Strong-motion records selection for structural testing

When structures are tested against earthquake loading, either within laboratories or by computer modelling, observed strong-motion records are commonly used as input. However, the method to select records is often not stated and it is thought that records are often chosen simply because they are well-known. Until the early 1990s, strong-motion data was relatively difficult to obtain and process and, in addition, the amount of, particularly near-source, strong-motion was limited. Therefore using standard records was often the only option. However, since then a number of large well-recorded earthquakes have occurred and also there are many new strong-motion data sources available. As a snapshot of the state-of-the-practice for record selection for structural testing in Europe the proceedings of the last European Conference on Earthquake Engineering (12ECEE) was used. Using those articles concerned with structural testing where strong-motion records are used, a summary of the most popular records chosen and, if known, why they were selected, is given. It is found that a small subset of 13 well-known records is often used, irrespective of other considerations. The mode of the number of input accelerograms used per study is three. Strong-motion records within structural testing could be used simply to validate that the shake table or the computer model functions and to show general aspects of the structures' response. For such applications the choice of the strong-motion records is not important and the current method of using well-known records could be maintained. However, more often structural testing is employed in order to understand the characteristics of the modelled structure and to estimate its vulnerability to earthquake shaking. For this purpose a more scientific method of choosing input time-histories is required. The procedure suggested here recognises the observed variety with respect to amplitude, frequency content, duration and shape of earthquake ground motions in order to better understand the characteristics of the structure.

[1]  B. Bolt.  Estimating Seismic Ground Motion , 1999 .

[2]  Hideo Aochi,et al.  Testing the Validity of Simulated Strong Ground Motion from the Dynamic Rupture of a Finite Fault, by Using Empirical Equations , 2006 .

[3]  K. Campbell.  PREDICTION OF STRONG GROUND MOTION USING THE HYBRID EMPIRICAL METHOD AND ITS USE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF GROUND-MOTION (ATTENUATION) RELATIONS IN EASTERN NORTH AMERICA , 2003 .

[4]  C. Cornell,et al.  Disaggregation of seismic hazard , 1999 .

[5]  Julian J. Bommer,et al.  Processing of strong-motion accelerograms: needs, options and consequences , 2005 .

[6]  J. Douglas,et al.  Equations for the Estimation of Strong Ground Motions from Shallow Crustal Earthquakes Using Data from Europe and the Middle East: Horizontal Peak Ground Acceleration and Spectral Acceleration , 2005 .

[7]  Julian J. Bommer,et al.  Correlations between duration and number of effective cycles of earthquake ground motion , 2006 .

[8]  Emilio Rosenblueth,et al.  Fundamentals of earthquake engineering , 1971 .

[9]  J. Douglas.  Earthquake ground motion estimation using strong-motion records: a review of equations for the estimation of peak ground acceleration and response spectral ordinates , 2003 .

[10]  E. Rathje,et al.  Empirical Relationships for Frequency Content Parameters of Earthquake Ground Motions , 2004 .

[11]  John Douglas,et al.  An investigation of analysis of variance as a tool for exploring regional differences in strong ground motions , 2004 .

[12]  Julian J. Bommer,et al.  THE USE OF REAL EARTHQUAKE ACCELEROGRAMS AS INPUT TO DYNAMIC ANALYSIS , 2004 .

[13]  A. Elnashai,et al.  SENSITIVITY OF ANALYTICAL VULNERABILITY FUNCTIONS TO INPUT AND RESPONSE PARAMETER RANDOMNESS , 2002 .

[14]  Renato Giannini,et al.  ADVANCED EARTHQUAKE PROTECTION SYSTEMS FOR HIGH VOLTAGE ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT , 2002 .

[15]  D. Rinaldis,et al.  Dissemination of European Strong Motion Data Using Strong Motion Datascape Navigator , 2004 .

[16]  Jonathan P. Stewart,et al.  Ground motion evaluation procedures for performance-based design , 2002 .

[17]  John Douglas,et al.  USE OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF REGIONAL DEPENDENCE OF STRONG GROUND MOTIONS , 2002 .

[18]  Gail M. Atkinson,et al.  Empirical Ground-Motion Relations for Subduction-Zone Earthquakes and Their Application to Cascadia and Other Regions , 2003 .

[19]  Marc Nicolas,et al.  A Probabilistic Approach to Seismic Hazard in Metropolitan France , 2004 .

[20]  Julian J. Bommer,et al.  The Influence of Strong-Motion Duration on the Seismic Response of Masonry Structures , 2004 .

[21]  David M. Steinberg,et al.  Logic Trees, Sensitivity Analyses, and Data Reduction in Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment , 1998 .