. The main earthquake record (MER) is divided into approximation and detailed signals using wavelet transform with denoising. The high and low frequencies of MER are separated from each other. Previous studies showed that the approximation signal has the greatest effect on dynamic response and it is very similar to the main signal. Then SGM parameters of the new signal are calculated by DWT decomposition. This process continues over five levels and, in each level, SGM parameters are calculated and compared with the MER and its error percentage is presented. In DWT with the denoising method, the curve becomes softer such that the calculation time reduces. Results show that the error percentage in the first two levels is less than 1% and for the third level, this index is less than 3%. In addition, the reduction percentage of calculation time is 1%, 4%, and 8%, respectively, in the first to third levels. The best result is relative to the third decomposition level in which error value as well as computational time reduction is nearly 3% and 8%.

Keywords

Main Subjects


References
1. Kostinakis, K., Fontara, I.K., and Athanatopoulou,
A.M. Scalar structure-speci c ground motion intensity
measures for assessing the seismic performance of
structures: a review", Journal of Earthquake Engineering,
22(4), pp. 630{665 (2018).
2. Bradley, B.A. A generalized conditional intensity
measure approach and holistic ground-motion selection",
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics,
39(12), pp. 1321{1342 (2010).
3. Kamgar, R., Samea, P., and Khatibinia, M. Optimizing
parameters of tuned mass damper subjected to
critical earthquake", The Structural Design of Tall and
Special Building, 27(7), p. e1460 (2018).
4. Kamgar, R. and Rahgozar, R. A simple method for
determining the response of linear dynamic systems",
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering, 17(6), pp. 785{801
(2016).
5. Hung, C.C. and Lu, W.T. A performance-based
design method for coupled wall structures", Journal
of Earthquake Engineering, 21(4), pp. 579{603 (2017).
6. Peres, R., Bento, R., and Castro, J.M. Nonlinear
static seismic performance assessment of plan
irregular steel structures", Journal of Earthquake
Engineering (2018). DOI: https://www. tandfonline.
com/doi/abs/10.1080/13632469.2018.1469438
7. Ye, L., Ma, Q., Miao, Z., et al. Numerical and
comparative study of earthquake intensity indices in
seismic analysis", The Structural Design of Tall and
Special Buildings, 22(4), pp. 362{381 (2013).
8. Rathje, E.M., Faraj, F., Russell, S., et al. Empirical
relationships for frequency content parameters
of earthquake ground motions", Earthquake Spectra,
20(1), pp. 119{144 (2004).
9. Dabaghi, M. and Der Kiureghian, A. Stochastic
model for simulation of near-fault ground motions",
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics,
46(6), pp. 963{984 (2017).
10. Graves, R.W. and Pitarka, A. Broadband groundmotion
simulation using a hybrid approach", Bulletin
of the Seismological Society of America, 100(5A), pp.
2095{2123 (2010).
11. Day, S.M., Gonzalez, S.H., Anooshehpoor, R., et
al. Scale-model and numerical simulations of near{
fault seismic directivity", Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America, 98(3), pp. 1186{1206 (2008).
12. Atkinson, G.M. and Silva, W. Stochastic modeling of
California ground motions", Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America, 90(2), pp. 255{274 (2000).
13. Motazedian, D. and Atkinson, G.M. Stochastic nitefault
modeling based on a dynamic corner frequency",
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 95(3),
pp. 995{1010 (2005).
14. Halldorsson, B. and Papageorgiou, A.S. Calibration
of the speci c barrier model to earthquakes of di erent
tectonic regions", Bulletin of the Seismological Society
of America, 95(4), pp. 1276{1300 (2005).
15. Halldorsson, B., Mavroeidis, G.P., and Papageorgiou,
A.S. Near-fault and far- eld strong ground-motion
simulation for earthquake engineering applications using
the speci c barrier model", Journal of Structural
Engineering, 137(3), pp. 433{444 (2011).
16. Rezaeian, S. and Der Kiureghian, A. Simulation
of synthetic ground motions for speci ed earthquake
and site characteristics", Earthquake Engineering &
Structural Dynamics, 39(10), pp. 1155{1180 (2010).
17. Rezaeian, S. and Der Kiureghian, A. Simulation of
orthogonal horizontal ground motion components for
speci ed earthquake and site characteristics", Earthquake
Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 41(2), pp.
335{353 (2012).
18. Yang, D. and Wang, W. Nonlocal period parameters
of frequency content characterization for near-fault
ground motions", Earthquake Engineering & Structural
Dynamics, 41(13), pp. 1793{1811 (2012).
19. Du, W. An empirical model for the mean period (Tm)
of ground motions using the NGA-West2 database",
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 15(7), pp. 2673{
2693 (2017).
20. Zhang, N., Gao, Y., and Pak, R.Y. Soil and topographic
e ects on ground motion of a sur cially
inhomogeneous semi-cylindrical canyon under oblique
incident SH waves", Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, 95, pp. 17{28 (2017).
A. Heidari et al./Scientia Iranica, Transactions A: Civil Engineering 28 (2021) 49{64 63
21. Rong, M., Wang, Z., Woolery, E.W., et al. Nonlinear
site response from the strong ground-motion recordings
in western China", Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, 82, pp. 99{110 (2016).
22. Salajegheh, E. and Heidari, A. Time history dynamic
analysis of structures using lter banks and wavelet
transforms", Computers & Structures, 83(1), pp. 53{
68 (2005).
23. Heidari, A., Raeisi, J., and Kamgar, R. Application of
wavelet theory in determining of strong ground motion
parameters", International Journal of Optimization in
Civil Engineering, 8(1), pp. 103{115 (2018).
24. Gholizadeh, S. and Samavati, O.A. Structural optimization
by wavelet transforms and neural networks",
Applied Mathematical Modelling, 35(2), pp. 915{929
(2011).
25. Heidari, A. and Salajegheh, E. Wavelet analysis for
processing of earthquake records", Asian Journal of
Civil Engineering, 9(5), pp. 513{524 (2008).
26. Salajegheh, E. and Heidari, A. Optimum design
of structures against earthquake by wavelet neural
network and lter banks", Earthquake Engineering &
Structural Dynamics, 34(1), pp. 67{82 (2005).
27. Ansari, A., Noorzad, A., Zafarani, H., et al. Correction
of highly noisy strong motion records using a
modi ed wavelet de-noising method", Soil Dynamics
and Earthquake Engineering, 30(11), pp. 1168{1181
(2010).
28. Kaveh, A. and Mahdavi, V.R. A new method for modi
cation of ground motions using wavelet transform
and enhanced colliding bodies optimization", Applied
Soft Computing, 47, pp. 357{369 (2016).
29. Kaveh, A., Rastegar Moghaddam, M., and Khanzadi,
M. Ecient multi-objective optimization algorithms
for construction site layout problem", Scientia Iranica,
25(4), pp. 2051{2062 (2018).
30. Dabbagh, H., Ghodrati Amiri, G., and Shaabani,
Sh. Modal data-based approach to structural damage
identi cation by means of imperialist competitive
optimization algorithm", Scientia Iranica, 25(3), pp.
1070{1082 (2018).
31. Heidari, A. and Raeisi, J. Optimum design of structures
against earthquake by simulated annealing using
wavelet transform", Soft Computing in Civil Engineering,
2(4), pp. 23{33 (2018).
32. Gholizadeh, S. and Mohammadi, M. Reliability-based
seismic optimization of steel frames by meta{heuristics
and neural networks", ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk
and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A:
Civil Engineering, 3(1), pp. 04016013{1 (2017). DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/AJRUA6.0000892
33. Pnevmatikos, N.G. and Hatzigeorgiou, G.D. Damage
detection of framed structures subjected to earthquake
excitation using discrete wavelet analysis", Bulletin of
Earthquake Engineering, 15(1), pp. 227{248 (2017).
34. Todorovska, M.I., Meidani, H., and Trifunac, M.D.
Wavelet approximation of earthquake strong ground
motion-goodness of t for a database in terms of
predicting nonlinear structural response", Soil Dynamics
and Earthquake Engineering, 29(4), pp. 742{751
(2009).
35. Haigh, S.K., Teymur, B., Madabhushi, S.P.G., et al.
Applications of wavelet analysis to the investigation
of the dynamic behaviour of geotechnical structures",
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 22(9{12),
pp. 995{1005 (2002).
36. Daubechies, I. The wavelet transform, time-frequency
localization and signal analysis", IEEE Transactions
on Information Theory, 36(5), pp. 961{1005 (1990).
37. Arias, A. Measure of earthquake intensity", Massachusetts
Inst. of Tech., Cambridge. Univ. of Chile,
Santiago de Chile (1970).
38. Park, Y.J., Ang, A.H.S., and Wen, Y.K. Seismic
damage analysis of reinforced concrete buildings",
Journal of Structural Engineering, 111(4), pp. 740{
757 (1985).
39. Kramer, S.L., Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering,
Prentice Hall, New York (1996).
40. Housner, G.W. Measures of severity of earthquake
ground shaking", Proceedings of the First US National
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Ann Arbor,
MI (1975).
41. Crochiere, R.E. Digital signal processor: sub-band
coding", Bell Labs Technical Journal, 60(7), pp. 1633{
1653 (1981).
42. Woods, J.W., Subband Image Coding, Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Dordrecht (1991).
43. Raeisi, J. Investigating strong ground motion using
wavelet theory for hydraulic structure in far fault",
Master Science of Water and Hydraulic Structure,
Shahrekord University, Iran (2017).
44. Gholizadeh, S. and Salajegheh, E. Optimal seismic
design of steel structures by an ecient soft computing
based algorithm", Journal of Constructional Steel
Research, 66(1), pp. 85{95 (2010).