Amplitude-Scaled versus Spectrum-Matched Ground Motions for Seismic Performance Assessment

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 ...

[1]  Sashi K. Kunnath,et al.  Effects of Fling Step and Forward Directivity on Seismic Response of Buildings , 2006 .

[2]  W. J. Hall,et al.  Scaling Methods for Earthquake Response Spectra , 1984 .

[3]  JONATHAN HANCOCK,et al.  AN IMPROVED METHOD OF MATCHING RESPONSE SPECTRA OF RECORDED EARTHQUAKE GROUND MOTION USING WAVELETS , 2006 .

[4]  Peter Fajfar,et al.  Consistent inelastic design spectra: Strength and displacement , 1994 .

[5]  Kenneth T. Farrow,et al.  Ground motion scaling methods for different site conditions and structure characteristics , 2003 .

[6]  Walter J Silva,et al.  State-of-the-Art for Assessing Earthquake Hazards in the United States. Report 24. WES RASCAL Code for Synthesizing Earthquake Ground Motions. , 1987 .

[7]  James L Noland,et al.  Computer-Aided Structural Engineering (CASE) Project: Decision Logic Table Formulation of ACI (American Concrete Institute) 318-77 Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete for Automated Constraint Processing. Volume 1. , 1986 .

[8]  Cornell,et al.  Earthquakes, Records, and Nonlinear MDOF Responses , 1998 .

[9]  Eduardo Miranda,et al.  Modelling considerations in probabilistic performance‐based seismic evaluation: case study of the I‐880 viaduct , 2006 .

[10]  Jennie Anne Watson-Lamprey Selection and scaling of ground motion time series , 2007 .

[11]  C. Cornell,et al.  Record Selection for Nonlinear Seismic Analysis of Structures , 2005 .

[12]  Babak Alavi,et al.  Behavior of moment‐resisting frame structures subjected to near‐fault ground motions , 2004 .

[13]  YeongAe Heo,et al.  Framework for damage-based probabilistic seismic performance evaluation of reinforced concrete frames , 2009 .

[14]  J. Baker,et al.  Spectral shape, epsilon and record selection , 2006 .

[15]  Anil K. Chopra,et al.  Practical guidelines to select and scale earthquake records for nonlinear response history analysis of structures , 2010 .

[16]  K. Ikemura Development and application , 1971 .

[17]  Bruce A. Bolt,et al.  SYNTHESIZED STRONG GROUND MOTIONS FOR THE SEISMIC CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY BRIDGE. , 1993 .

[18]  Jorge Eduardo Carballo Arevalo Probabilistic seismic demand analysis: spectrum matching and design , 2000 .