Strategy for Selecting Input Ground Motion for Structural Seismic Demand Analysis

The observed variability is very large among natural earthquake records, which are not consolidated in the engineering applications due to the cost and the duration. In the current practice with the nonlinear dynamic analysis, the input variability is minimized, yet without clear indications of its consequences on the output seismic behavior of structures. The study, herein, aims at quantifying the impact of ground motion selection with large variability on the distribution of engineering demand parameters (EDPs) by investigating the following questions:What is the level of variability in natural and modified ground motions?What is the impact of input variability on the EDPs of various structural types?For a given earthquake scenario, target spectra are defined by ground motion prediction equations (GMPEs). Four ground motion modification and selection methods such as (1) the unscaled earthquake records, (2) the linearly scaled real records, (3) the loosely matched spectrum waveforms, and (4) the tightly matched waveforms are utilized. The tests on the EDPs are performed on a record basis to quantify the natural variability in unscaled earthquake records and the relative changes triggered by the ground motion modifications.Each dataset is composed by five accelerograms; the response spectrum compatible selection is then performed by considering the impact of set variability. The intraset variability relates to the spectral amplitude dispersion in a given set, and the interset variability relates to the existence of multiple sets compatible with the target.The tests on the EDPs are performed on a record basis to quantify the natural variability in unscaled earthquake records and the relative changes triggered by the ground motion modifications. The distributions of EDPs obtained by the modified ground motions are compared to the observed distribution by the unscaled earthquake records as a function of ground motion prediction equations, objective of structural analysis, and structural models.This thesis demonstrates that a single ground motion set, commonly used in the practice, is not sufficient to obtain an assuring level of the EDPs regardless of the GMSM methods, which is due to the record and set variability. The unscaled real records compatible with the scenario are discussed to be the most realistic option to use in the nonlinear dynamic analyses, and the ‘best’ ground motion modification method is demonstrated to be based on the EDP, the objective of the seismic analysis, and the structural model. It is pointed out that the choice of a GMPE can provoke significant differences in the ground motion characteristics and the EDPs, and it can overshadow the differences in the EDPs obtained by the GMSM methods.

[1]  C. Berge-Thierry,et al.  Challenges Ahead for Nuclear Facility Site-Specific Seismic Hazard Assessment in France: The Alternative Energies and the Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) Vision , 2017, Pure and Applied Geophysics.

[2]  Christopher D. Stephens,et al.  Report on progress at the Center for Engineering Strong Motion Data (CESMD) , 2012 .

[3]  Ellis L. Krinitzsky,et al.  How to obtain earthquake ground motions for engineering design , 2002 .

[4]  G. Weatherill,et al.  OpenQuake Engine: An Open Hazard (and Risk) Software for the Global Earthquake Model , 2014 .

[5]  Rodolfo Puglia,et al.  Erratum to: Pan-European ground-motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5 %-damped PSA at spectral periods up to 3.0 s using the RESORCE dataset , 2014, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering.

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

[7]  A. Sextos,et al.  EC8-based earthquake record selection procedure evaluation: Validation study based on observed damage of an irregular R/C building , 2011 .

[8]  Erik H Vanmarcke,et al.  State-of-the-Art for Assessing Earthquake Hazards in the United States. Report 14. Representation of Earthquake Ground Motion: Scaled Accelerograms and Equivalent Response Spectra. , 1979 .

[9]  Zhenming Wang,et al.  Seismic Hazard Assessment: Issues and Alternatives , 2011 .

[10]  Brendon A. Bradley,et al.  Prediction of spatially distributed seismic demands in structures , 2008 .

[11]  Robert R. Youngs,et al.  Update of the Chiou and Youngs NGA Model for the Average Horizontal Component of Peak Ground Motion and Response Spectra , 2014 .

[12]  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 .

[13]  Nicola Pedroni,et al.  Bootstrapped Artificial Neural Networks for the seismic analysis of structural systems , 2017 .

[14]  Iunio Iervolino,et al.  Spectral shape-based assessment of SDOF nonlinear response to real, adjusted and artificial accelerograms , 2010 .

[15]  Ellen M. Rathje,et al.  A Semi-Automated Procedure for Selecting and Scaling Recorded Earthquake Motions for Dynamic Analysis , 2008 .

[16]  Mihailo D. Trifunac.  Earthquake response spectra for performance based design—A critical review , 2012 .

[17]  Jack W. Baker,et al.  A predictive model for fling-step in near-fault ground motions based on recordings and simulations , 2016 .

[18]  Jack W. Baker,et al.  An Improved Algorithm for Selecting Ground Motions to Match a Conditional Spectrum , 2018 .

[19]  Jack W. Baker,et al.  Spectral Variability and Its Relationship to Structural Response Estimated from Scaled and Spectrum-Matched Ground Motions , 2016 .

[20]  E. Scordilis.  Empirical Global Relations Converting MS and mb to Moment Magnitude , 2006 .

[21]  Iunio Iervolino,et al.  REXEL: computer aided record selection for code-based seismic structural analysis , 2010 .

[22]  F. Scherbaum,et al.  On the Conversion of Source-to-Site Distance Measures for Extended Earthquake Source Models , 2004 .

[23]  Jack W. Baker,et al.  FLING IN NEAR-FAULT GROUND MOTIONS AND ITS EFFECT ON STRUCTURAL COLLAPSE CAPACITY , 2014 .

[24]  Shuang Li,et al.  Selection of the Most Unfavorable Real Ground Motions for Low- and Mid-rise RC Frame Structures , 2013 .

[25]  Gail M. Atkinson,et al.  Modifications to Existing Ground-Motion Prediction Equations in Light of New Data , 2011 .

[26]  Jack W. Baker,et al.  Conditional Mean Spectrum: Tool for Ground-Motion Selection , 2011 .

[27]  Riccardo Diaferia,et al.  Assessing adequacy of spectrum-matched ground motions for response history analysis , 2013 .

[28]  Ellis L. Krinitzsky,et al.  Deterministic versus probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for critical structures , 1995 .

[29]  Jack W. Baker,et al.  A Computationally Efficient Ground-Motion Selection Algorithm for Matching a Target Response Spectrum Mean and Variance , 2011 .

[30]  Nicolas Luco,et al.  Does amplitude scaling of ground motion records result in biased nonlinear structural drift responses? , 2007 .

[31]  George W. Housner,et al.  Generation of Artificial Earthquakes , 1964 .

[32]  Rodolfo Puglia,et al.  The Engineering Strong‐Motion Database: A Platform to Access Pan‐European Accelerometric Data , 2016 .

[33]  Sinan Akkar,et al.  A procedure on ground motion selection and scaling for nonlinear response of simple structural systems , 2012 .

[34]  Julian J. Bommer,et al.  Using spectral matched records to explore the influence of strong-motion duration on inelastic structural response , 2007 .

[35]  C. Allin Cornell,et al.  Earthquakes, Records, and Nonlinear Responses , 1998 .

[36]  Mircea Grigoriu,et al.  To Scale or Not to Scale Seismic Ground-Acceleration Records , 2011 .

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

[38]  Roberto Paolucci,et al.  Ground Motion Record Selection Based on Broadband Spectral Compatibility , 2014 .

[39]  Paolo Bazzurro,et al.  SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS OF NONLINEAR STRUCTURES. II: APPLICATIONS , 1994 .

[40]  Sashi K. Kunnath,et al.  Amplitude-Scaled versus Spectrum-Matched Ground Motions for Seismic Performance Assessment , 2011 .

[41]  M. K. Kaul.  Spectrum-Consistent Time-History Generation , 1978 .

[42]  Gang Wang,et al.  Design Ground Motion Library (DGML) – Tool for Selecting Time History Records for Specific Engineering Applications (Abstract) , 2007 .

[43]  Irmela Zentner,et al.  A procedure for simulating synthetic accelerograms compatible with correlated and conditional probabilistic response spectra , 2014 .

[44]  Anastasios Sextos.  Selection of Ground Motions for Response History Analysis , 2014 .

[45]  Y. K. Wen,et al.  Damage-Limiting Aseismic Design of Buildings , 1987 .

[46]  N. Abrahamson,et al.  Selection of ground motion time series and limits on scaling , 2006 .

[47]  F. Cotton,et al.  NEW EMPIRICAL RESPONSE SPECTRAL ATTENUATION LAWS FOR MODERATE EUROPEAN EARTHQUAKES , 2003 .

