Incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) is widespread to evaluate the seismic response of structures. It employs one records set scaled to multiple intensity levels (IMLs) to estimate the structural response distribution. However, the dominating earthquake scenarios differ with the intensity, and a single set introduces bias that increases with scaling. The response is, however, better estimated using multiple stripe analysis (MSA) by selecting multiple hazard consistent record sets at different IMLs via, for example, conditional spectrum (CS) method. Still, IDA remains a popular tool, and would benefit from a single “good” set that would be more amenable to scaling with minimal bias. We explore alternatives of a “multi-level” CS (CSML) scheme, whereby the seismic properties of multiple IMLs are combined to derive a single set. Combined with advanced IMs, CSML provides a viable trade-off between the more accurate and complex method of CS–MSA versus the conceptually and practically simpler IDA.
AdamCKampenhuberDIbarraLFTsantakiS (2016) Optimal spectral acceleration-based intensity measure for seismic collapse assessment of P-delta vulnerable frame structures. Journal of Earthquake Engineering21: 1189–1195.
2.
BakerJW (2011) The conditional mean spectrum: A tool for ground motion selection. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering137: 322–331.
3.
BakerJW (2015) Efficient analytical fragility function fitting using dynamic structural analysis. Earthquake Spectra31(1): 579–599.
4.
BakerJWCornellCA (2005) A vector-valued ground motion intensity measure consisting of spectral acceleration and epsilon. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics34(10): 1193–1217.
5.
BakerJWJayaramN (2008) Correlation of spectral acceleration values from NGA ground motion models. Earthquake Spectra24: 299–317.
6.
BakerJWLeeC (2017) An improved algorithm for selecting ground motions to match a conditional spectrum. Journal of Earthquake Engineering22: 708–723.
7.
BazzurroPCornellCA (1999) Disaggregation of seismic hazard. Bulletin of Seismological Society of America89(2): 501–529.
8.
BooreDMAtkinsonGM (2008) 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. Earthquake Spectra24(1): 99–138.
9.
BradleyBA (2010) A generalized conditional intensity measure approach and holistic ground-motion selection. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics39(12): 1321–1342.
10.
CornellCAKrawinklerH (2000) Progress and challenges in seismic performance assessment. PEER Center News3: 1–3.
11.
DávalosHMirandaE (2019a). Evaluation of bias on the probability of collapse from amplitude scaling using spectral-shape-matched records. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics48(8): 970–986.
12.
DávalosHMirandaE (2019b) Evaluation of the scaling factor bias influence on the probability of collapse using Sa(T1) as the intensity measure. Earthquake Spectra35(2): 679–702.
13.
EadsLMirandaELignosDG (2015) Average spectral acceleration as an intensity measure for collapse risk assessment. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics44(12): 2057–2073.
14.
FEMA P695 (2009) Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
15.
FEMA P-58 (2012) Federal Emergency Management Agency: Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
HaseltonCBakerJLielADeierleinG (2011) Accounting for ground-motion spectral shape characteristics in structural collapse assessment through an adjustment for epsilon. Journal of Structural Engineering137(3): 332–344.
18.
JalayerF (2003) Direct probabilistic seismic analysis: Implementing non-linear dynamic assessment. PhD Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
19.
JalayerFEbrahimianHMianoAManfrediGSezenH (2017) Analytical fragility assessment using unscaled ground motion records. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics46(15): 2639–2663.
20.
JayaramNLinTBakerJW (2011) A computationally efficient ground-motion selection algorithm for matching a target response spectrum mean and variance. Earthquake Spectra27(3): 797–815.
21.
KazantziAKVamvatsikosD (2015) Intensity measure selection for vulnerability studies of building classes. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics44(15): 2677–2694.
22.
KohrangiMBazzurroPVamvatsikosD (2016a). Vector and scalar IMs in structural response estimation, part I: Hazard analysis. Earthquake Spectra32(3): 1507–1524.
23.
KohrangiMBazzurroPVamvatsikosDSpillaturaA (2017a). Conditional spectrum-based ground motion record selection using average spectral acceleration. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics46(10): 1667–1685.
24.
KohrangiMVamvatsikosDBazzurroP (2016b). Implications of intensity measure selection for seismic loss assessment of 3-D buildings. Earthquake Spectra32(4): 2167–2189.
25.
KohrangiMVamvatsikosDBazzurroP (2017b). Site dependence and record selection schemes for building fragility and regional loss assessment. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics46(10): 1625–1643.
26.
KohrangiMVamvatsikosDBazzurroP (2020) Record selection variability in conditional spectrum approaches: Injecting uncertainty where it seems to be absent (Under Review).
27.
KramerSL (1996) Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
28.
LinTBakerJW (2013) Introducing adaptive incremental dynamic analysis: A new tool for linking ground motion selection and structural response assessment. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on structural safety and reliability (ICOSSAR 2013), New York, 16–20 June.
29.
LinTHarmsenSCBakerJWLucoN (2013a) Conditional spectrum computation incorporating multiple causal earthquakes and ground motion prediction models. Bulletin of Seismological Society of America103(2A): 1103–1116.
30.
LinTHaseltonCBBakerJW (2013b) Conditional spectrum-based ground motion selection. Part I: Hazard consistency for risk-based assessments. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics42(12): 1847–1865.
31.
LucoNBazzurroP (2007) Does amplitude scaling of ground motion records result in biased nonlinear structural drift responses?Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics36(13): 1813–1836.
32.
LucoNCornellCA (2007). Structure-Specific Scalar Intensity Measures for Near-Source and Ordinary Earthquake Ground Motions. Earthquake Spectra, 23(2), 357–392. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2723158
33.
McGuireRK (1995) Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and design earthquakes: Closing the loop. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America85(5): 1275–1284.
34.
McKennaFFenvesGJeremicBScottM (2000) Open system for earthquake engineering simulation. Available at: http://opensees.berkeley.edu (accessed September 2018).
35.
MianoAJalayerFEbrahimianHProtaA (2018) Cloud to IDA: Efficient fragility assessment with limited scaling. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics47(5): 1124–1147.
36.
PaganiMMonelliDWeatherillGDanciuLCrowleyHSilvaVHenshawPButlerLNastasiMPanzeriLSimionatoMViganoD (2014) OpenQuake Engine: An open hazard (and risk) software for the global earthquake model. Seismological Research Letters85: 692–702.
37.
ShomeNCornellCA (1999) Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of nonlinear structures. Report no. RMS-35. Stanford, CA: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University.
38.
SpillaturaA (2018) From record selection to risk targeted spectra for risk based assessment and design. PhD Thesis, University of Pavia, Pavia.
39.
TarbaliKBradleyBA (2016) The effect of causal parameter bounds in PSHA-based ground motion selection. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics45(9): 1515–1535.
VamvatsikosDCornellCA (2005) Developing efficient scalar and vector intensity measures for IDA capacity estimation by incorporating elastic spectral shape information. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics34: 1573–1600.
42.
VamvatsikosDBakalisDKohrangiMPyrzaSCastiglioniCAKanyilmazAMorelliFStratanAD’AnielloMCaladoLMiguel ProençaJDegeeHHoffmeisterBPinkawaMThanopoulosPVayasI (2020) A risk-consistent approach to determine EN1998 behaviour factors for lateral load resisting systems. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering131: 106008.
