Conditional spectrum-based ground motion selection. Part I: Hazard consistency for risk-based assessments

Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics

Volumn 42, Issue 12, 2013, Pages 1847-1865

  Lin, Ting ^a   Haselton, Curt B ^b   Baker, Jack W ^a  

^a Stanford University   (United States)

^b CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Conditional spectrum; Ground motion selection; Nonlinear analysis; Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis; Response spectra; Seismic risk assessment

Indexed keywords

HAZARDS; NONLINEAR ANALYSIS; REINFORCED CONCRETE; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK PERCEPTION; SEISMIC DESIGN; SEISMIC RESPONSE; SITE SELECTION;

CONDITIONAL SPECTRUMS; GROUND MOTION SELECTIONS; PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS; RESPONSE SPECTRA; SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT;

EARTHQUAKES;

AMPLITUDE; CONCRETE STRUCTURE; DYNAMIC ANALYSIS; DYNAMIC RESPONSE; GROUND MOTION; MULTISTOREY BUILDING; NONLINEARITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEISMIC RESPONSE; SPECTRAL ANALYSIS; STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS; STRUCTURAL RESPONSE;

EID: 84883772577     PISSN: 00988847     EISSN: 10969845     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/eqe.2301     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Cornell CA, Krawinkler H.Progress and challenges in seismic performance assessment. PEER Center News 2000; 3(2):1-3.
2. Krawinkler H, Miranda E.Performance-based earthquake engineering. In Earthquake Engineering: From Engineering Seismology to Performance-Based Engineering, Bozorgnia Y, Bertero V V (eds.) CRC Press: Boca Raton, 2004.
3. ATC. Guidelines for seismic performance assessment of buildings, ATC-58 100% draft. Technical Report, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California, 2011.
4. Lin T, Haselton CB, Baker JW.Conditional-spectrum-based ground motion selection. Part II: Intensity-based assessments and evaluation of alternative target spectra. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 2013. DOI 10.1002/eqe.2303.
5. Baker JW, Cornell CA.Spectral shape, epsilon and record selection. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 2006; 35(9):1077-1095, DOI 10.1002/eqe.571.
6. Baker JW.Conditional mean spectrum: Tool for ground motion selection. Journal of Structural Engineering 2011; 137(3):322-331.
7. Lin T, Harmsen SC, Baker JW, Luco N.Conditional spectrum computation incorporating multiple causal earthquakes and ground motion prediction models. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 2013; 103(2A):1103-1116, DOI 10.1785/0120110293.
8. Jayaram N, Lin T, Baker JW.A computationally efficient ground-motion selection algorithm for matching a target response spectrum mean and variance. Earthquake Spectra 2011; 27(3):797-815, DOI 10.1193/1.3608002.
9. Bradley BA.A generalized conditional intensity measure approach and holistic ground-motion selection. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 2010; 39(12):1321-1342, DOI 10.1002/eqe.995.
10. Bradley BA.A ground motion selection algorithm based on the generalized conditional intensity measure approach. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2012; 40(0):48-61, DOI 10.1016/j.soildyn.2012.04.007.
11. Bradley BA.The seismic demand hazard and importance of the conditioning intensity measure. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 2012; 41(11):1417-1437, DOI 10.1002/eqe.2221.
12. Haselton CB, Baker JW.Ground motion intensity measures for collapse capacity prediction: Choice of optimal spectral period and effect of spectral shape, 8th National Conference on Earthquake Engineering: San Francisco, California, 2006; 10pp.
13. Shome N, Cornell CA, Bazzurro P, Carballo JE.Earthquakes, records, and nonlinear responses. Earthquake Spectra 1998; 14(3):469-500.
14. ATC. Quantification of building seismic performance factors, FEMA P695. Technical Report, Applied Technology Council: Redwood City, California, 2009.
15. Haselton CB, Deierlein GG.Assessing seismic collapse safety of modern reinforced concrete moment frame buildings. Technical Report 2007/08, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center: Berkeley, CA, 2007.
16. OpenSEES. Open system for earthquake engineering simulation. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, 2011. (Available from: http://opensees.berkeley.edu/ [Accessed on Sep 9, 2011]).
