Amplitude-Scaled versus Spectrum-Matched Ground Motions for Seismic Performance Assessment
Publication: Journal of Structural Engineering
Volume 137, Issue 3
Abstract
The need to consider only a small number of ground motions combined with the complexities of response sensitivity to both modeling choices and ground motion variability calls for an assessment of current ground motion selection and modification methods used in seismic performance evaluation of structures. Since the largest source of uncertainty and variability arises from ground motion selection, this study examines the suitability of two ground motion modification (GMM) schemes: magnitude scaling (wherein the ground motion is uniformly scaled so that the resulting spectrum matches the amplitude of the design spectrum at the structural fundamental period) and spectrum matching. Comprehensive nonlinear time-history (NTH) simulations of two reinforced concrete moment frame buildings are carried out to evaluate the GMM approaches in the context of seismic demand prediction. Findings from the investigation indicate that spectrum matching is generally more stable than scaling both in terms of the bias as well as the resulting dispersion in the predicted demands. It is also concluded that seven ground motions are inadequate to establish median demands for taller frames where multiple modes influence structural response. Both methods are found to be sensitive to the choice of records for the cases investigated in this study.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
ASCE. (2005). Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-05, Reston, VA.
Alavi, B., and Krawinkler, H. (2004). “Behavior of moment-resisting frame structures subjected to near-fault ground motions.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 33(6), 687–706.
American Concrete Institute (ACI). (2009). “Building code requirements for structural concrete,” ACI 318-09, Farmington Hills, MI.
Baker, J. W., and Cornell, C. A. (2006). “Spectral shape, epsilon and record selection.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 35(9), 1077–1095.
Bolt, B. A., and Gregor, N. J. (1993). “Synthesized strong ground motions for the seismic condition assessment of the eastern portion of the San Francisco Bay Bridge.” Rep. UCB/EERC-93/12, Univ. of California, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA.
Carballo, J. E., and Cornell, C. A. (2000). “Probabilistic seismic demand analysis: Spectrum matching and design.” Rep. No. RMS-41, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA.
Hancock, J., et al. (2006). “An improved method of matching response spectra of recorded earthquake ground motion using wavelets.” J. Earthquake Eng., 10(1), 67–89.
Heo, Y. A. (2009). “Framework for damage-based probabilistic seismic performance evaluation of reinforced concrete frames.”Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of California, Davis, CA.
Iervolino, I., and Cornell, C. A. (2005). “Record selection for nonlinear seismic analysis of structures.” Earthquake Spectra, 21(3), 685–713.
Kalkan, E., and Chopra, A. K. (2010). “Practical guidelines to select and scale earthquake records for nonlinear response history analysis of structures.” USGS Open-File Rep. 2010-1068, USGS, Washington, DC, 126.
Kalkan, E., and Kunnath, S. K. (2006). “Effects of fling-step and forward directivity on the seismic response of buildings.” Earthquake Spectra, 22(2), 367–390.
Kunnath, S. K., Larson, L., and Miranda, E. (2006). “Modeling considerations in probabilistic performance-based seismic evaluation: Case study of the I-880 viaduct.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 35(1), 57–75.
Kurama, Y., and Farrow, K. (2003). “Ground motion scaling methods for different site conditions and structure characteristics.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 32(15), 2425–2450.
Lilhhand, K., and Tseng, W. S. (1989). “Development and application of realistic earthquake time histories compatible with multiple damping design spectra.” Proc. of the 9th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan, 2, 819–830.
Nau, J. M., and Hall, W. J. (1984). “Scaling methods for earthquake response spectra.” J. Struct. Eng., 110(7), 1533–1548.
OpenSEES. (2009). “Open system for earthquake engineering simulation.” Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), Univ. of California Berkeley, Berkely, CA. 〈http://opensees.berkeley.edu〉.
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER). (2005). “NGA—Next generation attenuation project,” 〈http://peer.berkeley.edu/nga/〉.
Shome, N., and Cornell, C. (1998). “Normalization and scaling accelerograms for nonlinear structural analysis.” Proc. of the 6th U.S. National Conf. on Earthquake Eng., Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Seattle.
Shome, N., Cornell, C., Bazurro, P., and Carballo, J. (1998). “Earthquakes, records, and nonlinear responses.” Earthquake Spectra, 14, 469–500.
Silva, W., and Lee, K. (1987). “State-of-the-art for assessing earthquake hazards in the United States.” Rep. 24, WES RASCAL Code for Synthesizing Earthquake Ground Motions, Miscellaneous Paper S-73-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Vidic, T., Fajfar, P., and Fischinger, M. (1994). “Consistent inelastic design spectra: Strength and displacement.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 23, 507–521.
Watson-Lamprey, J. A. (2007). “Selection and scaling of ground motion time series.”Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Structural Engineering
Volume 137 • Issue 3 • March 2011
Pages: 278 - 288
Copyright
© 2011 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Apr 20, 2010
Accepted: Oct 27, 2010
Published online: Oct 29, 2010
Published in print: Mar 1, 2011
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.