The widely used incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) offers attractive efficiencies to organize and conduct nonlinear dynamic structural analyses under earthquake ground motions. However, its use of a fixed ground motion set limits its ability to resolve ground motion characteristics that vary based on location and intensity. To overcome this limitation and utilize IDA in site-specific seismic risk analysis, a new method is proposed, called the site-specific adjustment framework for incremental dynamic analysis (SAF-IDA), which involves two modifications to conventional IDA. The first is a process to select input ground motions for the IDA over a distributed grid of ground motion characteristics that influence structural response. The second is a post-processing procedure to develop a surrogate model from the raw IDA data to adjust the structural response results based on site- and intensity-specific ground motion hazard parameters. The proposed SAF-IDA method is illustrated in case study analyses of archetype building structures and validated through comparison with analysis results based on more computationally intensive multiple stripe analysis (MSA), which employs site-specific selection of ground motions for each intensity level.
BakerJW (2011) Conditional mean spectrum: Tool for ground-motion selection. Journal of Structural Engineering137: 322–331.
6.
BakerJWCornellAC (2005) A vector-valued ground motion intensity measure consisting of spectral acceleration and epsilon. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics34: 1193–1217.
7.
BakerJWLinTShahiSKJayaramN (2011) New ground motion selection procedures and selected motions for the PEER transportation research program. PEER report 3. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center.
8.
BommerJJMartinez-PereiraA (1999) The effective duration of earthquake strong motion. Journal of Earthquake Engineering3: 127–172.
9.
BooreDMStewartJPSeyhanEAtkinsonGM (2014) NGA-West2 equations for predicting PGA, PGV, and 5% damped PSA for shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra30: 1057–1085.
10.
BradleyBA (2010) A generalized conditional intensity measure approach and holistic ground-motion selection. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics39: 1321–1342.
11.
BradleyBA (2011) Correlation of significant duration with amplitude and cumulative intensity measures and its use in ground motion selection. Journal of Earthquake Engineering15: 809–832.
12.
ChandramohanRBakerJWDeierleinGG (2016a) Impact of hazard-consistent ground motion duration in structural collapse risk assessment. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics45: 1357–1379.
13.
ChandramohanRBakerJWDeierleinGG (2016b) Quantifying the influence of ground motion duration on structural collapse capacity using spectrally equivalent records. Earthquake Spectra32: 927–950.
14.
ChandramohanRBakerJWDeierleinGG (2020) Duration of earthquake ground motion: Influence on structural collapse risk and integration in design and assessment practice. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center Technical Report 200. Stanford Digital Repository. Available at: https://purl.stanford.edu/vk163cm0825 (accessed on June 6, 2021).
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2009) Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors. Washington, DC: FEMA.
17.
GokkayaBUBakerJWDeierleinGG (2016) Quantifying the impacts of modeling uncertainties on the seismic drift demands and collapse risk of buildings with implications on seismic design checks. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics45: 1661–1683.
18.
HaseltonCBLielABLangeSTDeierleinGG (2008) Beam-column Element Model Calibrated for Predicting Flexural Response Leading to Global Collapse of RC Frame Buildings. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
19.
IbarraLFMedinaRAKrawinklerH (2005) Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics34: 1489–1511.
20.
JalayerF (2003) Direct probabilistic seismic analysis: Implementing non-linear dynamic assessments. PhD thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
21.
JayaramNLinTBakerJW (2011) A computationally efficient ground-motion selection algorithm for matching a target response spectrum mean and variance. Earthquake Spectra27: 797–815.
22.
KohrangiMBazzurroPVamvatsikosD (2016) Vector and scalar IMs in structural response estimation, Part I: Hazard analysis. Earthquake Spectra32: 1507–1524.
23.
KohrangiMVamvatsikosDBazzurroP (2020) Multi-level conditional spectrum-based record selection for IDA. Earthquake Spectra36: 1976–1994.
24.
LinTBakerJW (2013) Introducing Adaptive Incremental Dynamic Analysis: A New Tool for Linking Ground Motion Selection and Structural Response Assessment. 11th International Conference on Structural Safety & Reliability, New York, 16–20 June 2013, 805–811.
25.
LinTHaseltonCBBakerJW (2013) Conditional spectrum-based ground motion selection. Part I: Hazard consistency for risk-based assessments. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics42: 1847–1865.
26.
LoaderC (2006) Local Regression and Likelihood. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.
27.
MarafiNABermanJWEberhardMO (2016) Ductility-dependent intensity measure that accounts for ground-motion spectral shape and duration. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics45: 653–672.
28.
MazzoniSMcKennaFScottMHFenvesGL (2006) OpenSees Command Language Manual. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center 264.
29.
NIST (2011) Selecting and scaling earthquake ground motions for performing response-history analyses. NIST GCR 11-917-15. Gaithersburg, MD: NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture for the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Available at: https://www.nehrp.gov/pdf/nistgcr11-917-15.pdf (accessed on June 6, 2021).
30.
RaghunandanMLielAB (2013) Effect of ground motion duration on earthquake-induced structural collapse. Structural Safety41: 119–133.
31.
TibshiraniRJEfronB (1993) An introduction to the bootstrap. Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability57: 1–436.
