Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Correlation Between Ground Motion Parameters and Target Displacement of Steel Structures

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
International Journal of Civil Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The observation of building damage during strong-motion earthquakes showed that correlation of structural damage with a single parameter such as peak ground acceleration or the total seismic duration is low, while peak ground acceleration is often used as a main seismic parameter to evaluate seismic performance of structures. The main objective of this study is to determine the relationship between several seismic acceleration parameters and the target displacement (TD) of steel frame structures, which is an important parameter to identify performance levels. For this purpose, first, nonlinear analysis is performed on the SAC 3- and 9-story frames subjected to several far-field earthquakes, and then, target displacements and seismic parameters are calculated for each structure. The relationship between the target displacement and seismic parameters is evaluated in the form of correlation coefficient. It is shown that PGA has poor correlation with the target displacement, whereas Housner intensity, spectral pseudo-acceleration, spectral pseudo-velocity and peak ground velocity exhibit strong correlation with TD. The best and the weakest correlation are related to the spectral pseudo-velocity and significant duration of the earthquake, respectively. On the other hand, the parameters directly or indirectly dependent on velocity of earthquake and structure can be proper parameters to reflect demand displacement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Acceleration Displacement Response Spectrum.

References

  1. Vision SEAOC (2000) Performance based seismic engineering of buildings. California, USA, p 1995

    Google Scholar 

  2. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (1997) FEMA-273, HEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings

  3. Mahmoudi M, Teimoori T, Kozani H (2015) Presenting displacement-based nonlinear static analysis method to calculate structural response against progressive collapse. IJCE 13(4):478–485

    Google Scholar 

  4. Araya R, Saragoni GR (1990) Capacity of strong ground motion to cause structural damage. In: Seventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Istanbul, Turkey

  5. Saragoni R (1991) Influence of maximum ground acceleration, duration and frequency content in the earthquake damage. Boletin de Information del Laboratorio de Carreteras y Geotecnia, Madrid, Spain (in Spanish)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Meskouris K, Kratzig WB, Hanskotter U (1999) Nonlinear computer simulations of seismically excited wall-stiffened reinforced concrete buildings. In: Moan (ed) Structural dynamics EURODYN’93. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 49–53

  7. Alvanitopoulos PF, Elenas A (2010) Interdependence between damage indices and ground motion parameters based on Hilbert–Huang transform. Meas Sci Technol 21(2):71–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Elenas A (2013) Intensity parameters as damage potential descriptors of earthquakes. In: Computational methods in stochastic dynamics. Springer, pp 327–334

  9. Alvanitopoulos PF, Papavasileiou M, Elenas A (2012) Seismic intensity feature construction based on the Hilbert-Huang transform. IEEE Instrument Measure Soc 61(2):326–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Arias A (1970) A measure of earthquake intensity. In: Hansen R (ed) Seismic design for nuclear power plants. MIT Press, Cambridge

  11. Trifunac MD, Brady AG (1975) A study on the duration of strong earthquake ground motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 65:581–626

    Google Scholar 

  12. Trifunac MD, Novikova EI (1994) State of the art review on strong motion duration. In: Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, vol I, pp 131–140

  13. Elenas A (2010) Correlation between seismic acceleration parameters and overall structural damage indices of buildings. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 93–100

  14. Mohammad SS, Sasan M, Ali K-C (2013) Interrelation between time-frequency domain parameters of earthquake records and structural damage index for medium height RC frames. Tech J Eng Appl Sci 3-20/2734-2742

  15. Safi M, Soleymani A (2014) Investigation of correlations between seismic parameters and damage indices for earthquakes of Iran Region. Int J Eng 27(2):283–292

    Google Scholar 

  16. Maniyar M, Khare R (2012) Selection of ground motion for performing incremental dynamic analysis of existing reinforced concrete buildings in India. Curr Sci (Bangalore) 100(5):701–713

  17. Lieping Y, Qianli M, Zhiwei M, Hong G, Yan Z (2011) Numerical and comparative study of earthquake intensity indices in seismic analysis. Struct Des Tall Spec Build. doi:10.1002/tal.693

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hao M, Xie LL, Xu LJ (2008) Some considerations on the physical measure of seismic intensity. Acta Seismol Sin 27(2):230–234

    Google Scholar 

  19. Riddell R, Garcia EJ (2001) Hysteretic energy spectrum and damage control. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 30(12):1791–1816

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kermani E, Jafarian Y, Baziar MH (2009) New predictive models for the v max/a max ratio of strong ground motions using genetic IJCE. 7(4):236–247

