SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Yenilikçi Mühendislik ve Doğa Bilimleri / 2026 / Volume: 6 Issue: 2

An open-source target spectrum based artificial ground motion generation software

Bilal Tayfur(HACETTEPE UNIVERSITY)0000-0003-3527-6149
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-07-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

At this point, the average error and maximum error values are taken as evaluation criteria.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In certain special cases, it may be necessary to generate artificial ground motion records for seismic analysis of structures in time domain.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This paper presents an open-source Python software that generates artificial ground motions in accordance with the target response spectrum generated per regulations including Turkish Building Earthquake Code 2018 (TBEC 2018).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:At this point, the average error and maximum error values are taken as evaluation criteria.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2018 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Artificial ground motion · TBEC · Open source

Abstract

In certain special cases, it may be necessary to generate artificial ground motion records for seismic analysis of structures in time domain. This paper presents an open-source Python software that generates artificial ground motions in accordance with the target response spectrum generated per regulations including Turkish Building Earthquake Code 2018 (TBEC 2018). The software divides the steps of this process into modules, separated by strict boundaries. Firstly, the user determines the regulation and related parameters that will generate the target spectrum. Then the algorithm generates the white noise which is the basis of the ground motion. It is desired that the ground motion to be generated should have the characteristics of a real ground motion as much as possible. For this reason, software applies filtering and enveloping functions to the white noise to create vibration data with complex signal characteristics similar to real ground motions. Subsequently, the response spectrum of the ground motion record is aimed to converge to the target spectrum. To achieve this, the algorithm applies iterative spectral matching to the raw ground motion. At this point, the average error and maximum error values are taken as evaluation criteria.

🔖

Cite This Article

Tayfur, B. (2026). An open-source target spectrum based artificial ground motion generation software. Yenilikçi Mühendislik ve Doğa Bilimleri, Volume: 6 Issue: 2. https://doi.org/10.61112/jiens.1882611

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (69)

  1. Harmsen SC (2001) Mean and modal ε in the deaggregation of probabilistic ground motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 91:1537–1552. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120000289
  2. Chowdhury IN, Cabas A, Kaklamanos J, Kottke A, Gregor N (2024) Implications of input ground-motion selection techniques on site response analyses for different tectonic settings. Earthq Spectra 40:1521–1551. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930241230917
  3. McCallen D, Petrone F, Miah M, Pitarka A, Rodgers A, Abrahamson N (2021) EQSIM—A multidisciplinary framework for fault-to-structure earthquake simulations on exascale computers, part II: Regional simulations of building response. Earthq Spectra 37:736–761. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293020970980
  4. Rezaeian S, Powers PM, Altekruse J, Ahdi SK, Petersen MD, Shumway AM, Frankel AD, Wirth EA, Smith JA, Moschetti MP, Withers KB, Herrick JA (2024) The 2023 US National Seismic Hazard Model: Subduction ground-motion models. Earthq Spectra 40:1739–1786. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930241243069
  5. Goulet CA, Kishida T, Ancheta TD, Cramer CH, Darragh RB, Silva WJ, Hashash YM, Harmon J, Parker GA, Stewart JP, Youngs RR (2021) PEER NGA-East database. Earthq Spectra 37:1331–1353. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930211015695
  6. Atkinson GM (2005) Ground motions for earthquakes in southwestern British Columbia and northwestern Washington: Crustal, in-slab, and offshore events. Bull Seismol Soc Am 95:1027–1044. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120040182
  7. Atkinson GM, Boore DM (2008) Erratum to empirical ground-motion relations for subduction zone earthquakes and their application to Cascadia and other regions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98:2567–2569. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120080108
  8. Yenier E, Atkinson GM (2015) Regionally adjustable generic ground-motion prediction equation based on equivalent point-source simulations: Application to central and eastern North America. Bull Seismol Soc Am 105:1989–2009. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120140332
  9. Tayfur B (2025) Optimized model updating and site-specific seismic assessment of a historical masonry bridge. Structures 81:110190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2025.110190
  10. Tayfur B, Tunca O, Artar M, Çarbaş S (2026) The effect of existing damage on the seismic performance of a historical masonry structure: A site-specific assessment. Bull Earthq Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-026-02506-9
  11. McCallen D, Pitarka A, Tang H, Nakata R, Mosalam KM, Petrone F, Günay S, Perez C (2025) An open-access simulated earthquake ground-motion database for an M7 Hayward Fault earthquake in the San Francisco Bay Region. Earthq Spectra 41:2560–2597. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930251340960
  12. Gregor N, Silva W, Wong I, Youngs R (2002) Ground-motion attenuation relationships for Cascadia subduction zone megathrust earthquakes based on a stochastic finite-fault model. Bull Seismol Soc Am 92:1923–1932. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120000260
  13. Del Gaudio S, Hok S, Festa G, Causse M, Lancieri M (2018) Near-fault broadband ground motion simulations using empirical Green’s functions: Application to the Upper Rhine Graben (France–Germany) case study. In: Dalguer LA, Fukushima Y, Irikura K, Wu C (eds) Best practices in physics-based fault rupture models for seismic hazard assessment of nuclear installations. Springer, Cham, pp 155–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72709-7_10
  14. Lavoué F, Froment B, Gélis C, Boué P, Chaljub E, Stehly L, Beauprêtre S, De Martin F, Gisselbrecht L, Pilz M, Moiriat D, Cushing EM (2025) Potential and limitations of noise-based surface-wave tomography for numerical site effect estimation: A case study in the French Rhône valley. C R Géosci 356:59–84. https://doi.org/10.5802/crgeos.243
  15. McCallen D, Tang H, Wu S, Eckert E, Huang J, Petersson NA (2022) Coupling of regional geophysics and local soil-structure models in the EQSIM fault-to-structure earthquake simulation framework. Int J High Perform Comput Appl 36:78–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/10943420211019118
  16. Parker GA, Baltay AS, Rekoske J, Thompson EM (2020) Repeatable source, path, and site effects from the 2019 M 7.1 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence. Bull Seismol Soc Am 110:1530–1548. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120200008
  17. Miksat J, Wen KL, Wenzel F, Sokolov V, Chen CT (2010) Numerical modelling of ground motion in the Taipei Basin: Basin and source effects. Geophys J Int 183:1633–1647. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246x.2010.04818.x
  18. Graizer V, Kalkan E (2007) Ground motion attenuation model for peak horizontal acceleration from shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthq Spectra 23:585–613. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2755949
  19. Islam MM, Persaud P, Thant M, Win K, Sandvol E (2025) Estimating site amplification variability in Yangon, Myanmar, from a dense nodal seismic array. Earthq Spectra 41:3168–3189. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930251352843
  20. Stewart JP, Parker GA, Atkinson GM, Boore DM, Hashash YMA, Silva WJ (2020) Ergodic site amplification model for central and eastern North America. Earthq Spectra 36:42–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293019878185
