GROUND MOTION SELECTION

AND SCALING USING

RESPONSE HISTORY ANALYSIS

COMPRE PRESENTATION
INTRODUCTION
ž onlinear response-history analyses are used by the
N
engineering community as the most reliable technique to
estimate structural behaviour.
ž round motions are selected and scaled to enable
G
response-history analysis that supports either design or
performance assessment.
RECAP
• USE

• GOALS

• STATE OF PRACTICE
Recommendations for Design
Practice
Response-history analysis of a building
model involves the following steps:
1. Identify the goal(s) of the analysis,
2. Select a target spectrum (or spectra) for analysis,
3. Select and scale earthquake ground motions
consistent with the target spectrum (spectra), and
4. Perform analysis and interpret the results.
Identifying goal(s) of the analysis,
The first step requires the analyst to identify the goal(s)
of the analysis, namely,
• design or performance-assessment,
• calculation of mean values of response parameters
(e.g., component deformation, component force) or
• distributions of response parameters.
Selecting and scaling earthquake ground
motions consistent with the target
spectrum (spectra)
• Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA)
Such analysis employs ground motion prediction equations
that relate earthquake-scenario information (e.g., a
magnitude, M, and distance, R, pair) and site information
(e.g., Vs or a qualitative description of the soil column) to the
ground motion intensity levels that are expected at the
building site.
For a given ground motion scenario, ground motion
prediction equations provide an estimate of the median
expected ground motion intensity and the variability in the
prediction (typically in terms of a logarithmic standard
deviation, σLN)
A CASE STUDY-
A 20-story building located in Palo Alto, California:
A site having a soil shear wave velocity in the upper 30 meters of
Vs,30 = 400 m/s. Assume the building has a fixed-base first-mode
period, T1, of 2.6 seconds, and its performance is to be assessed
for shaking with a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (or a
return period of 2475 years).
This figure a shows Sa,gm (2.6s) = 0.45g for the 2% in 50 year ground motion. Figure b shows
the disaggregation for this ground motion intensity at the Palo Alto site. Based on this
disaggregation, the controlling earthquake scenario has magnitude 7.8 and R = 11 km. The
disaggregation includes a value of 1.3 for ε, the number of log standard deviations by which
the predicted value exceeds the median.
● Uniform Hazard Spectrum (UHS)
• The UHS is created by PSHA at many periods in the range of interest, selecting a
frequency of exceedance for the hazard, , calculating the value of spectral
acceleration at each period for which PSHA was performed, and plotting spectral
acceleration versus period.

• The hazard calculations are performed period by period.

• The UHS is a conservative target spectrum for seismic analysis of buildings,

especially for very rare levels of ground motion where it is most unlikely that
high amplitude spectral values are observed at all periods in a single ground
motion set.
PALO ALTO CASE
“ ϵ ffect” - a real phenomenon
Conditional Mean Spectrum
• The CMS conditions the entire spectrum on spectral
acceleration at a single user specified period and then
computes the mean values of spectral acceleration at all
other periods.
PROCEDURE IS...
PALO ALTO CASE
Ground Motion analysis and Matching
• Once the CMS is computed, it can be used to select ground motions for use in dynamic analysis of
structures.
• To find ground motions matching a target CMS, one must first identify the period range over which
the CMS should be matched
FRAGILITY CURVES COMPARISON
Pro and Cons of using CMS over UHS
 NOTATIONS:
M = earthquake magnitude;

R = distance from earthquake source to the site of interest;

Sa = spectral acceleration;

T* = primary period of interest for computing the CMS;

Ti = iith fundamental period of vibration of a structure;

ε = normalized residual from a ground-motion model prediction;

μl = predicted (by a ground-motion model) mean value of log spectral acceleration;

ρ = correlation coefficient; and

σ = predicted (by a ground-motion model) standard deviation of log spectral acceleration.

CONCLUSION
The result is that CMS can be used as a target spectrum for ground-motion selection
when performing dynamic analysis of structures. A step-by-step procedure is present
for computing this spectrum and for selecting and scaling ground motions to match this
spectrum. The level of effort required to implement this procedure is comparable to the
effort required to obtain ground motions that match a UHS, and no significant new
procedures are required beyond those needed to compute the UHS.
Several arguments arise regarding why the CMS is a useful target for ground-motion
selection. The alternative UHS is significantly conservative for some purposes: the
stated probability level associated with a UHS is the probability of exceeding any single
spectral value, but the probability of simultaneously exceeding all spectral values from
a UHS is much smaller (and is also unknown). The structural responses from ground
motions matching the more probabilistically consistent CMS are thus significantly
smaller than the responses from ground motions matching the UHS and having the
same Sa(T∗)level.
THANK YOU!