Evaluation of Ground Motion Scaling Techniques

  • Jayaprakash VemuriEmail author
  • Subramaniam Kolluru
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 55)


Nonlinear Time History Analysis (NTHA) is a rigorous technique requiring the analyst to assemble a suite of ground motions to perform structural analyses. In current practice and literature, there are several techniques available to select and scale records: however, there is little or no consensus among researchers or designers regarding the accuracy of these techniques towards acceptability in structural design. The selection criteria for ground motions are unclear: parameters such as earthquake magnitude, epicentre distance, soil type, geotectonic setup and, the ratio of peak ground acceleration to velocity (A/V) have been used to develop ground motion suites. There is ambiguity in the current ground motion modification procedures as well: three techniques, namely, amplitude scaling, spectral matching and normalisation of records to the expected peak ground acceleration (PGA) are employed variously by researchers. Some codes allow the use of only one record while others permit three to seven records. In this study, the effect of selection and scaling of records on the structural response is examined using a single degree of freedom (SDOF) model of an unreinforced masonry wall. The structural response parameter is wall displacement. Data from major Himalayan earthquakes is used to develop a suite of records. Statistics of the storey displacement indicate that the amplitude scaling of records to match the PGA leads to inaccurate estimates of displacements. Amplitude scaling of records at the structure’s fundamental period and spectral matching of records in a defined period range lead to better estimates of actual storey displacements. The use of one or three records for analyses leads to an incorrect estimation of seismic demand.


Nonlinear time history analysis Ground motion Amplitude scaling Spectrum matching Fundamental period 


  1. 1.
    Vemuri J, Ehteshamuddin S, Kolluru SV (2018) Evaluation of seismic displacement demand for unreinforced masonry shear walls. Cogent Eng 1480189Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vemuri JP, Kolluru S (2017) Seismic analysis of unreinforced masonry walls. Integr Disaster Risk Manag J 6(2):102–115Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vemuri J, Kolluru S, Chopra S (2018) Surface level synthetic ground motions for M7. 6 2001 Gujarat Earthquake. Geosciences 8(12):429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    American Society of Civil Engineers (2006) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, ASCE/SEI-7-05. Reston, VAGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    American Society of Civil Engineers (2007) Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings, ASCE/SEI 41-06. Reston, VaGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stewart JP, Chiou SJ, Bray JD, Graves RW, Somerville PG, Abrahamson NA (2001) Ground motion evaluation procedures for performance-based design. PEER Report 2001/09, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bommer JJ, Acevedo AB (2004) The use of real earthquake accelerograms as input to dynamic analysis. J Earthquake Eng 8(Special Issue 1): 43–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lee LH, Lee HH, Han SW (2000) Method of selecting design earthquake ground motions for tall buildings. Struct Design Tall Buildings 9(3):201–213MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vemuri J, Ehteshamuddin S, Kolluru S (2018) Numerical simulation of soft brick unreinforced masonry walls subjected to lateral loads. Cogent Eng 5(1):140189Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Koboevic S, Guilini-Charrette K, Castonguay PX, Tremblay R (2011) Selection and scaling of NBCC 2005 compatible simulated ground motions for nonlinear seismic analysis of low-rise steel building structures. Can J Civ Eng 38(12):1391–1403Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shome N, Cornell C (1998) Normalization and scaling accelerograms for nonlinear structural analysis. In: Proceedings of the 6th U.S. national conference on earthquake engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shome N, Cornell CA, Bazzurro P, Caraballo JE (1998) Earthquakes, records, and nonlinear responses. Earthquake Spectra 14(3):467–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    US Army Corps of Engineers (2009) Selection of design earthquakes and associated ground motions, ECB (EM) 1110-2-6000. Department of the Army, USAGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kalkan E, Chopra AK (2010) Practical Guidelines to Select and Scale Earthquake Records for Nonlinear Analysis of Structures. USGS Open-File Report 2010, 113 pGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Abrahamson N (2014) Comments on near fault ground motions. COSMOS Annual Meeting, Nov. 14, 2014, Burlingame, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mazzoni S, Hachem M, Sinclair M (2012) An improved approach for ground motion suite selection and modification for use in response history analysis. In: 15th world conference on earthquake engineering, Lisboa, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hancock J, Watson-Lamprey J, Abrahamson NA, Bommer JJ, Markatis A, McCoy E, Mendis R (2006) An improved method of matching response spectra of recorded earthquake ground motions using wavelets. J Earthquake Eng 10. Special Issue 1:67–89Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    CEN. Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance—Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings. EN 1998–1: 2003 E. Comité Européen de Normalisation, Brussels, 2003Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    American Society of Civil Engineers (2010) “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures”, ASCE-7-10. Reston, VAGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    ASCE 4-98, 2000. Seismic Analysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures and Commentary. ASCE, Reston, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dhakal RP, Singh S, Mander JB (2007) Effectiveness of earthquake selection and scaling method in New Zealand, Bulletin of the NZSEEGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Department of Defense, USA (2004) Seismic Design for Buildings, UFC 3-310-04, BiblioGov, 128 ppGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Heo Y, Kunnath SK, Abrahamson N (2011) Amplitude-scaled versus spectrum-matched ground motions for seismic performance assessment. J Struct Eng 137(3):278–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Consortium of Organizations for Strong-Motion Observation Systems (COSMOS). Last accessed July 2015
  25. 25.
    Disaster Mitigation and Management Centre (2012): Sikkim Earthquake of 18th September, 2011., Department of Disaster Management, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India
  26. 26.
    Vera CO, Chouw N (2008) Comparison of record scaling methods proposed by standards currently applied in different countries. In: Proceedings of the 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing, ChinaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringMahindra Ecole CentraleHyderabadIndia
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringIIT HyderabadHyderabadIndia

Personalised recommendations