Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ascest 1943-541X 0000340
Ascest 1943-541X 0000340
Abstract: The need to consider only a small number of ground motions combined with the complexities of response sensitivity to
both modeling choices and ground motion variability calls for an assessment of current ground motion selection and modification methods
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Tokyo on 09/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
used in seismic performance evaluation of structures. Since the largest source of uncertainty and variability arises from ground
motion selection, this study examines the suitability of two ground motion modification (GMM) schemes: magnitude scaling (wherein
the ground motion is uniformly scaled so that the resulting spectrum matches the amplitude of the design spectrum at the structural funda-
mental period) and spectrum matching. Comprehensive nonlinear time-history (NTH) simulations of two reinforced concrete moment frame
buildings are carried out to evaluate the GMM approaches in the context of seismic demand prediction. Findings from the investigation
indicate that spectrum matching is generally more stable than scaling both in terms of the bias as well as the resulting dispersion in
the predicted demands. It is also concluded that seven ground motions are inadequate to establish median demands for taller frames where
multiple modes influence structural response. Both methods are found to be sensitive to the choice of records for the cases investigated in this
study. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000340. © 2011 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Drift; Ground motion; Probability distribution; Reinforced concrete; Seismic effects.
Author keywords: Interstory drift; Ground motion modification; Probability distribution; Reinforced concrete; Seismic simulation.
Introduction 0.2 to 1.5 times the fundamental period, T, of the structure for the
direction of response being analyzed. Depending on whether
The selection of ground motions for use in nonlinear dynamic three or seven records are used, the maximum or mean value of the
simulations is becoming an increasingly critical component of response parameter of interest is to be considered in design or
performance-based seismic evaluation. Given the limited database evaluation. In addition to code-based scaling, modifying ground
of earthquake records that satisfy the required site parameters, it is motions by scaling them to the spectral acceleration at single spec-
often necessary to select empirical recordings from other similar tral periods, such as the first-mode elastic period Sa ðT 1 Þ have also
sites and alter them suitably to meet the needs of the evaluation. been used, for example, Kunnath et al. (2006). Shome and Cornell
Current practice in nonlinear seismic evaluation is to select ground (1998) and Shome et al. (1998) demonstrated that seismic demands
motion records that best represent the characteristics of the are strongly correlated with the elastic single-degree-of-freedom
expected event (such as magnitude, distance, and fault type) at (SDOF) oscillator response acceleration at the fundamental period
the site. Structural engineers tend to favor the use of intensity scal- of the system. More recently, Baker and Cornell (2006) suggested
ing methods, but since the intensity (such as spectral acceleration) that if records are properly selected based on spectral shape, the
at critical periods can vary considerably from record to record, the reduction in bias and variance of resulting structural response
selected motions need to be modified to achieve certain target estimates are comparable to the reductions achieved by using a
intensities. vector-valued measure of earthquake intensity. In contrast, certain
According to code requirements (ASCE 2005), the scaling of scaling methods such as scaling to target peak ground acceleration
selected ground motions for two-dimensional analysis should be
(PGA) produce biased estimates with large scatter in response
carried out in a manner such that the average value of the 5%
(Nau and Hall 1984; Vidic et al. 1994; Shome and Cornell
damped response spectra for the suite of motions is not less than
1998). Further, because scaling methods do not explicitly consider
the design response spectrum for the site for periods ranging from
the inelastic behavior of the structure, they may not be appropriate
1 for near-fault sites where the inelastic deformation can be signifi-
Senior Researcher, Marine Research Institute of Samsung Heavy
Industries, Korea; formerly, Graduate Student Researcher, Dept. of Civil
cantly larger than the deformation of the corresponding linear sys-