  21. Boyd OS, Churchwell D, Moschetti MP, Thompson EM, Chapman MC, Ilhan O, Pratt TL, Ahdi SK, Rezaeian S (2024) Sediment thickness map of United States Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain strata, and their influence on earthquake ground motions. Earthq Spectra 40:89–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930231204880
  22. Kohrangi M, Bazzurro P, Vamvatsikos D, Spillatura A (2017) Conditional spectrum-based ground motion record selection using average spectral acceleration. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 46:1667–1685. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2876
  23. Dabaghi M, Der Kiureghian A (2017) Stochastic model for simulation of near-fault ground motions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 46:963–984. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2839
  24. Hashash YMA, Abrahamson NA, Olson SM, Hague S, Kim B (2015) Conditional mean spectra in site-specific seismic hazard evaluation for a major river crossing in the central United States. Earthq Spectra 31:47–69. https://doi.org/10.1193/033113eqs085m
  25. Boore DM (2003) Simulation of ground motion using the stochastic method. Pure Appl Geophys 160:635–676. https://doi.org/10.1007/pl00012553
  26. Han SW, Jee HW (2020) A numerical model for simulating ground motions for the Korean Peninsula. Appl Sci 10:1254. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10041254
  27. Li J, Cheng F, Lin G, Wu C (2023) Improved hybrid method for the generation of ground motions compatible with the multi-damping design spectra. J Earthq Eng 27:2034–2060. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2022.2095059
  28. Atkinson GM (2000) Stochastic modeling of California ground motions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 90:255–274. https://doi.org/10.1785/0119990064
  29. Rezaeian S, Der Kiureghian A (2008) A stochastic ground motion model with separable temporal and spectral nonstationarities. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 37:1565–1584. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.831
  30. Rezaeian S, Der Kiureghian A (2010) Simulation of synthetic ground motions for specified earthquake and site characteristics. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 39:1155–1180. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.997
  31. Rezaeian S, Der Kiureghian A (2012) Simulation of orthogonal horizontal ground motion components for specified earthquake and site characteristics. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 41:335–353. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.1132
  32. Komatitsch D, Liu Q, Tromp J, Süss P, Stidham C, Shaw JH (2004) Simulations of ground motion in the Los Angeles Basin based upon the spectral-element method. Bull Seismol Soc Am 94:187–206. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120030077
  33. Paolucci R, Mazzieri I, Smerzini C (2015) Anatomy of strong ground motion: near-source records and three-dimensional physics-based numerical simulations of the Mw 6.0 2012 May 29 Po Plain earthquake, Italy. Geophys J Int 203:2001–2020. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggv405
  34. Viens L, Laurendeau A, Bonilla LF, Shapiro NM (2014) Broad-band acceleration time histories synthesis by coupling low-frequency ambient seismic field and high-frequency stochastic modelling. Geophys J Int 199:1784–1797. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggu362
  35. Evangelista L, del Gaudio S, Smerzini C, d’Onofrio A, Festa G, Iervolino I, Landolfi L, Paolucci R, Santo A, Silvestri F (2017) Physics-based seismic input for engineering applications: A case study in the Aterno river valley, central Italy. Bull Earthq Eng 15:2645–2671. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0089-7
  36. Jayalakshmi S, Dhanya J, Raghukanth STG, Mai PM (2021) Hybrid broadband ground motion simulations in the Indo-Gangetic basin for great Himalayan earthquake scenarios. Bull Earthq Eng 19:3319–3348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01094-0
  37. Aquib TA, Mai PM (2024) Broadband ground-motion simulations with machine-learning-based high-frequency waves from Fourier neural operators. Bull Seismol Soc Am 114:2846–2868. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120240027
  38. Palgunadi KH, Bergmeister A, Bosisio A, Ermert LA, Koroni M, Perraudin N, Dirmeier S, Meier MA (2025) High resolution seismic waveform generation using denoising diffusion. J Geophys Res Mach Learn Comput 2:e2025JH000862. https://doi.org/10.1029/2025JH000862
  39. Avci-Karatas C (2022) Application of machine learning in prediction of shear capacity of headed steel studs in steel–concrete composite structures. Int J Steel Struct 22:539–556. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13296-022-00589-z
  40. Avci-Karatas C (2022) Artificial neural network (ANN) based prediction of ultimate axial load capacity of concrete-filled steel tube columns (CFSTCs). Int J Steel Struct 22:1341–1358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13296-022-00645-8
  41. Avci-Karatas C, Celik OC, Ozmen Eruslu S (2019) Modeling of buckling restrained braces (BRBs) using full-scale experimental data. KSCE J Civ Eng 23:4431–4444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-019-2430-y
  42. Alamdari AS, Dabiri R, Jani R, Sarand FB (2021) Seismic zoning of Tabriz area by stochastic finite fault model considering site-specific soil effects. Soils Rocks 44:1–13. https://doi.org/10.28927/sr.2021.047220
