Effect of Common U.S. Ground Motion Selection Methods on the Structural Response of Steel Moment Frame Buildings

Abstract

This study quantifies the impact of two common ground motion (GM) selection methods, included in U.S. standards, on the seismic performance evaluation of steel special moment frames. The methods investigated are a “traditional” approach, herein referred to as the target maximum considered earthquake (TMCE) method, and a newer approach known as the conditional mean spectrum (CMS) method. The TMCE method selects GMs using the risk-based maximum considered earthquake (MCE_R) spectrum as the target spectrum, while the CMS method uses the CMS that anchors the MCE_R at multiple conditioning periods. Three special steel moment frames of 4, 8, and 16 stories are designed in accordance with ASCE/SEI 7-10, and their seismic performance is assessed with the nonlinear dynamic procedure prescribed in ASCE/SEI 41-13 using GMs selected and scaled in accordance with the aforementioned methods. A comparison of statistical parameters for the reduced beam sections and column hinges is conducted using the normalized demand-to-capacity ratio (DCR), as the output parameter. The buildings are evaluated at the collapse prevention performance level for a far-field site located in Los Angeles, CA. In general, the CMS method results in lower DCRs of the frame components and smaller output parameter dispersion. In addition to the spectral shape, the demands are largely influenced by the spectral accelerations prescribed for each evaluated method. The consideration of collapse realizations is also documented as well as the existing and proposed statistical methods to account for these realizations. The study shows that the GM selection process can cause significant differences in structural response that may lead to different retrofitting decisions.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adam

Kampenhuber

Ibarra

L. F.

and Tsantaki

2016. Optimal spectral acceleration-based intensity measure for seismic collapse assessment of P-delta vulnerable frame structures, Journal of Earthquake Engineering 21, 1189–1195.

American Institute of Steel Construction, 2010. Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, ANSI/AISC 341-10, Chicago, IL.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2010. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-10, Reston, VA.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2014. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings, ASCE/SEI41-13, Reston, VA.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2016. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-16, Reston, VA.

Baker

J. W.

2011. Conditional mean spectrum: Tool for ground motion selection, Journal of Structural Engineering 137, 322–331.

Baker

J. W.

2016. Software for selecting earthquake ground motions to match a target conditional spectrum, available at http://web.stanford.edu/∼bakerjw/gm_selection.html (last accessed 9 September 2016).

Benjamin

J. R.

and Cornell

C. A.

1970. Probability, Statistics, and Decisions for Civil Engineers, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 684 pp.

Bradley

B. A.

2010. A generalized conditional intensity measure approach and holistic ground-motion selection, Earthquake Engineering Structural Dynamics 39, 1321–1342.

10.

Campbell

K. W.

and Bozorgnia

2008. NGA ground motion model for the geometric mean horizontal component of PGA, PGV, PGD and 5% damped linear elastic response spectra for periods ranging from 0.01 to 10 s, Earthquake Spectra 24, 139–171.

11.

Computers and Structures, Inc., 2011. PERFORM-3D, Berkeley, CA, available at https://www.csiamerica.com/products/perform-3d.

12.

Dhakal

R. P.

Singh

and Mander

J. B.

2007. Effectiveness of earthquake selection and scaling method in New Zealand, Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 40, 160–161.

13.

Harris

J. L.

III , and Speicher

M. S.

2015. Assessment of First Generation Performance-Based Seismic Design Methods for New Steel Buildings, Volume 1: Special Moment Frames, NIST Tech. Note 1863-1, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.

14.

Haselton

C. B.

Baker

J. W.

Bozorgnia

Goulet

C. A.

Kalkan

Luco

Shantz

T. J.

Shome

Stewart

J. P.

Tothong

Watson-Lamprey

J. A.

and Zareian

2009. Evaluation of Ground Motion Selection and Modification Methods: Predicting Median Interstory Drift Response of Buildings, PEER Report 2009/01, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA.

15.

Ibarra

and Krawinkler

2005a. Effect of uncertainty in system deterioration parameters on the variance of collapse capacity, Paper 107, in Proceedings, Ninth International Conference on Structural Safety and Reliability, June 19–23, 2005, Rome, Italy.

16.

Ibarra

L. F.

and Krawinkler

2005b. Global Collapse of Frame Structures under Seismic Excitations, Rep. No. 152, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA.

17.

International Code Council, 2012. 2012 International Building Code. Washington, DC.

18.

Jalayer

2003. Direct Probabilistic Seismic Analysis: Implementing Non-linear Dynamic Assessments, Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.

19.

Jayaram

Lin

and Baker

J. W.

2011. A computationally efficient ground-motion selection algorithm for matching a target response spectrum mean and variance, Earthquake Spectra 27, 797–815.

20.

Kalkan

and Chopra

A. 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, Reston, VA.

21.

Kohrangi

Bazurro

Vamvatsikos

and Spillatura

2017. Conditional spectrum-based ground motion record selection using average spectral acceleration, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 46, 1667–1685.

22.

Krawinkler

1978. Shear in beam-column joints in seismic design of steel frames, Engineering Journal 15, 82–91.

23.

Krawinkler

Zareian

Medina

R. A.

and Ibarra

2004. Contrasting performance-based design with performance assessment, in Performance-Based Seismic Design Concepts and Implementation: Proceedings of an International Workshop ( Fajfar

and Krawinkler

eds.), Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA, 505–516.

24.

Lin

Haselton

C. B.

and Baker

J. W.

2013. Conditional spectrum-based ground motion selection. Part I: Hazard consistency for risk-based assessments, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 42, 1847–1865.

25.

Miano

Jalayer

Ebrahimian

and Prota

2018. Cloud to IDA: Efficient fragility assessment with limited scaling, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 47, 1124–1147.

26.

National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2011. Selecting and Scaling Earthquake Ground Motions for Performing Response History Analyses, NIST GCR 11-917-15, Gaithersburg, MD.

27.

Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), 2016. PEER Ground Motion Database, available at http://ngawest2.berkeley.edu/ (last accessed 9 September 2016).

28.

Sattar

Liel

A. B.

and Martinelli

2013. Quantification of modeling uncertainties based on the blind prediction contest submissions, in Proceedings, Structures Congress 2013 ( Leshko

B. J.

and McHugh

eds.), ASCE, Reston, VA, 1997–2008.

29.

Shome

and Cornell

C. A.

1999. Structures, UMI, Ann Arbor, MI.

30.

Tsantaki

Adam

and Ibarra

L. F.

2017. Intensity measures that reduce collapse capacity dispersion of P-delta vulnerable simple systems, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 15, 1085–1109.

31.

Uribe

Sattar

Speicher

M. S.

and Ibarra

2017. Influence of ground motion selection on the assessment of steel special moment frames, Paper No. 2410, in Proceedings, 16th World Conference on Earthquake, 9–13 January 2017, Santiago, Chile.

32.

Uribe

Sattar

Speicher

M. S.

and Ibarra

2018. Impact of Ground Motion Selection Methods on the Seismic Assessment of Steel Special Moment Frames, NIST TN-1992, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.

33.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2016. Custom Vs30 mapping, available at http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/apps/vs30/custom.php (last accessed 9 September 2016).