and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of California, Davis, CA 95616. tem. For such sites, scaling methods that are based on the inelastic
E-mail: yaheo@ucdavis.edu deformation spectrum or consider the response of the first-mode
2 inelastic SDOF system are more appropriate. Kalkan and Chopra
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of
California, Davis, CA 95616. E-mail: skkunnath@ucdavis.edu (2010) used these concepts to develop a modal-pushover-based-
3
Seismologist, Pacific Gas and Electric, San Francisco, CA 94105; scaling (MPS) procedure for selecting and scaling earthquake
Adjunct Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. ground motion records. Other approaches to scaling include ground
of California, Davis, CA 95616. motion modification over a selected period band (Alavi and
Note. This manuscript was submitted on April 20, 2010; approved on
Krawinkler 2004; Kalkan and Kunnath 2006). A good review of
October 27, 2010; published online on October 29, 2010. Discussion period
open until August 1, 2011; separate discussions must be submitted for in- several other scaling methods including scaling to effective peak
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineer- acceleration, Arias intensity based parameter, effective peak veloc-
ing, Vol. 137, No. 3, March 1, 2011. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/2011/3- ity, and maximum incremental velocity is reported by Kurama and
278–288/$25.00. Farrow (2003), where it is shown that scaling methods work well
2000; Hancock et al. 2006). While scaling methods keep the fre-
quency content of ground motions intact, spectral matching tech- C d ¼ 5:5; R ¼ 8:0
niques may alter the physical characteristics of the accelerograms
though more recent methods also try to minimize the alteration of Using the preceeding values, the design base shears are
the overall nonstationary characteristics of the motions. 2,325 kips and 1,386 kips for the 12-story and four-story buildings,
In the case of scaling approaches, the central questions that need respectively. The approximate code-based fundamental periods are
to be answered include the following: How many ground motions 1.43 s and 0.55 s while the true first mode periods based on input
should be used? What number should form the basis for deciding material and element properties were determined to be 2.1 s and
whether the average or maximum response measure should be con- 0.88 s. The final design is based on using normal weight concrete
sidered? Should the scaling be limited to a single period or a period (150 pcf) with a compressive strength f 0c ¼ 4;000 psi and reinforc-
range? If two alternative sets of records produce different perfor- ing steel with a nominal yield strength f y ¼ 60;000 psi. Section
mance estimates, how should the findings be reconciled? For spec- sizes and details of the required flexural and shear reinforcement,
trum-matching methods, one of the chief concerns is the all of which conform to the requirements of ACI-318 (2009), are
modification of the frequency content that can distort the nonsta- presented in Table 1.
tionary characteristics of the time series. Other concerns include the
uncertain effects of leveling or flattening all the peaks and troughs
of the spectrum on the computed structural response. Ground Motion Selection and Modification
Both scaling and matching methods are considered in the present
study to evaluate not only the effectiveness of each methodology but A study by Watson-Lamprey (2007) introduced the notion of a
also to assess the reliability of structural performance estimates for a “point of comparison” wherein the “true” (statistically most likely)
given site hazard. A study by Iervolino and Cornell (2005) showed response of a system is established. It is proposed that the “true”
that there is little evidence to support the need for a careful site- structural response measure is best obtained by a high-end predic-
specific process of record selection based on magnitude and distance tion, wherein NTH simulations are carried out using an extremely
and that concern over scenario-to-scenario record scaling may not be large number of scaled and unscaled ground motions. A response
justified. Hence, this study focuses primarily on ground motion char- model is then derived that relates relevant structural demand mea-
acteristics such as spectral acceleration that affect structural response sures to critical ground motion parameters. Such a model not only
characteristics rather than site-specific sources. provides the best estimate of structural demand for any site but also
provides a convenient baseline against which the validity of differ-
ent ground motion modification methodologies can be assessed.
