Ductility‐dependent intensity measure that accounts for ground‐motion spectral shape and duration

Summary The calculated nonlinear structural responses of a building can vary greatly, even if recorded ground motions are scaled to the same spectral acceleration at a building's fundamental period. To reduce the variation in structural response at a particular ground-motion intensity, this paper proposes an intensity measure (IMcomb) that accounts for the combined effects of spectral acceleration, ground-motion duration, and response spectrum shape. The intensity measure includes a new measure of spectral shape that integrates the spectrum over a period range that depends on the structure's ductility. The new IM is efficient, sufficient, scalable, transparent, and versatile. These features make it suitable for evaluating the intensities of measured and simulated ground motions. The efficiency and sufficiency of the new IM is demonstrated for the following: (i) elastic-perfectly plastic single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) oscillators with a variety of ductility demands and periods; (ii) ductile and brittle deteriorating SDOF systems with a variety of periods; and (iii) collapse analysis for 30 previously designed frames. The efficiency is attributable to the inclusion of duration and to the ductility dependence of the spectral shape measure. For each of these systems, the transparency of the intensity measure made it possible to identify the sensitivity of structural response to the various characteristics of the ground motion. Spectral shape affected all structures, but in particular, ductile structures. Duration only affected structures with cyclic deterioration. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  Jefferson County,et al.  FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) TIERED SITE-SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PORT SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM , 2012 .

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

[3]  Luis Ibarra,et al.  Variance of collapse capacity of SDOF systems under earthquake excitations , 2011 .

[4]  Brendon A. Bradley,et al.  Ground motion selection for simulation‐based seismic hazard and structural reliability assessment , 2015 .

[5]  Dimitrios G. Lignos,et al.  Average spectral acceleration as an intensity measure for collapse risk assessment , 2015 .

[6]  David Carver,et al.  Sedimentary Basin Effects in Seattle, Washington: Ground-Motion Observations and 3D Simulations , 2009 .

[7]  Curt B. Haselton,et al.  Seismic Collapse Safety of Reinforced Concrete Buildings. I: Assessment of Ductile Moment Frames , 2011 .

[8]  C. Kesselman,et al.  CyberShake: A Physics-Based Seismic Hazard Model for Southern California , 2011 .

[9]  Ye Cui,et al.  Shaking table test and numerical simulation of a 1/2‐scale self‐centering reinforced concrete frame , 2015 .

[10]  Jack W. Baker,et al.  Accounting for Ground-Motion Spectral Shape Characteristics in Structural Collapse Assessment through an Adjustment for Epsilon , 2011 .

[11]  Julian J. Bommer,et al.  A State-of-Knowledge Review of the Influence of Strong-Motion Duration on Structural Damage , 2006 .

[12]  Robert W. Graves,et al.  Ground-motion amplification in the Santa Monica area: Effects of shallow basin-edge structure , 1998, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[13]  Vitelmo V. Bertero,et al.  Evaluation of Strength Reduction Factors for Earthquake-Resistant Design , 1994 .

[14]  Jonathan P. Stewart,et al.  Empirical Model for Basin Effects Accounts for Basin Depth and Source Location , 2005 .

[15]  K. Hatayama,et al.  Control Factors of Spatial Variation of Long-Period Strong Ground Motions in the Yufutsu Sedimentary Basin, Hokkaido, during the Mw 8.0 2003 Tokachi-oki, Japan, Earthquake , 2007 .

[16]  Steven L. Kramer.  Performance-based design methodologies for geotechnical earthquake engineering , 2013, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering.

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

[18]  Abbie B. Liel,et al.  Effect of ground motion duration on earthquake-induced structural collapse , 2013 .

[19]  N. Null.  Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures , 2003 .

[20]  Norman A. Abrahamson,et al.  Summary of the ASK14 Ground Motion Relation for Active Crustal Regions , 2014 .

[21]  N. Null.  Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings , 2014 .

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

[23]  Eduardo Miranda,et al.  Site-Dependent Strength-Reduction Factors , 1993 .

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

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

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

[27]  Nicolas Luco,et al.  Collapse Risk of Buildings in the Pacific Northwest Region due to Subduction Earthquakes , 2014 .

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

[29]  Jack W. Baker,et al.  Quantifying the Influence of Ground Motion Duration on Structural Collapse Capacity Using Spectrally Equivalent Records , 2016 .

[30]  Iunio Iervolino,et al.  Spectral shape proxies and nonlinear structural response , 2011 .

[31]  Anil K. Chopra,et al.  A ground motion selection procedure for enforcing hazard consistency and estimating seismic demand hazard curves , 2015 .