ABSTRACT

The importance of ground motions selection is compared with ground motions scaling. A large number of response history analysis (RHA) of 2D lumped mass stick model with elastic perfectly plastic hysteresis model are conducted. Two bins of ground motions selection are made: first one with criteria of magnitude, site to source distance, and site soil condition; second bin with additional criteria of number of ground motions from single event and spectral shape based on ASCE 7-16. All of the ground motions from two bins then scaled using four scaling methods: Minimize error scaling, One period scaling, Multimode scaling, and Spectrum matching. RHA result of story drift and story displacement of lumped mass tick model of the unscaled and scaled ground motions from two bins are analyzed. The result shows that the second bin of ground resulting both mean error and deviation of story drift and displacement better than the first bin of ground motions. For low and midrise structure, spectrum matching is proven to give the best mean displacement estimation and smallest coefficient of variation (COV). For high rise structure, the second bin of unscaled ground motion produces the best error mean displacement, but the best COV produced by multimode scaling method. Overall, the scaled ground motions reduce the COV result, compared to the unscaled ground motions.

ABSTRACT

The importance of ground motions selection is compared with ground motions scaling. A large number of response history analysis (RHA) of 2D lumped mass stick model with elastic perfectly plastic hysteresis model are conducted. Two bins of ground motions selection are made: first one with criteria of magnitude, site to source distance, and site soil condition; second bin with additional criteria of number of ground motions from single event and spectral shape based on ASCE 7-16. All of the ground motions from two bins then scaled using four scaling methods: Minimize error scaling, One period scaling, Multimode scaling, and Spectrum matching. RHA result of story drift and story displacement of lumped mass tick model of the unscaled and scaled ground motions from two bins are analyzed. The result shows that the second bin of ground resulting both mean error and deviation of story drift and displacement better than the first bin of ground motions. For low and midrise structure, spectrum matching is proven to give the best mean displacement estimation and smallest coefficient of variation (COV). For high rise structure, the second bin of unscaled ground motion produces the best error mean displacement, but the best COV produced by multimode scaling method. Overall, the scaled ground motions reduce the COV result, compared to the unscaled ground motions.