17. ICC. International Building Code 2003, International Code Council: Falls Church, VA, 2003.
18. Boore DM, Atkinson GM.Ground-motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA at spectral periods between 0.01s and 10.0s. Earthquake Spectra 2008; 24(1):99-138.
19. Campbell KW, Bozorgnia Y.NGA ground motion model for the geometric mean horizontal component of PGA, PGV, PGD and 5% damped linear elastic response spectra for periods ranging from 0.01 to 10s. Earthquake Spectra 2008; 24(1):139-171, DOI 10.1193/1.2857546.
20. Chiou BSJ, Youngs RR.An NGA model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra. Earthquake Spectra 2008; 24(1):173-215, DOI 10.1193/1.2894832.
21. Abrahamson NA, Al Atik L.Scenario spectra for design ground motions and risk calculation, 9th US National and 10th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering: Toronto, Canada, 2010; Paper Number 1896, 12pp.
22. Gulerce Z, Abrahamson NA.Site-specific design spectra for vertical ground motion. Earthquake Spectra 2011; 27(4):1023-1047.
23. Baker JW, Jayaram N.Correlation of spectral acceleration values from NGA ground motion models. Earthquake Spectra 2008; 24(1):299-317.
24. Jayaram N, Baker JW.Statistical tests of the joint distribution of spectral acceleration values. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 2008; 98(5):2231-2243, DOI 10.1785/0120070208.
25. Chiou B, Darragh R, Gregor N, Silva W.NGA project strong-motion database. Earthquake Spectra 2008; 24(1):23-44, DOI 10.1193/1.2894831.
26. Bradley BA.OpenSHA Implementation of the GCIM Approach for Ground Motion Selection. Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC) Annual Meeting: Palm Springs, CA, (2010).
27. Ibarra LF, Medina RA, Krawinkler H.Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 2005; 34(12):1489-1511.
28. Shome N, Cornell CA.Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of nonlinear structures. Technical Report RMS-35, RMS Program: Stanford, CA, 1999.
29. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA.Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 2002; 31(3):491-514.
30. Song J, Ellingwood BR.Seismic reliability of special moment steel frames with welded connections: I. Journal of Structural Engineering 1999; 125(4):357-371.
31. Shinozuka M, Feng MQ, Lee J, Naganuma T.Statistical analysis of fragility curves. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 2000; 126(12):1224-1231.
32. Sasani M, Kiureghian AD.Seismic fragility of RC structural walls: Displacement approach. Journal of Structural Engineering 2001; 127(2):219-228.
33. Aslani H, Miranda E.Probability-based seismic response analysis. Engineering Structures 2005; 27(8):1151-1163.
34. Stoica M, Medina RA, McCuen RH.Improved probabilistic quantification of drift demands for seismic evaluation. Structural Safety 2007; 29(2):132-145.
35. Baker JW.Vector-valued ground motion intensity measures for probabilistic seismic demand analysis. PhD Thesis, Stanford University, 2005.
36. Straub D, Kiureghian AD.Improved seismic fragility modeling from empirical data. Structural Safety 2008; 30(4):320-336.
37. Lin T.Advancement of hazard-consistent ground motion selection methodology. PhD Thesis, Stanford University, 2012.
38. ATC. An Investigation of the Correlation Between Earthquake Ground Motion and Building Performance, ATC-10 Technical Report: Applied Technology Council: Palo Alto, California, 1982.
39. Bradley BA, Dhakal RP, MacRae GA, Cubrinovski M.Prediction of spatially distributed seismic demands in specific structures: Ground motion and structural response. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 2010; 39(5):501-520, DOI 10.1002/eqe.954.
40. Bradley BA, Dhakal RP, MacRae GA, Cubrinovski M.Prediction of spatially distributed seismic demands in specific structures: Structural response to loss estimation. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 2010; 39(6):591-613, DOI 10.1002/eqe.955.
41. Luco N, Cornell CA.Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for near-source and ordinary earthquake ground motions. Earthquake Spectra 2007; 23(2):357-392.
42. NIST. Selecting and scaling earthquake ground motions for performing response-history analyses, NIST GCR 11-917-15. Technical Report, prepared by the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland, 2011.