As nonlinear response history analysis (NLRHA) becomes a frequently used procedure for the seismic demand evaluation of multistory buildings, it becomes increasingly important to develop a ground motion scaling method which properly includes the dominating modes in the seismic demand estimates. This paper proposes a multimode ground motion scaling (MMS) method, which applies the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) or complete quadratic combination (CQC) rule in computing peak seismic demands. The aim is to minimize the weighted sum of the square differences between the spectral responses of a given ground motion and the design response spectrum for the first few modes. Using four case studies, this paper compares the effectiveness of the MMS method with the other common scaling procedures. It is illustrated that the MMS method is effective in reducing the scatter in the peak seismic demands computed from both the response spectral analysis (RSA) and the NLRHA. Recommendations for selecting the ground motion records for the application of MMS method are also provided.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbrahamsonN. A., 1992. “Non-stationary spectral matching,”Seismol. Res. Lett.63, 30.
2.
Architecture Buildings Research Institute (ABRI), 2005. Recommended Provisions for Building Seismic Regulations, Taipei (in Chinese).
3.
BakerJ. W., and CornellC. A., 2006a. “Spectral shape, epsilon and record selection,”Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn.35, 1077–1095.
4.
BakerJ. W., and CornellC. A., 2006b. “Correlation of response spectral values for multi-component ground motions,”Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.96, 215–27.
5.
BakerJ. W., 2007. “Measuring bias in structural response caused by ground motion scaling,” in Proceedings of 8th Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Nangyang Technological University, Singapore.
6.
BazzurroP., and LucoN., 2006. “Do scaled and spectrum-matched near-source records produce biased nonlinear structural responses?,” in Proceedings of the 8th U. S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 1029, San Francisco, CA.
7.
ChaiJ. F., LohC. H., and SatoH., 2002. “Modeling of phase spectrum to simulate design ground motions,”J. Chin. Inst. Eng.25, 447–459.
8.
ChopraA. K., and GoelR. K., 2002. “A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings,”Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn.31, 561–582.
9.
ChopraA. K., 2003. Dynamic of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering2nd Edition, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 844 pp.
Der KiureghianA., 1981. “A response spectrum method for random vibration analysis of MDF systems,”Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn.9, 419–435.
12.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 267), 1995. “Interim Guidelines: Evaluation, Repair, Modification and Design of Welded Steel Moment Frame Structures,” Report No. FEMA 267.
13.
GaspariniD., and VanmarckeE. H., 1976. SIMQKE: A Program for Artificial Motion Generation, Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
14.
GouletC. A., HaseltonC. B., Mitrani-ReiserJ., BeckJ. L., DeierleinG., PorterK. A., and StewartJ. P., 2007. “Evaluation of the seismic performance of a code-conforming reinforced-concrete frame building-From seismic hazard to collapse safety and economic losses,”Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn.36, 1973–1997.
15.
GuptaA., and KrawinklerH., 1999. Seismic Demands for Performance Evaluation of Steel Moment Resisting Frame Structures (SAC task 5.4.3), Report No. 132, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University.
16.
HancockJ., Watson-LampreyJ., AbrahamsonN., BommerJ., MarkatisA., McCoyE., and MendisR., 2006. “An improved method of matching response spectra of recorded earthquake ground motion using wavelets,”J. Earthquake Eng.10, 67–89.
17.
HaseltonC. B., 2009. Evaluation of Ground Motion Selection and Modification Methods: Predicting Median Interstory Drift Response of Buildings, PEER 2009/01.
18.
International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), 1994. Uniform Building Code, ICBO: Whittier, CA.
19.
International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), 2006. International Building Code, ICBO: Whittier, CA.
20.
KircherC. A.2005. “Code requirements for the selection and scaling of ground motion records,” presentation made to the 2005 COSMOS Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA.
21.
KuramaY. C., and FarrowK. T., 2003. “Ground motion scaling methods for different site conditions and structure characteristics,”Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn.32, 2425–2450.
22.
LinB. Z., ChuangM. C.TsaiK. C., 2009. “Object-oriented development and application of a nonlinear structural analysis framework,”Adv. Eng. Software40, 66–82.
23.
LopezO. A., and CruzM., 1996. “Number of modes for the seismic design of buildings,”Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn.25, 837–855.
MalhotraP. K., 2003. “Strong-motion records for site-specific analysis,”Earthquake Spectra19, 557–578.
26.
McGuireR. K., 1995. “Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and design earthquakes: Close the loop,”Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.66, 1275–1284.
27.
NaeimF., AlimoradiA., and PezeshkS., 2004. “Selection and scaling of ground motions time histories for structural design using genetic algorithms,”Earthquake Spectra20, 413–426.
28.
NCDR and NCREE, 2006. Preliminary Reconnaissance Report of the 2006 Hengtsun Earthquake, Report No. NCREE-07-001, Taipei (in Chinese).
PowersM., 2004. Design ground motion library, Geotechnical Engineering for Transportation Projects, Proceedings of Geo-Trans 2004, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 126, ASCE, 778–786.
31.
ShantzT., 2006. Selection and scaling of earthquake records for nonlinear dynamic analysis of first mode dominate bridge structures, Proceedings of the 8th National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA.
32.
ShomeN., and CornellC. A., 1998. Normalization and scaling accelerograms for nonlinear structural analysis, Sixth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering (CD-ROM), Seattle, WA.
33.
SilvaW. J., and LeeK., 1987. State-of-the-art for assessing earthquake hazards in the United States: WES RASCAL code for synthesizing earthquake ground motions, Miscellaneous Paper S-73-1, Report 24, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
34.
SomervilleP. G., SmithN., PunyamurthulaS., and SunJ., 1997. Development of Ground Motion Time Histories for Phase 2 of the FEMA/SAC Steel Project, SAC Background Document Report No. SAC/BD-9/04, SAC Joint Venture, 555 University Ave., Sacramento, CA.
35.
TothongP., and LucoN., 2007. Probabilistic seismic demand analysis using advanced ground motion intensity measures, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn.36, 1837–1860.
36.
WengY. T., TsaiK. C., ChenP. C., ChouC. C., ChanY. R., JhuangS. J., and WangY. Y., 2009. Seismic performance evaluation of a 34-story steel building retrofitted with response modification elements, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn.38, 2425–2450.
