Quantifying near fault pulses using generalized Morse wavelets

  • Reeves WhitneyEmail author
Original Article


Recently, a family of analytic wavelets known as generalized Morse wavelets (GMW) has been established in the literature. This versatile wavelet family uses two parameters (γ and β) to adjust its frequency or time domain properties. By varying these two parameters, this wavelet family includes many commonly used analytic wavelets. In this paper, GMW are examined, along with the continuous wavelet transform (CWT), to determine their suitability for extraction of ground motion pulses from a suite of acceleration records. GMW are compared to a popular pulse model that has recently been adapted for wavelet analysis in the literature. It is shown, based on two different metrics, that GMW performs comparably with the other model for this suite of ground motions. Since CWT is repeated with different wavelet parameters for each ground motion, the parameter selection and pulse extraction process are examined. It is shown that using the maximum wavelet coefficient alone does not allow for the extraction of pulses that best match the time series or the spectral response. Alternative criteria are proposed in order to optimize pulse selection using performance-based metrics.


Pulse model Near fault CWT Morse wavelets 



The author would like to thank Nicos Makris and Michalis Vassiliou for their 2011 work which inspired many aspects of this manuscript. The author is also grateful to Michalis Vassiliou for sharing his Matlab code and the two anonymous reviewers whose insightful comments have greatly improved the manuscript.


  1. Baker JW (2007) Quantitative classification of near-fault ground motions using wavelet analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 97:1486–1501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bray JD, Rodriguez-Marek A (2004) Characterization of forward-directivity ground motions in the near-fault region. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 24(11):815–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cork TG, Kim JH, Mavroeidis GP, Kim JK, Halldorsson B, Papageorgiou AS (2016) Effects of tectonic regime and soil conditions on the pulse period of near-fault ground motions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 80:102–118, ISSN 0267-7261. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Daubechies I (1992) Ten lectures on wavelets, CBMS-NSF Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics. Philadelphia, PA: SIAM Ed, 1992Google Scholar
  5. Daubechies I, Paul T (1988) Time-frequency localisation operators: a geometric phase space approach II. The use of dilations and translations. Inverse Probl 4:661–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dickinson BW, Gavin HP (2011) Parametric statistical generalization of uniform-Hazard earthquake ground motions. J Struct Eng 137:410–422. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. HEAD (HEllenic Accelerogram Database) (2018) Strong motion data. 〈〉 (Last Accessed October 2018)
  8. Lilly JM, Olhede SC (2012) Generalized Morse wavelets as a superfamily of analytic wavelets. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 60(11):6036–6041. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Luzi L, Puglia R, Russo E, ORFEUS WG5 (2016) Engineering strong motion database. Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia. Observatories Res Facil Eur Seismol.<> last accessed October 2018
  10. Makris N (1997) Rigidity-plasticity-viscosity: can electrorheological dampers protect base-isolated structures from near-source ground motions? Earthquake Engrg and Struct Dyn 26:571–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Makris N, Chang S (2000) Response of damped oscillators to cycloidal pulses. J Eng Mech 2(123):123–131. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mavroeidis GP, Papageorgiou AS (2003) A mathematical representation of near-fault ground motions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93:1099–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mukhopadhyay S, Gupta VK (2013) Directivity pulses in near-fault ground motions—I: identification, extraction and modeling. In Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 50(2013):1–15, ISSN 0267-7261. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. PEER (Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center) (2018) NGA West-2 Database 〈〉 (Last Accessed October 2018)
  15. Shahi SK, Baker JW (2014) An efficient algorithm to identify strong velocity pulses in multi-component ground motions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 104(5):2456–2466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Somerville PG, Smith NF, Graves RW, Abrahamson NA (1997) Modification of empirical strong ground motion attenuation relations to include the amplitude and duration effects of rupture directivity. Seismol Res Lett 68(1):199–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Tang Y, Zhang J (2011) Response spectrum-oriented pulse identification and magnitude scaling of forward directivity pulses in near-fault ground motions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 31:59–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Torrence C, Compo GP (1998) A practical guide to wavelet analysis. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 79(61–78):1998Google Scholar
  19. Vassiliou MF, Makris N (2011) Estimating time scales and length scales in pulselike earthquake acceleration records with wavelet analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 101(2):596–618. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Whitney R (2018a) Ground motion processing and observations for the near-field accelerograms from the 2015 Gorkha, Nepal earthquake. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng.
  21. Whitney R (2018b) Approximate coseismic displacements and near-field fling pulse from the Mw 6.5 30 October 2016 Central Italy earthquake. Bulletin of Earthq Eng 16:4467–4495. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Xu Z, Agrawal A (2010) Decomposition and effects of pulse components in near-field ground motions. J. Struct. Eng.,690-699
  23. Yadav KK, Gupta VK (2017) Near-fault fling-step ground motions: characteristics and simulation. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 101(2017):90–104, ISSN 0267-7261. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil & Env. EngineeringManhattan CollegeBronxUSA

Personalised recommendations