  21. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) (2001) Ground motion evaluation procedures for performance-based design, university of california, Berkeley

  22. Rathje EM, Abrahamson NA, Bray JD (2000) Simplified frequency content estimates of earthquake ground motions. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 124(2):150–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Peter J, John B, Jarg R (2009) New predictive equations for Arias intensity from crustal earthquake in New Zealand. J Seismol 13(1):31–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Maniyar MM, Khare RK (2012) Selection of ground motion for performing incremental dynamic analysis of existing reinforced concrete buildings in India. Curr Sci 100(5):701–713

    Google Scholar 

  25. Housner GW (1975) Measures of severity of earthquake ground shaking. In: Proceedings of the US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. Housner GW, Jennings, Ann Arbor

  26. Applied Technology Council: ATC-40 (1997) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings. California Seismic Safety Commission

  27. Krawinkler H, Seneviratna GDPK (1998) Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of seismic performance evaluation. Eng Struct 20(4-6):452–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Saiidi M, Sozen MA (1981) Simple nonlinear seismic analysis of R/C structures. J Struct Div ASCE 107(ST5):937–952

    Google Scholar 

  29. Lawson RS, Vance V, Krawinkler H (1994) Nonlinear static push-over analysis-why, when, and how? In: Proceedings of 5th US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Chicago, Illinois, EERI, vol. 1, pp. 283–292

  30. Biddah AC, Naumoski N (1995) Use of pushover test to evaluate damage of reinforced concrete frame structures subjected to strong seismic ground motions. In: Proceedings of 7th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Montreal

  31. Moghadam AS, Tso WK (1995) 3-D pushover analysis for eccentric buildings. In: Proceedings of 7th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Montreal

  32. Ferhi A, Truman KZ (1996) Behaviour of asymmetric building systems under a monotonic load—I. Eng Struct 18(2):133–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ferhi A, Truman KZ (1996) Behaviour of asymmetric building systems under a monotonic load—II. Eng Struct 18(2):142–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Bracci JM, Kunnath SK, Reinhorn AM (1997) Seismic performance and retrofit evaluation of reinforced concrete structures. J Struct Eng ASCE 123(1):3–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kilar V, Fajfar P (1997) Simple pushover analysis of asymmetric buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 26:233–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Gupta A, Krawinkler H (1999) Seismic demands for performance evaluation of steel moment resisting frame structures (SAC 5.4.3), Report No. 132, Stanford University

  37. Foutch DA, Yun SY, Lee K (2000) Performance prediction for steel moment frames, advanced technology in structural engineering. In: Proceedings of the Structures Congress and Exposition, ACSE, May 2–10, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

  38. Kunnath SK, John A, Jr (2000) Validity of static procedures in performance-based seismic design. In: Proceedings of the 2000 Structures Congress and Exposition, ACSE, May 2–10, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

  39. Skokan MJ, Hart GC (2000) Reliability of nonlinear static methods for the seismic prediction of steel frame buildings. In: Proceedings of the 2000 Structures Congress and Exposition, ACSE, May 2–10, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

  40. Mwafy AM, Elnashai AS (2001) Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis of RC buildings. Eng Struct 23:407–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Silvia M, Frank M, Michael H, Scott Gregory L, Fenves (2007) OpenSees command language manual. Open system for earthquake engineering simulation (OpenSees)

  42. Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 356 (2000) Pre standard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, Washington D.C

  43. Reyes-Salazar E, Bojorquez JL, Rivera-Salas A, Lopez-Barraza HE, Rodriguez L (2015) Seismic demands of steel buildings with perimeter and spatial moment resisting frames. IJCE 13(3):289–304

    Google Scholar 

  44. Dowdy S, Wearden S (1983) Statistics for research. Wiley, p 230

  45. Luco N (2013) Probabilistic seismic demand analysis, SMRF connection fractures, and near source effects. Submitted to the department of civil engineering of Standford university in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of philosophy

  46. Yanglin G, Lei X, Don EG (2009) Performance-based design sensitivity analysis of steel moment frames under earthquake loading. Int J Numer Meth Eng 63:1229–1249

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  47. Chopra AK, Goel RK (2004) A modal pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic demands for unsymmetric-plan building. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 33:903–927

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Kurdistan , Sanandaj, Iran

    Alireza Habibi & Ehsan Jami

Authors
  1. Alireza Habibi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ehsan Jami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alireza Habibi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Habibi, A., Jami, E. Correlation Between Ground Motion Parameters and Target Displacement of Steel Structures. Int J Civ Eng 15, 163–174 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-016-0084-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-016-0084-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation