Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 777–797 | Cite as

Reliable estimation of the mean annual frequency of collapse by considering ground motion spectral shape effects

  • Alireza Azarbakht
  • Mohamadreza Shahri
  • Mehdi Mousavi
Original Research Paper

Abstract

Ground motion record (GMR) selection is an important issue in the nonlinear dynamic analysis procedure. Most of the current design codes recommend to use GMRs in which their mean spectrum be matched to a design spectrum e.g. uniform hazard spectrum. However recent research results have shown that the code methodology is neither robust nor realistic. On the other hand, GMR selection, based on spectral shape, is recently proposed in order to deal with this problem. \(\varepsilon \) and \(\eta \) are two powerful spectral shape indicators which are used for GMR selection purposes. A comparison between \(\varepsilon \) and \(\eta \) was made in order to access their capability to predict the linear spectral shape and the structural nonlinear response. The \(\eta \)-based conditional mean spectrum (E-CMS), which has been recently emerged as a new design spectrum, was also investigated in this study. The E-CMS formulation format is fully compatible with the existing CMS definition which makes E-CMS quite easy to be implemented. The resulted E-CMS was used as a target spectrum for the record selection. Analysis of a set of multi degree of freedom systems shows that the mean annual frequency of collapse is achievable, with more reliability, based on the new emerged \(\eta \) indicator. Therefore, the bias is decreased by employing the \(\eta \) concept into the record selection procedure. The bias reduction is more significant in higher hazard levels and in the case of structures with low natural periods or with significant higher mode effects.

Keywords

Uniform hazard spectrum \(\eta \)-Based conditional mean spectrum \(\varepsilon \) Indicator \(\eta \) Indicator Ground motion record selection Seismic hazard 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are very grateful to Curt Haselton for providing us with the numerical models of the structures of Table 5. The authors are also very grateful to three anonymous reviewers for their important and valuable comments which helped to improve the paper.

References

  1. Abrahamson NA, Silva WJ (1997) Empirical response spectral attenuation relations for shallow crustal earthquakes. Seismol Res Lett 68(1):94–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abrahamson NA, Silva WJ (2008) Summary of the Abrahamson & Silva NGA ground motion relations. Earthq Spectra 24:67–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ASCE7-5 (2005) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural Engineering Institute, Reston VAGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker JW (2005) Vector-valued ground motion intensity measures for probabilistic seismic demand analysis. Report #150, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford, CA, p 321Google Scholar
  5. Baker JW, Cornell CA (2005) A vector-valued ground motion intensity measure consisting of spectral acceleration and epsilon. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34(10):1193–1217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baker JW, Cornell CA (2006) Which spectral acceleration are you using? Earthq Spectra 22(2):293–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baker JW, Cornell CA (2006) Correlation of response spectral values for multicomponent ground motions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96(1):215–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baker JW, Cornell CA (2006) Spectral shape, epsilon and record selection. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35(9):1077–1095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baker JW, Jayaram N (2008) Correlation of spectral acceleration values from NGA ground motion models. Earthq Spectra 24(1):299–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Baker JW (2011) Conditional mean spectrum: tool for ground-motion selection. J Struct Eng 137(3):322–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Banzhaf W, Nordin P, Keller R, Francone F (1998) Genetic programming: an introduction. Morgan Kauffman Publishers, Inc., San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  12. Bazzurro P, Cornell CA (1999) Disaggregation of seismic hazard. Bull Seismol Soc Am 89(2):501–520Google Scholar
  13. Campbell KW (1997) Empirical near-source attenuation relationships for horizontal and vertical components of peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity, and pseudo-absolute acceleration response spectra. Seismol Res Lett 68(1):154–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Campbell KW, Bozorgnia Y (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. Earthq Spectra 24(1):139–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chiou BSJ, Youngs RR (2008) An NGA model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra. Earthq Spectra 24(1):173–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fajfar P et al (2006) Pre- and post-test mathematical modeling of a plan-asymmetric reinforced concrete frame building. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35(11):1359–1379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. FEMA-350 (2000) Recommended seismic design criteria for new steel moment-frame buildings. SAC Joint Venture, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  18. Goldberg D (1989) Genetic algorithms in search, optimization, and machine learning. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MAGoogle Scholar
  19. Haselton CB, Deierlein GG (2006) Assessing seismic collapse safety of modern reinforced concrete moment frame buildings. Technical Report #156, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  20. Haselton CB et al (2011) Accounting for ground-motion spectral shape characteristics in structural collapse assessment through an adjustment for epsilon. J Struct Eng 137(3):332–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar
  22. Luco N (2002) Probabilistic seismic demand analysis, SMRF connection fractures, and near-source effects. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, http://www.stanford.edu/group/rms/ (accessed 05/31/2006)
  23. Luco N, Cornell CA (2007) Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for near-source and ordinary earthquake ground motions. Earthq Spectra 23(2):357–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mousavi M, Ghafory-Ashtiany M, Azarbakht A (2011) A new indicator of elastic spectral shape for the reliable selection of ground motion records. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 40(12):1403–1416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mousavi M, Shahri M, Azarbakht A (2012) E-CMS: a new design spectrum for nuclear structures in high levels of seismic hazard. Nucl struct Des 252:27–33Google Scholar
  26. Naeim F, Lew M (1995) On the use of design spectrum compatible time histories. Earthq Spectra 11(1):111–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Negro P et al (2004) Full-scale testing of a torsionally unbalanced three-storey nonseismic RC frame. In Proceedings of the 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, Canada, 968Google Scholar
  28. PEER (2012) Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, NGA Database, University of California, Berkeley, accessed 8/3/2012. http://peer.berkeley.edu/ngawest/nga
  29. Sawada T et al. (2008) Relation between maximum amplitude ratio and spectral parameters of earthquake ground motion. In: Proceedings of 10th world conference of earthquake engineering, Madrid, SpainGoogle Scholar
  30. Shome N (1999) Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of nonlinear structures. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA; 320. http://www.stanford.edu/group/rms/ (accessed 05/31/2006)
  31. Shome N, Cornell CA (2000) Structural seismic demand analysis: consideration of collapse. In: Proceedings of the 8th ASCE specialty conference on probabilistic mechanics and structural reliability, paper 119, Notre Dame; 1–6 Google Scholar
  32. Stewart JP et al (2011) Representation of bidirectional ground motions for design spectra in building codes. Earthq Spectra 27(3):927–937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tothong P, Luco N (2007) Probabilistic seismic demand analysis using advanced ground motion intensity measures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36:1837–1860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tso WK, Zhu TJ, Heidebrecht AC (1992) Engineering implication of ground motion A/V ratio. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 11(3):133–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. USGS (2008) PSHA disaggregation. Available from: https://geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/
  36. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31(3):491–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alireza Azarbakht
    • 1
  • Mohamadreza Shahri
    • 1
  • Mehdi Mousavi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringArak UniversityArakIran

Personalised recommendations