Buildings Considered in Evaluation The notion proposed by Watson-Lamprey (2007) is adopted in
the present study with a change in that only unscaled ground
The two ground motion modification methods are evaluated by motions are used. Watson-Lamprey (2007) used scaled ground
considering the bias and dispersion of seismic demand predictions motions to drive the structure well into the nonlinear range. In this
paper, ground motions that cause nonlinear response is also of pri- the 5% damped response spectra for all records in the database.
mary interest, therefore, a subset of 200 ground motions from the Also shown alongside is the mean spectrum of the 200 records
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Next Generation superimposed on the ASCE 7-05 (2005) design spectrum for the
Attenuation (NGA) database (PEER 2005), whose PGA exceeded site. The mean spectrum is observed to be slightly lower than
0.2 g, was used in the simulations. The computed inelastic response the design spectrum. Complete details of the ground motion char-
models to these 200 records are used to determine the dependence acteristics are described in Heo (2009).
of the structural response on the spectral acceleration at a suite of
spectral periods. This model of the structural response is then used Scaling Methods
to compute the expected response and the variability of the Numerous approaches to ground-motion scaling exist in current lit-
response given the design spectral values. This distribution of erature. The simplest and most commonly used amplitude-scaling
the predicted response, given the design spectrum, is termed the approach is selected in the present study—namely, scaling of the
“true” response—from the perspective that record-to-record vari- motion such that the ordinate of the spectral acceleration matches
ability and other inherent uncertainties in the ground motions have the design spectral acceleration at the fundamental period of the
been more comprehensively considered in this data set than in a structure in the direction of loading. As pointed out in the introduc-
smaller subset of records. A methodology that uses a limited data tion, this method is also known to typically have scatter less than
set (ground motions) can be classified as being reliable if the other scaling approaches.
resulting performance model comes reasonably close to the “true” A limited subset of 17 records was randomly selected from the
prediction (in terms of bias and variance). Note that the term pre- larger bin of 200 records. Three bins of seven records each were
diction model refers to a model that provides a demand or perfor- then created from this set of 17 records and are referred to in this
mance measure (interstory drift demand or damage index, for paper as Set 1, Set 2, and Set 3. The accelerograms in each set
example) as a function of ground motion parameters. Fig. 2 shows were selected to represent three possible scenarios: records whose
mean spectral value at the fundamental period was lower than
the design spectrum, records with a mean spectral value higher than
the design spectrum (note that this outcome was not achieved for
the four-story structure), and a final set that comprised records
whose mean spectral acceleration was relatively closer to the design
spectrum at the fundamental period. Each of the records in the bin
was scaled to match the spectral acceleration of the design spectra
at the fundamental period of the structure. The 5% damped
response spectrum of the records in each set as well as the mean
spectrum for both the original set and the scaled set is displayed in
Fig. 3. Also shown in these plots are the first-mode periods of the
two buildings. Tables 2–4 list the scale factors applied to each
record.
An examination of the spectra in Fig. 3 indicates that the mean
of the original records in Set 1 was significantly lower than the
Fig. 2. 5% damped response spectra of selected 200 ground motions
corresponding design spectral value at the fundamental period
and comparison of mean spectrum with ASCE 7-05 design spectrum
while the records in Set 3 produce a mean spectral demand
(note: T1, T2, and T3 are the first, second, and third mode periods;
(at T1) that is marginally higher than the design spectrum. The
subscripts indicate whether the modes are for the 4- or 12-story frame)
mean of the Set 2 motions were also lower but closer to the design
Fig. 3. Spectra of amplitude-scaled records: (a) Set 1; (b) Set 2; (c) Set 3 (Notation ¼ orgAvg: average spectrum of unscaled records; Design:
ASCE 7-05 design spectra; sclAvg04: average spectrum of scaled records for 4-story frame; sclAvg12: average spectrum of scaled records for
12-story frame)
Table 2. Intensity and Scale Factors of Scaled Record Set 1 Table 3. Intensity and Scale Factors of Scaled Record Set 2