REFERENCES

1. ACI Committee 318, 2014, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Code and Commentary (ACI 318-14)”, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI. 519 pp.
2. Al Itik, L., Abrahamson, N., 2010, “An Improved Method for Nonstationary Spectral Matching”, Earthquake Spectra, V. 26, No. 3, Aug., pp. 601-617.
3. American Society of Civil Engineers, 2010, “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 7-10)”, American Society of Civil Engineers, Alexander Bell Drive, VI. 608 pp.
4. American Society of Civil Engineers, 2016, “Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 7-16)”, American Society of Civil Engineers, Alexander Bell Drive, VI. 822 pp.
5. Baker, J. W., 2007, “Quantitative Classification of Near-Fault Ground Motions Using Wavelet Analysis”, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, V. 97, No. 5, Oct., pp. 1486-1501, DOI: 10.1785/0120060255.
6. Baker, J. W., 2008, “An Introduction to Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA)”, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
7. Bazzuro, P., and Cornell, C. A., 1999, “Disaggregation of Seismic Hazard”, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, V. 89, No. 2, Apr., pp. 501-520.
8. Bazzuro, P., and Luco, N., 2005, October, “Do Scaled and Spectrum Matched Near-Source Records Produce Biased Nonlinear Structural Responses?”, Paper presented for 8th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering. San Francisco, C.A. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
9. Computers and Structures, Inc., 2016, “ETABS 2016 v.16.2.1”, Computer Program, Computers and Structures, Inc. s.l.:s.n.
10. Cornell, C. A., 1968, “Engineering Seismic Risk Analysis”, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, V. 58, No. 5, Oct., pp. 1583-1606.
11. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2015, “NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA P-1050-1/2015)”, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
12. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2015, “NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions: Design Examples (FEMA P-1051)”, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
13. Huang, Y. N., Whittaker, A., Luco, N., Hamburger, R. O., 2011, “Scaling Earthquake Ground Motions for Performance-Based Assessment of Buildings”, Journal of Structural Engineering, V. 137, March, pp. 311-321, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000155.
14. International Building Code Council, 2006, “International Building Code”, International Building Code Council, Country Club Hills, IL, 664 pp.
15. Jayaram, N., Lin, T., Baker, J. W., 2011, “A Computationally Efficient Ground-Motion Selection Algorithm for Matching a Target Response Spectrum Mean and Variance”, Earthquake Spectra, V. 27, No. 3, Aug., pp. 797-815. DOI: 10.1193/1.3608002.
16. Kalkan, E., 2009, “Assessment of ASCE-7 Ground Motion Scaling Method Using Computer Model of Instrumented High-Rise Building”, Proceeding of ATC/SEI Conference on Improving the Seismic Performance of Existing Buildings and Other Structures, San Francisco, C.A., American Society of Civil Engineering.
17. Kalkan, E, and Chopra, A. K., 2010, “Practical Guidelines to Select and Scale Earthquake Records for Nonlinear Response History Analysis of Structures”, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report, 113pp.
18. Lilhanand, K., and Tseng, S., 1988, August, “Development and Application of Realistic Earthquake Time Histories Compatible with Multiple-Damping Design Spectra”, Proceeding of Ninth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan.
19. McGiure, R. K., 1995, “Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis and Design Earthquakes: Closing the Loop”, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, V. 85, No. 5, Oct., pp. 1275-1284.
20. Naeim, F., Alimoradi, A., Pezeshk, S., 2004, “Selection and Scaling of Ground Motion Time Histories for Structural Design Using Genetic Program”, Earthquake Spectra, V. 20., No. 2, May, pp. 413-426, DOI: 10.1193/1.1719028.
21. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research, 2010, 1st October, “Technical Report for the PEER Ground Motion Database Web Application”, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research.
22. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, 2019, “PEER Ground Motions Databases”, Retrieved from https://ngawest2.berkeley.edu.
23. Reyes, J. C., and Chopra, A. K., 2012, “Modal Pushover-Based Scaling of Two Components of Ground Motion Records for Nonlinear RHA of Structures”, Earthquake Spectra, V. 28, No. 3, Aug., pp. 1243-1267.
24. Reyes, J. C., and Kalkan E., 2011, “Required Number of Records for ASCE/SEI 7 Ground Motion Scaling Procedure”, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report, 34pp.
25. Reyes, J. C., Riano, A. C., Kalkan, E., Quintero, O. A., Arango, C. M., 2014, “Assessment of Spectrum Matching Procedure for Nonlinear Analysis of Symmetric- and Asymmetric-Plan Buildings”, Engineering Structures, V. 72, pp. 171-181.
26. Samanta, A., and Huang, Y. N., 2017, “Ground Motion Scaling for Seismic Performance Assessment of High-Rise Moment-Resisting Frame Building”, Soil Dynamic and Earthquake Engineering, V. 94, pp. 125-135.
27. Samanta, A., and Pandey, P., 2018, “Effects of Ground Motion Modification Methods and Ground Motion Duration on Seismic Performance of 15 Storied Building”, Journal of Building Engineering, V. 15, pp. 14-25.
28. Seismosoft., 2018, “SeismoMatch 2018”, Computer Program, Seismosoft.
29. Shahi, S. K., and Baker, J. W., 2014, “An Efficient Algorithm to Identify Strong-Velocity Pulses in Microcomponent Ground Motion”, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, V. 104, No. 5, Oct., pp. 2456-2466, DOI: 10.1785/0120130191.
30. Shome, N., Cornell, C. A., Bazzuro, P., Carballo, E., “Earthquakes, Records, and Nonlinear Responses”, Earthquake Spectra, V. 14, No. 3, Aug., pp. 469-500.
31. United States Geological Survey, 2014, “Unified Hazard Tools”, Retrieved from https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/.
32. Weng, Y. T., Tsai, K. C., Chen, P. C., Chou, C. C., Chan Y. R, Jhuang, S. J., and Wang, Y. Y., 2009, “Seismic Performance Evaluation of a 34-Story Steel Building Retrofitted with Response Modification Elements”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamic, V. 38, pp. 759-781, DOI: 10.1002/eqe.865.
33. Weng, Y. T., Tsai, K. C., Chan, Y. R., 2010, “A Ground Motion Scaling Method Considering Higher Mode Effect and Structural Characteristics”, Earthquake Spectra, V. 26, No. 3, Aug., pp. 841-867, DOI: 10.1193/1.3460374.