  43. Mazzieri I, Stupazzini M, Guidotti R, Smerzini C (2013) SPEED: SPectral elements in elastodynamics with discontinuous Galerkin: A non-conforming approach for 3D multi-scale problems. Int J Numer Methods Eng 95:991–1010. https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.4532
  44. Paolucci R, Smerzini C, Vanini M (2021) BB-SPEEDset: A validated dataset of broadband near-source earthquake ground motions from 3D physics-based numerical simulations. Bull Seismol Soc Am 111:2527–2545. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120210089
  45. Cacciola P (2010) A stochastic approach for generating spectrum compatible fully nonstationary earthquakes. Comput Struct 88:889–901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2010.04.009
  46. Boudina A, Hammoutene M (2021) Generation of seismic excitations compatible with target spectrum: Application to Eurocode 8. World J Eng 18:122–135. https://doi.org/10.1108/wje-02-2020-0042
  47. Loviknes K, Kotha SR, Cotton F, Schorlemmer D (2021) Testing nonlinear amplification factors of ground-motion models. Bull Seismol Soc Am 111:2121–2137. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120200386
  48. Kohrangi M, Vamvatsikos D, Bazzurro P (2017) Site dependence and record selection schemes for building fragility and regional loss assessment. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 46:1625–1643. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2873
  49. Tao D, Lin J, Lu Z (2019) Time-frequency energy distribution of ground motion and its effect on the dynamic response of nonlinear structures. Sustainability 11:702. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030702
  50. Disaster and Emergency Management Authority (2018) Turkish Building Earthquake Code. AFAD, Ankara, Türkiye.
  51. Tayfur B (2026) Artificial ground motion generation, v0.1.2. GitHub. https://github.com/btayfur/artificial-ground-motion. Accessed 23 May 2026
  52. AFAD (2023) Türkiye Seismic Hazard Risk Map. Disaster and Emergency Management Authority. https://tdth.afad.gov.tr/. Accessed 25 May 2023
  53. Harris CR, Millman KJ, van der Walt SJ, Gommers R, Virtanen P, Cournapeau D, Wieser E, Taylor J, Berg S, Smith NJ, Kern R, Picus M, Hoyer S, van Kerkwijk MH, Brett M, Haldane A, del Río JF, Wiebe M, Peterson P, Gérard-Marchant P, Sheppard K, Reddy T, Weckesser W, Abbasi H, Gohlke C, Oliphant TE (2020) Array programming with NumPy. Nature 585:357–362. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2
  54. Matsumoto M, Nishimura T (1998) Mersenne twister: a 623-dimensionally equidistributed uniform pseudo-random number generator. ACM Trans Model Comput Simul 8:3–30. https://doi.org/10.1145/272991.272995
  55. Knuth DE (1997) The art of computer programming, vol 2: seminumerical algorithms, 3rd edn. Addison-Wesley, Boston.
  56. Kanai K (1957) Semi-empirical formula for the seismic characteristics of ground (structure). Trans Archit Inst Jpn 57.1:281–284. https://doi.org/10.3130/aijsaxx.57.1.0_281
  57. Tajimi H (1960) A statistical method of determining the maximum response of a building structure during an earthquake. 2nd World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, Japan, Jul. 11–18, pp 781–797.
  58. Clough RW, Penzien J (1995) Dynamics of structures, 3rd edn. Computers & Structures Inc, Berkeley.
  59. Wei B, Yan L, Jiang L, Hu Z, Li S (2021) Errors of structural seismic responses caused by frequency filtering based on seismic wave synthesis. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 149:106862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.106862
  60. Douglas J, Boore DM (2011) High-frequency filtering of strong-motion records. Bull Earthq Eng 9:395–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-010-9208-4
  61. Lutes LD, Lilhanand K (1979) Frequency content in earthquake simulation. J Eng Mech Div 105:143–158. https://doi.org/10.1061/JMCEA3.0002448
  62. Sabetta F, Pugliese A (1996) Estimation of response spectra and simulation of nonstationary earthquake ground motions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 86:337–352. https://doi.org/10.1785/bssa0860020337
  63. Graizer V, Kalkan E (2015) Update of the Graizer-Kalkan ground-motion prediction equations for shallow crustal continental earthquakes. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 2015-1009, Reston, VA, USA. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20151009
  64. Campbell KW, Bozorgnia Y (2014) NGA-West2 ground motion model for the average horizontal components of PGA, PGV, and 5% damped linear acceleration response spectra. Earthq Spectra 30:1087–1115. https://doi.org/10.1193/062913EQS175M
  65. Saragoni GR, Hart GC (1973) Simulation of artificial earthquakes. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2:249–267. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290020305
  66. Rao RV, Savsani VJ, Vakharia DP (2011) Teaching–learning-based optimization: A novel method for constrained mechanical design optimization problems. Comput Aided Des 43:303–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2010.12.015
  67. Tayfur B, Kamiloğlu HA (2024) Optimization of cantilever retaining wall design using improved teaching-learning-based optimization algorithms. Firat Univ J Exp Comput Eng 3:134–150. https://doi.org/10.62520/fujece.1430236
  68. AFAD (2023) Türkiye acceleration database and analysis system. Disaster and Emergency Management Authority. https://tadas.afad.gov.tr/list-event. Accessed 25 May 2023
  69. Boore DM (2005) On pads and filters: Processing strong-motion data. Bull Seismol Soc Am 95:745–750. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120040160