The use of nonlinear dynamic analysis provides significant uncertainties on the seismic demand, especially when recorded ground motions are used. As these uncertainties strongly depend on ground motion selection and modification (GMSM) methods, a spectrum-compatibility criterion and a method based on the minimization of the scaling factor are compared in this work. The variability of a representative engineering demand parameter (EDP), obtained by subjecting ten reinforced concrete structures to different groups of records, is investigated through a sensitivity study based on the “Tornado diagram analysis.” The results show that the variability of the structural demand produced by the variation of the ground motion profile amplifies significantly with the increase in complexity and irregularity of the structures. More specifically, for regular structures, the selected GMSM criteria provide very similar variability while with the increase of irregularities, the spectrum-compatibility criterion produces a minimization of the demand uncertainty.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BakerJ. W., and CornellC. A., 2005. A vector-valued ground motion intensity measure consisting of spectral acceleration and epsilon, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics34, 1193–1217.
2.
BazzurroP., and CornellC. A., 1999. Disaggregation of seismic hazard, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America89, 501–520.
3.
BeyerK., and BommerJ. J., 2006. Relationships between median values and between aleatory variabilities for different definitions of the horizontal component of motion, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America96, 1512–1522.
4.
BiniciB., and MosalamK. M., 2007. Analysis of reinforced concrete columns retrofitted with fiber reinforced polymer lamina, Composites Part B: Engineering38, 265–276.
5.
CantagalloC., CamataG., SpaconeE., and CorotisR., 2012. The variability of deformation demand with ground motion intensity, Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics28, 59–65.
6.
ConteJ. P., BarbatoM., and SpaconeE., 2004. Finite element response sensitivity analysis using force-based frame models, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering59, 1781–1820.
7.
CruzJ. B., and PerkinsW. R., 1964. A new approach to the sensitivity problem in multivariable feedback system design, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr. AC-9, 216–223.
8.
EschenbachT. G., 1992. Spider plots versus Tornado diagrams for sensitivity snalysis, Interfaces22, 40–46.
9.
European Committee on Standardization (CEN), 2004. UNI EN 1998-1:2005, Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance - Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, EN1998-1, Brussels.
10.
European Committee on Standardization (CEN), 2005. EN 1998-3: 2005, Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance - Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings, EN1998-3, Brussels.
FaggellaM., BarbosaA. R., ConteJ. P., SpaconeE., and RestrepoJ. I., 2012. Probabilistic seismic response analysis of a 3-D reinforced concrete building, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, under review.
13.
IervolinoI., MaddaloniG., and CosenzaE., 2008. Eurocode 8 compliant record sets for seismic analysis of structures, Journal of Earthquake Engineering12, 54–90.
KentD. C., and ParkR., 1971. Flexural members with confined concrete, Journal of the Structural Division97, 1969–1990.
16.
LeeT.-H., and MosalamK. M., 2005. Seismic demand sensitivity of reinforced concrete shear-wall building using FOSM method, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics34, 1719–1736.
17.
LópezA., and HernándezJ. J., 2004. Structural design for multicomponent seismic motion, in Proceedings, 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper 2171, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
18.
MenegottoM., and PintoP. E., 1973. Method of analysis for cyclically loaded reinforced concrete plane frames including changes in geometry and nonelastic behavior of elements under combined normal force and bending, Zurich, in Proceedings, IABSE Symposium on Resistance and Ultimate Deformability of Structures Acted on by Well Defined Repeated Loads, 112–123.
PenzienJ., and WatabeM., 1975. Characteristics of three-dimensional earthquake ground motion, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics3, 365–374.
21.
PorterK. A., BeckJ. L., and ShaikhutdinovR. V., 2002. Sensitivity of building loss estimates to major uncertain variables, Earthquake Spectra18, 719–743.
22.
RabitzH., KramerM., and DacolD., 1983. Sensitivity analysis in chemical kinetics, Annual Review of Physical Chemistry34, 419–461.
23.
RayD., PisterK. S., and PolakE., 1978. Sensitivity analysis for hysteretic dynamic systems: theory and applications, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering14, 179–208.
24.
RothC., and GrigoriuM., 2001. Sensitivity Analysis of Dynamic Systems Subjected to Seismic Loads, Report No. MCEER-01-0003, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY.
25.
ShomeN., CornellC. A., BazzurroP., and CarballoJ. E., 1998. Earthquakes, records and nonlinear responses, Earthquake Spectra14, 469–500.
26.
Sobol'I., 1993. Sensitivity analysis for nonlinear mathematical models, Mathematical Modeling & Computational Experiment (Engl. Transl.)1, 407–414.
27.
SpaconeE., FilippouF. C., and TaucerF., 1996. Fiber beam-column model for nonlinear analysis of R/C frames: I. Formulation, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics25, 711–725.
TalaatM. M., and MosalamK. M., 2007. Computational Modeling of Progressive Collapse in Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures, PEER-2007/10, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), University of California, Berkeley.
30.
ZhangY., and Der KiureghianA., 1993. Dynamic response sensitivity of inelastic structures, Computer Methods in Applied Science and Engineering108, 23–36.
