Prediction of spatially distributed seismic demands in structures

In this paper the efficacy of various ground motion intensity measures (IM’s) in the prediction of spatially distributed engineering demand parameters (EDP’s) within a structure is investigated. While the predictive capabilities of various intensity measures in predicting global seismic demands (such as peak interstorey drift over all floors) have been previously investigated, to date the effectiveness of intensity measures at predicting various measures of seismic demand occurring at spatially differing locations in a structure has not been investigated. This has direct implications to building-specific seismic loss estimation, where the seismic demand on different components is dependent on the component location in the structure. Several common intensity measures are investigated in terms of their correlation with the spatially distributed demands in a 10-storey office building, which are measured based on maximum interstorey drift ratios and maximum floor accelerations. It is found that the ability of an IM to ‘efficiently’ predict a specific EDP depends on the similarity between the frequency range of the IM and the vibration frequencies which control the peak value of the EDP. An IM’s ‘predictability’ is found to have a significant effect on the median response demands for ground motions scaled to a specified probability of exceedance using the ground motion hazard curve.

[1]  G. Atkinson,et al.  Ground-Motion Prediction Equations for the Average Horizontal Component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-Damped PSA at Spectral Periods between 0.01 s and 10.0 s , 2008 .

[2]  C. Allin Cornell,et al.  Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of nonlinear structures , 1999 .

[3]  Julian J. Bommer,et al.  Why Do Modern Probabilistic Seismic-Hazard Analyses Often Lead to Increased Hazard Estimates? , 2006 .

[4]  Nicolas Luco,et al.  Probabilistic seismic demand analysis using advanced ground motion intensity measures , 2007 .

[5]  Brendon A. Bradley,et al.  Prediction of spatially distributed seismic demands in specific structures: Ground motion and structural response , 2009 .

[6]  C. Allin Cornell,et al.  An Empirical Ground-Motion Attenuation Relation for Inelastic Spectral Displacement , 2006 .

[7]  Benjamin Edwards,et al.  Development of a Response Spectral Ground‐Motion Prediction Equation (GMPE) for Seismic‐Hazard Analysis from Empirical Fourier Spectral and Duration Models , 2015 .

[8]  Maurice S. Power,et al.  An Overview of the NGA Project , 2008 .

[9]  Julian J. Bommer,et al.  Selection and Scaling of Real Accelerograms for Bi-Directional Loading: A Review of Current Practice and Code Provisions , 2007 .

[10]  W. New,et al.  Standards New Zealand. , 2005 .

[11]  Jack W. Baker,et al.  Assessment of Ground Motion Selection and Modification (GMSM) methods for non -linear dynamic analyses of structures , 2008 .

[12]  Nicolas Luco,et al.  Structure-Specific Scalar Intensity Measures for Near-Source and Ordinary Earthquake Ground Motions , 2007 .

[13]  Brendon A. Bradley,et al.  Prediction of spatially distributed seismic demands in specific structures: Structural response to loss estimation , 2009 .

[14]  J. Baker,et al.  A vector‐valued ground motion intensity measure consisting of spectral acceleration and epsilon , 2005 .

[15]  T. Jordan,et al.  OpenSHA: A Developing Community-modeling Environment for Seismic Hazard Analysis , 2003 .

[16]  Steven L. Kramer,et al.  Ground Motion Intensity Measures for Liquefaction Hazard Evaluation , 2006 .