Structural performance assessment under near‐source pulse‐like ground motions using advanced ground motion intensity measures

This paper demonstrates the effectiveness of utilizing advanced ground motion intensity measures (IMs) to evaluate the seismic performance of a structure subject to near-source ground motions. Ordinary records are, in addition, utilized to demonstrate the robustness of the advanced IM with respect to record selection and scaling. To perform nonlinear dynamic analyses (NDAs), ground motions need to be selected; as a result, choosing records that are not representative of the site hazard can alter the seismic performance of structures. The median collapse capacity (in terms of IM), for example, can be systematically dictated by including a few aggressive or benign pulse-like records into the record set used for analyses. In this paper, the elastic-based IM such as the pseudo-spectral acceleration (Sa) or a vector of Sa and epsilon has been demonstrated to be deficient to assess the structural responses subject to pulse-like motions. Using advanced IMs can be, however, more accurate in terms of probabilistic response prediction. Scaling earthquake records using advanced IMs (e.g. inelastic spectral displacement, Sdi, and IM1I&2E; the latter is for the significant higher-mode contribution structures) subject to ordinary and/or pulse-like records is efficient, sufficient, and robust relative to record selection and scaling. As a result, detailed record selection is not necessary, and records with virtually any magnitude, distance, epsilon and pulse period can be selected for NDAs. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  Dimitrios Vamvatsikos,et al.  Incremental dynamic analysis , 2002 .

[2]  Yunfeng Zhang,et al.  PROTECTING BASE-ISOLATED STRUCTURES FROM NEAR-FIELD GROUND MOTION BY TUNED INTERACTION DAMPER , 2002 .

[3]  Charles W. Roeder,et al.  NEAR-FAULT GROUND MOTION EFFECTS ON SIMPLE STRUCTURES , 2001 .

[4]  Paolo Bazzurro,et al.  Vector-valued Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (VPSHA) , 2002 .

[5]  A. Papageorgiou,et al.  Near‐fault ground motions, and the response of elastic and inelastic single‐degree‐of‐freedom (SDOF) systems , 2004 .

[6]  N. Abrahamson,et al.  Empirical Response Spectral Attenuation Relations for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes , 1997 .

[7]  Masayoshi Nakashima,et al.  PREDICTORS OF SEISMIC DEMAND OF SMRF BUILDINGS CONSIDERING POST-ELASTIC MODE SHAPE , 2002 .

[8]  George P. Mavroeidis,et al.  A Mathematical Representation of Near-Fault Ground Motions , 2003 .

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

[10]  Vitelmo V. Bertero,et al.  Uncertainties in Establishing Design Earthquakes , 1987 .

[11]  Marvin W. Halling,et al.  Near-Source Ground Motion and its Effects on Flexible Buildings , 1995 .

[12]  Luis Ibarra,et al.  Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration , 2005 .

[13]  Yunfeng Zhang,et al.  Active Interaction Control of Tall Buildings Subjected to Near-Field Ground Motions , 2002 .

[14]  J. Bray,et al.  Characterization of forward-directivity ground motions in the near-fault region , 2004 .

[15]  Nicolas Luco,et al.  DAMAGE POTENTIAL OF NEAR-SOURCE GROUND MOTION RECORDS , 2005 .

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

[17]  P. Somerville Magnitude scaling of the near fault rupture directivity pulse , 2003 .

[18]  S. T. Buckland,et al.  An Introduction to the Bootstrap. , 1994 .

[19]  C. Allin Cornell,et al.  Explicit Directivity-Pulse Inclusion in Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis , 2007 .

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

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

[22]  L. Ibarra Global collapse of frame structures under seismic excitations , 2003 .

[23]  Polat Gülkan,et al.  Drift estimates in frame buildings subjected to near-fault ground motions , 2005 .

[24]  W. D. Iwan,et al.  DRIFT SPECTRUM: MEASURE OF DEMAND FOR EARTHQUAKE GROUND MOTIONS , 1997 .

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

[26]  S. Mahin,et al.  Aseismic design implications of near‐fault san fernando earthquake records , 1978 .

[27]  N. Abrahamson,et al.  Modification of Empirical Strong Ground Motion Attenuation Relations to Include the Amplitude and Duration Effects of Rupture Directivity , 1997 .

[28]  Trevor Hastie,et al.  The Elements of Statistical Learning , 2001 .

[29]  A S Veletsos,et al.  Deformation Spectra for Elastic and Elastoplastic Systems Subjected to Ground Shock and Earthquake Motions , 1965 .

[30]  Jogeshwar P. Singh Earthquake Ground Motions: Implications for Designing Structures and Reconciling Structural Damage , 1985 .

[31]  M Sasani,et al.  IMPORTANCE OF SEVERE PULSE-TYPE GROUND MOTIONS IN PERFORMANCE-BASED ENGINEERING: HISTORICAL AND CRITICAL REVIEW , 2000 .

[32]  Jack W. Baker,et al.  Vector-valued ground motion intensity measures for probabilistic seismic demand analysis , 2005 .

[33]  Mark Aschheim,et al.  Isoductile strengths and strength reduction factors of elasto‐plastic SDOF systems subjected to simple waveforms , 2001 .

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