After resolving the final issue with the site specific amplification adaptation to fit into the automated workflow the analysis is showing to be promising.
Only one component was run by myself and Felipe, the results are shown below:
Waveform comparison
There is no visible difference between the two waveforms produced by the OpenSees runs when plotted.
There were some numerical differences between the two, however these had a maximum value of 0.001, giving an accuracy of 0.1% with a maximum amplitude of 1.0.
X axis: nt (multiply by 0.005 to get t (s)), Y axis: amplitude (m/s/s)
IM comparison
The IMs were also very similar. Presented here are plots of the linear and log IM ratios, a table of the log ratio and csv files containing the comparisons of the IMs.
Plots
The ratio and log ratios were plotted on linear and log scale axis'. The extended period pSAs were used for this plot
Linear scale ratio | Log scale ratio |
|
|
These are within 0.15%
Primary statistics
As can be seen from hte
| PGA | PGV | CAV | AI | Ds575 | Ds595 | MMI | pSA_0.01 | pSA_0.02 | pSA_0.05 | pSA_0.1 | pSA_0.2 | pSA_0.3 | pSA_0.4 | pSA_0.5 | pSA_0.75 | pSA_1.0 | pSA_2.0 | pSA_3.0 | pSA_4.0 | pSA_5.0 | pSA_7.5 | pSA_10.0 | |
| log_ratio | -0.00011 | 7.90418E-07 | 3.21129E-07 | -2.71875E-08 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00092 | -0.00021 | 5.51243E-05 | 3.47273E-05 | -3.87881E-06 | -3.63818E-07 | -4.36584E-07 | -2.40501E-07 | 6.78038E-09 | -3.90836E-07 | 1.36871E-07 | 1.28428E-07 | -2.54694E-08 | -6.29579E-09 | 2.88319E-08 | -1.51023E-08 |
Description files
diff.csvratio.csvlog_ratio.csv