The modal-pushover-based-scaling (MPS) procedure, currently restricted to scale one component of ground motion records, is extended herein to scale two horizontal components. The accuracy and efficiency of the MPS procedure is evaluated here by applying it to an existing nine-story building, symmetric in plan. The computer model developed for the building is validated against motions of the building recorded during the Chino Hills earthquake (2008). It is demonstrated that nonlinear response history analysis (RHA) of the building for a small set of records scaled by the MPS procedure provided a highly accurate estimate of the engineering demand parameters (EDPs), accompanied by significantly reduced record-to-record variability of the responses. Furthermore, the MPS procedure is shown to be much superior to the procedure specified in the ASCE/SEI 7-05 standard for scaling two components of ground motion records.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlaviB.KrawinklerH.2000. Consideration of near-fault ground motion effects in seismic design, Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, paper 2665, Auckland, New Zealand.
2.
AlaviB.KrawinklerH.2004. Behavior of moment-resisting frame structures subjected to near-fault ground motions, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics33, 687–706.
3.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE),2005. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-05, Reston, VA.
4.
BazzurroP.1998. Probabilistic seismic demand analysis, Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University, CA.
5.
BakerJ. W.CornellA. C.2006. Spectral shape, epsilon and record selection, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics35, 1077–1095.
6.
BeyerK.BommerJ. J.2007. Selection and scaling of real accelerograms for bi-directional loading: a review of current practice and code provisions, Journal of Earthquake Engineering11, 13–45.
7.
ChopraA. K.2007. Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering, 3rd Edition. Prentice Hall: New Jersey.
8.
ChopraA. K.GoelR. K.2004. A modal pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic demands for unsymmetric-plan buildings, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics33, 903–927.
9.
Computers and Structures (CSI), Inc.,2006. PERFORM 3D, User Guide v4, Non-linear Analysis and Performance Assessment for 3D Structures, Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley, CA.
10.
GiraldoD. F.SongW.DykeS. J.CaicedoJ. M.2009. Modal identification through ambient vibration: comparative study, Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE135, 759–770.
11.
KalkanE.ChopraA. K.2010. Practical Guidelines to Select and Scale Earthquake Records for Nonlinear Response History Analysis of Structures, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010.
12.
KalkanE.ChopraA. K.2012. Evaluation of modal pushover-based scaling of one component of ground motion: tall buildings, Earthquake Spectra28, this issue.
13.
KennedyR. P.ShortS. A.MerzK. L.TokarzF. J.IdrissI. M.PowerM. S.SadighK.1984. Engineering Characterization of Ground Motion-task 1: Effects of Characteristics of Free-Field Motion on Structural Response, NUREG/CR-3805, U.S. Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
14.
KuramaY.FarrowK.2003. Ground motion scaling methods for different site conditions and structure characteristics, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics32, 2425–2450.
15.
LilhanandK.TsengW. S.1987. Generation of synthetic time histories compatible with multiple-damping design response spectra, Transactions of the 9th International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, Lausanne, K1, 105–110.
16.
LucoN.CornellA. C.2007. Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for near-source and ordinary earthquake ground motions, Earthquake Spectra23, 357–392.
17.
MehannyS. S. F.1999. Modeling and assessment of seismic performance of composite frames with reinforced concrete columns and steel beams, Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University, CA.
18.
MalhotraP. K.2003. Strong-motion records for site-specific analysis, Earthquake Spectra19, 557–578.
19.
NaeimF.AlimoradiA.PezeshkS.2004. Selection and scaling of ground motion time histories for structural design using genetic algorithms, Earthquake Spectra20, 413–426.
20.
NauJ.HallW.1984. Scaling methods for earthquake response spectra, Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE110, 91–109.
21.
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER),2009. Evaluation of Ground Motion Selection and Modification Methods: Predicting Median Interstory Drift Response of Buildings, HaseltonC. B. (editor), PEER Report 2009/01, PEER Ground Motion Selection and Modification Working Group, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
22.
ReyesJ. C.2009. Estimating Seismic Demands for Performance-Based Engineering of Buildings, Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Berkeley.
ShomeN.CornellC. A.1999. Probabilistic Seismic Demand Analysis of Nonlinear Structures, Reliability of Marine Structures Program, Report No. RMS-35, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, CA.
25.
TothongP.CornellC. A.2008. Structural performance assessment under near-source pulse-like ground motions using advanced ground motion intensity measures, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics37, 1013–1037.
26.
Van OverscheeP.De MoorB.1996. Subspace Identification for Linear Systems, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 272 pp.
27.
YoungsR.PowerM.WangG.MakdisiF.ChinC. C.2007. Design Ground Motion Library (DGML) – Tool for Selecting Time History Records for Specific Engineering Applications (Abstract), SMIP07 Seminar on Utilization of Strong-Motion Data, 109–110.