4 Story 12 Story 4 Story 12 Story
GM # PGA SaðT1Þ SF SaðT1Þ SF GM # PGA SaðT1Þ SF SaðT1Þ SF
1 0.386 1.482 1.51 0.128 2.49 1 0.386 1.482 1.51 0.128 2.49
3 0.597 1.681 0.80 0.129 2.47 3 0.597 1.681 0.80 0.129 2.47
5 0.447 1.416 1.45 0.135 2.36 5 0.447 1.416 1.45 0.135 2.36
6 0.400 1.350 0.78 0.102 3.12 16 0.464 1.378 1.27 0.520 0.61
26 0.402 1.594 0.69 0.268 1.19 81 0.349 1.566 0.95 0.216 1.47
71 0.241 1.338 2.05 0.093 3.42 82 0.536 1.756 0.75 0.421 0.76
145 0.208 1.749 2.96 0.155 2.05 145 0.208 1.749 2.96 0.155 2.05
spectrum at the fundamental period that Set 1 motions. Therefore, b ¼ C1 δR ð3Þ
the scaling process results in a mean spectrum that is generally
higher than the design spectrum (particularly at smaller periods, Each component of a square matrix C = the amplitude of the
which influence higher modes) for the first two sets and a mean wavelet response for the jth spectral point at the peak oscillator
spectrum that is somewhat lower than the design spectrum for time (ti ) of the initial time series response for the ith spectral point.
Set 3. These facts are also reflected in the scale factors shown A sample matched spectrum using this procedure is shown in
in Tables 1–3. For the four-story frame, since the scaling is anch- Fig. 4(a). The mean spectrum for an ensemble of seven matched
ored at a lower period, the resulting mean spectra for all sets are not records in illustrated in Fig. 4(b). Since the matching process
as significantly altered as in the case of the 12-story building. How- results in a spectrum that closely matches the target spectrum, the
ever, the mean spectral demands at periods higher than the first mean spectrum of multiple records is almost indistinguishable from
mode are lower than the design spectral values for Set 1, almost the design spectrum; hence, only a sample mean spectrum is shown.
similar to the design spectra for Set 2, and higher than the design
spectral values for Set 3. These observations provide valuable in-
sights into examining and evaluating the features of the building Development of Seismic Demand Prediction Model
responses to the three record sets.
The assessment of GMM approaches begins with the development
Spectrum Matching Methods of a statistically reliable prediction model of the selected seismic
Although the objective of the scaling approach is to match only a demand parameter. In the present study, the prediction model is
single spectral value at a target period, the concept of spectral essentially a regression model based on the analysis of large data
matching is to modify the original acceleration time series to match sets that consist of empirical data (such as ground motion param-
the entire range of the target spectrum with minimal alteration of eters from recorded motions) and simulated data from detailed
the velocity and displacement history of the record. The approach numerical procedures (such as nonlinear structural simulations).
adopted in this study is based on the time domain spectral matching The purpose of a prediction model for structural response is
procedure proposed by Hancock et al. (2006) and assumes that the twofold: It provides a simple means to predict a reliable probabi-
time of the peak response does not change because of wavelet ad- listic structural response quantity with considerable reduction in
justment. Given N target spectral points to match, at the ith target computational effort, and it offers a means to compare different ap-
period, the spectral misfit to be altered can be computed by the proaches in seismic structural assessment. In the present study, it is
difference between the target spectral value (Qi ) and the initial time used to evaluate ground motion selection and modification
series spectral value (Ri ) methods.
The typical procedure for developing a regression model of a
ΔRi ¼ ðQi Ri ÞPi ð1Þ sample model response parameter Y in terms of a set of predictive
Fig. 4. Spectrum matching: (a) sample spectral matched record; (b) mean spectrum (Notation ¼ Design: ASCE 7-05 design spectra; orgAvg: average
spectrum of unscaled records; matAvg: average spectrum of 7 spectrum-matched records for Set 1)
Fig. 5. Correlation of structural demand measures with primary ground motion parameters [Note: (log) refers to natural logarithm]
Results of the data analysis using the response prediction mod- simulations as a function of selected ground motion intensity
els expressed by Eqs. (10)–(14) are presented in Tables 5 and 6. parameters. The regression model used has a linear scaling of
Note that σ ln(IDR) and μ(IDR) refer to the standard deviation the response with spectral acceleration. The residual plots can
and median of the IDR. The regression coefficients show that be used to determine if nonlinear scaling effects are observed.