[48]  Gang Wang,et al.  Design Ground Motion Library: An Interactive Tool for Selecting Earthquake Ground Motions , 2015 .

[49]  Paolo Bazzurro,et al.  SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS OF NONLINEAR STRUCTURES. I: METHODOLOGY , 1994 .

[50]  Fernando Lopez-Caballero,et al.  Inelastic dynamic soil–structure interaction effects on moment-resisting frame buildings , 2013 .

[51]  Julian J. Bommer,et al.  Numbers of scaled and matched accelerograms required for inelastic dynamic analyses , 2008 .

[52]  J. Douglas,et al.  A Survey of Techniques for Predicting Earthquake Ground Motions for Engineering Purposes , 2008 .

[53]  Andrew S. Whittaker,et al.  Scaling Earthquake Ground Motions for Performance-Based Assessment of Buildings , 2011 .

[54]  Jack W. Baker,et al.  Probabilistic structural response assessment using vector‐valued intensity measures , 2007 .

[55]  M F Giberson.  Two nonlinear beams with definitions of ductility , 1969 .

[56]  L. H. Roehm,et al.  Earthquake ground motions for design and analysis of dams , 1988 .

[57]  Mirko Corigliano,et al.  ASCONA: Automated Selection of COmpatible Natural Accelerograms , 2012 .

[58]  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 .

[59]  Neal Simon Kwong,et al.  Selection and scaling of ground motions for nonlinear response history analysis of buildings in performance-based earthquake engineering , 2015 .

[60]  Anastasios G. Sextos,et al.  ISSARS: An integrated software environment for structure-specific earthquake ground motion selection , 2013, Adv. Eng. Softw..

[61]  Amr S. Elnashai,et al.  The effect of material and ground motion uncertainty on the seismic vulnerability curves of RC structure , 2006 .

[62]  Anil K. Chopra,et al.  Modal-Pushover-Based Ground-Motion Scaling Procedure , 2011 .

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

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

[65]  R. Dobry,et al.  Duration characteristics of horizontal components of strong-motion earthquake records , 1978 .

[66]  J. Bommer,et al.  Comparisons among the five ground-motion models developed using RESORCE for the prediction of response spectral accelerations due to earthquakes in Europe and the Middle East , 2014, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering.

[67]  Julian J. Bommer,et al.  Earthquake Accelerogram Selection and Scaling Procedures for Estimating the Distribution of Drift Response , 2011 .

[68]  P. Gueguen,et al.  Strategy for the selection of input ground motion for inelastic structural response analysis based on naïve Bayesian classifier , 2015, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering.

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

[70]  Anil K. Chopra,et al.  Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering , 1995 .

[71]  Ali Ismet Kanli,et al.  VS30 mapping and soil classification for seismic site effect evaluation in Dinar region, SW Turkey , 2006 .

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

[73]  Anastasios Sextos,et al.  Selection of earthquake ground motion records: A state-of-the-art review from a structural engineering perspective , 2010 .

[74]  Marco De Biasio,et al.  A Simple and Efficient Intensity Measure to Account for Nonlinear Structural Behavior , 2014 .

[75]  Jw Smith.  Dynamic Loading and Design of Structures , 2002 .

[76]  K. Campbell,et al.  NGA-West2 Ground Motion Model for the Average Horizontal Components of PGA, PGV, and 5% Damped Linear Acceleration Response Spectra , 2014 .

[77]  Sinan Akkar,et al.  Evaluation of a recently proposed record selection and scaling procedure for low‐rise to mid‐rise reinforced concrete buildings and its use for probabilistic risk assessment studies , 2014 .

[78]  David M. Boore,et al.  Estimating Unknown Input Parameters when Implementing the NGA Ground-Motion Prediction Equations in Engineering Practice , 2011 .

[79]  W. K. Tso,et al.  Effect of peak ground acceleration to velocity ratio on ductility demand of inelastic systems , 1988 .

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

[81]  Dimitrios Vamvatsikos,et al.  Vector and Scalar IMs in Structural Response Estimation, Part II: Building Demand Assessment , 2016 .

[82]  Gang Wang,et al.  A ground motion selection and modification method capturing response spectrum characteristics and variability of scenario earthquakes , 2011 .