c1 and c4 have a significant effect on the response of the four-story Nonlinear effects would be seen as a curvature in the residuals
building; whereas c1 , c2 , and c3 have a significant effect on the at the higher intensity ground motions. These residual plots do
response of the 12-story building. In general, the introduction of not show a curvature except for the T 4 dependence for the 12-story
additional variables improves the reliability of the prediction mod- building for model A—there is a trend to increase the response for
els, as shown by the reduction in the standard deviation for models higher SaT4 values, but this trend is not well constrained. Part of the
with more terms; however, it is also evident that the spectral accel- reason that nonlinear effects are not seen in the residuals is that
eration at first mode SaT1 is the most significant parameter control- most of the unscaled ground motions used in the study did not
ling the response of the 4-story frame, but the spectral acceleration drive the systems well into the inelastic range of response. An
at the second mode (SaT2 ) is most significant for the 12-story alternative approach would have been to scale the motions, as in
frame. For the 12-story structure, Model C is adequate to represent the study by Watson-Lamprey (2007), and observe trends at higher
the response because the additional reduction in the standard intensity levels.
deviation for Models A and B is negligible. For the 4-story struc- The probability density functions of Models A, C, and E for
ture, model B is adequate to represent the response. both structures, shown in Fig. 8, confirm that though Model A
Figs. 6 and 7 show the IDR residuals for the 4- and 12-story has the least dispersion in both cases, Models C and E in the case
frames, respectively, based on Models A and C for the 200 of the 4-story frame, or Models A and C in the case of the 12-story
Table 5. Regression Coefficients for Different Response Models Using Table 6. Regression Coefficients for Different Response Models Using
4-Story Building 12-Story Building
Model A Model B Model C Model D Model E Model A Model B Model C Model D Model E
σlnðIDRÞ 0.2593 0.2601 0.2846 0.2856 0.2883 σlnðIDRÞ 0.3548 0.3563 0.3563 0.3736 0.4469
μðIDRÞ (%) 1.4955 1.5078 1.4036 1.4272 1.4168 μðIDRÞ (%) 1.5119 1.4916 1.4892 1.4425 1.4534
c0 0.7151 0.7414 0.5492 0.5676 0.5667 c0 0.8611 0.8235 0.8189 0.8200 1.0904
c1 0.4921 0.4871 0.7685 0.7746 0.7981 c1 0.2759 0.2758 0.2888 0.2813 0.6264
c2 0.1340 0.1336 0.1297 0.0882 c2 0.3800 0.3793 0.3783 0.5527
c3 0:0564 0:0527 0:0690 c3 0.2889 0.2973 0.2971
c4 0.3547 0.2906 c4 0:0897 0.0114
c5 0:0653 c5 0.0983
Fig. 6. Correlation of IDR residuals with ground motion intensity parameters for 4-story frame
frame, both provide similar measures of the median response and motions is 1.42%. Although the dispersion in the computed IDRs is
variability of the response. comparable for both methods, the mean estimate using spectrum-
matched records is closer to the true mean estimate of 1.40% (based
on Model C). In the case of the 12-story frame, the results using
Spectrum Matching versus Scaling spectrum-matched records are clearly more consistent than scaled
records in terms of both the mean and dispersion of the computed
The two GMM methods are evaluated against the so-called true maximum IDRs. The true mean of the expected peak IDR is
solution represented by the predictive regression model generated approximately 1.49%, whereas the mean estimate is 1.46% using
through 200 high-end numerical simulations presented in the matched motions and 2.06% using scaled motions.
previous section. The regression model considered in the evaluation Results for ground motion Set 2 and Set 3 are displayed in
corresponds to the function representing Model C [Eq. (12)] but the Figs. 9(c) and 9(d) and Figs. 9(e) and 9(f), respectively. In both
findings can be generalized to the other models as well. Recall from cases, the observations noted for Set 1 with respect to the mean
the preceding discussion that a subset of 17 records was randomly and variability of the computed maximum IDR demands remains
selected from the 200 ground motions used to establish the true valid. The mean IDR for the four-story frame using matched Set 2
response models. Three records of 7 motions each were then ground motions is 1.45%, which is slightly higher than the true
selected from this bin to create three possible scenarios. estimate but significantly better than the estimated mean value
To compare the stability and bias of the results obtained with of 1.58% for scaled motions. In the 12-story frame, the mean
sets of seven scaled and matched ground motions, the peak estimate using spectrum-matched records is 1.33% (which is lower
IDRs for each simulation and arithmetic mean for each set are than the true mean of 1.49%), whereas the mean IDR demand using
superimposed on the probability distribution of the corresponding scaled records is 1.83%. For the ground motions from Set 3, the
true solution for each frame. The comparisons are presented in mean IDR estimates for the four-story frame using matched and
Figs. 9(a)–9(f) for each of the three ground motion sets and for both scaled motions are 1.52% and 1.57%, respectively. For the 12-story
frame structures. Figs. 9(a) and 9(b) compare computed demands frame, the mean IDR using matched ground motions is 1.35%
for both frames subjected to the ground motions comprising Set 1. (which is lower than the true mean), but the mean estimate of
In the case of the four-story frame, the mean of the maximum 1.15% using scaled motions is significantly lower than the
IDRs using scaled motions is 1.52%, whereas that of the matched true mean.
Fig. 7. Correlation of IDR residuals with ground motion intensity parameters for 12-story frame
Fig. 8. IDR distribution for three regression models: (a) 4-story frame; (b) 12-story frame
In addition to the previously noted general observations, it is motions need to be considered to reduce the bias in the computed
observed that the predicted mean for matched motions is closer demands.
to the true mean for the four-story frame than for the 12-story struc-
ture. Of the two frames, there is considerably more variability in the
predictions for the for 12-story frame for both scaled and matched Concluding Remarks
motions. This outcome indicates that additional parameters (such as
higher modes and modal changes attributable to inelastic effects) Findings from a comprehensive set of NTH simulations of two
are influencing the response of the taller frame, hence more ground reinforced concrete moment frame structures indicate that peak
Fig. 9. Stability and bias in predicted responses using scaled and matched motions: (a) 4-story frame (Set 1); (b) 12-story frame (Set 1); (c) 4-story
frame (Set 2); (d) 12-story frame (Set 2); (e) 4-story frame (Set 3); (f) 12-story frame (Set 3) (Notation ¼ Model C: probability distribution of true
solution based on Model C; Scaled: Peak IDR for each scaled ground motion; Matched: Peak IDR for each matched ground motion; AVGs : Average
of max IDR of all scaled motions; AVGM : Average of max IDR of all matched motions)
IDR demands estimated from two different ground motion scaling the target design spectral accelerations at the fundamental period of
methods are generally a function both structural parameters and the structures. More importantly, the dispersion in the computed
ground motion characteristics. For the two case studies investi- IDRs was generally smaller for spectrum-matched records than
gated, the estimates of the peak IDR demands resulting from a for scaled records. On the basis of the observed variability, it
relatively small subset (seven ground motions were used in each may also be concluded that seven ground motions are inadequate
subset in the present study) of spectrum-matched records were for the 12-story structure, indicating that taller or more complex
consistently closer to the median estimates of the true solution than structures that are influenced by higher modes, inelastic effects,
estimates from records of the same subset that were scaled to match and other ground motion parameters will require a larger subset