Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Experimental evaluation of four ground-motion scaling methods for dynamic response-history analysis of nonlinear structures

  • Original Research Paper
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper experimentally evaluates four methods to scale earthquake ground-motions within an ensemble of records to minimize the statistical dispersion and maximize the accuracy in the dynamic peak roof drift demand and peak inter-story drift demand estimates from response-history analyses of nonlinear building structures. The scaling methods that are investigated are based on: (1) ASCE/SEI 7–10 guidelines; (2) spectral acceleration at the fundamental (first mode) period of the structure, S a (T 1); (3) maximum incremental velocity, MIV; and (4) modal pushover analysis. A total of 720 shake-table tests of four small-scale nonlinear building frame specimens with different static and dynamic characteristics are conducted. The peak displacement demands from full suites of 36 near-fault ground-motion records as well as from smaller “unbiased” and “biased” design subsets (bins) of ground-motions are included. Out of the four scaling methods, ground-motions scaled to the median MIV of the ensemble resulted in the smallest dispersion in the peak roof and inter-story drift demands. Scaling based on MIV also provided the most accurate median demands as compared with the “benchmark” demands for structures with greater nonlinearity; however, this accuracy was reduced for structures exhibiting reduced nonlinearity. The modal pushover-based scaling (MPS) procedure was the only method to conservatively overestimate the median drift demands.

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
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alavi B, Krawinkler H (2000) Consideration of near-fault ground motion effects in seismic design. In: 12th world conference on earthquake engineering. Paper no. 2665, Auckland

  • American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2010) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. ASCE standard 7–10

  • Ay B, Akkar S (2014) Evaluation of a recently proposed record selection and scaling procedure for low-rise to mid-rise reinforced concrete buildings and its use for probabilistic risk assessment studies. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 43(6):889–908

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chopra AK, Chinatanapakdee C (2004) Inelastic deformation ratios for design and evaluation of structures: single-degree-of-freedom bilinear systems. J Struct Eng 130(9):1309–1319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornell C, Jalayer F, Hamburger R, Foutch D (2002) Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC federal emergency management agency steel moment frame guidelines. J Struct Eng 128(4):526–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haselton C (2009) Evaluation of ground motion selection and modification methods: predicting median interstory drift response of buildings. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center, California State University, Chico, CA

  • Kalkan E, Chopra AK (2009) Modal pushover-based ground motion scaling procedure for nonlinear response history analysis of structures. In: Proceedings of the structural engineering association of California, annual convention, San Diego

  • Kalkan E, Chopra A (2010a) Modal-pushover-based ground-motion scaling procedure. J Struct Eng 137(3):298–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalkan E, Chopra A (2010b) Practical guidelines to select and scale earthquake records for nonlinear response history analysis of structures. US geological survey open-file report, 1068

  • Kalkan E, Chopra A (2012) Evaluation of modal pushover-based scaling of one component of ground motion: tall buildings. Earthq Spectra 28(4):1469–1493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalkan E, Kunnath SK (2006) Effects of fling-step and forward directivity on the seismic response of buildings. Earthq Spectra 22(2):367–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalkan E, Kwong NS (2010) Documentation for assessment of modal pushover-based scaling procedure for nonlinear response history analysis of “ordinary standard” bridges, US. Geological survey open-file report no 2010-1328, p. 56

  • Kalkan E, Kwong NS (2012) Assessment of modal pushover-based scaling procedure for nonlinear response history analysis of “ordinary standard” bridges. J Bridge Eng 17(2):272–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy R, Short S, Merz K, Tokarz F, Idriss I, Powers M, Sadigh K (1984) Engineering characterization of ground motion-task I: effects of characteristics of free-field motion on structural response. NUREG/CR-3805. US Regulatory Comm. Washington, DC

  • Kurama Y, Farrow K (2003) Ground motion scaling methods for different site conditions and structure characteristics. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 32(15):2425–2450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott M, Fenves G (2011) Open system for earthquake engineering simulation: OpenSees command language manual. University of California, Berkeley. http://opensees.berkeley.edu/

  • Mehanny S (1999) Modeling and assessment of seismic performance of composite frames with reinforced concrete columns and steel beams. Ph.D. thesis, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford, USA

  • Naeim F, Alimoradi A, Pezeshk S (2004) Selection and scaling of ground motion time histories for structural design using genetic algorithms. Earthq Spectra 20:413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nau J, Hall W (1984) Scaling methods for earthquake response spectra. J Struct Eng 110(7):1533–1548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell A, Kurama Y, Kalkan E, Taflanidis A, Beltsar A (2013a) Ground motion scaling methods for linear-elastic structures: an integrated experimental and analytical investigation. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 42(9):1281–1300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell A, Kurama Y, Kalkan E, Taflanidis A (2013b) Experimental evaluation of ground motion scaling methods for nonlinear analysis of structural systems. ASCE/SEI structures congress 2013, Pittsburgh, PA, 12 pp

  • O’Donnell A, Kurama Y, Taflanidis A, Kalkan E (2015) A nonlinear frame test structure with repeatable behavior for experimental dynamic response history investigation. J Earthq Eng. doi:10.1080/13632469.2015.1046571

    Google Scholar 

  • Reyes JC, Chopra A (2012) Modal pushover-based scaling of two components of ground-motion records for nonlinear RHA of structures. Earthq Spectra 28(3):1243–1267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reyes JC, Quintero O (2013) Modal pushover-based scaling of earthquake records for nonlinear analysis of single-story unsymmetric-plan buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 43(7):1005–1021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reyes JC, Riaño AC, Kalkan E, Arango CM (2015) Extending modal pushover-based scaling (MPS) procedure for nonlinear response history analysis of multi-story unsymmetric-plan buildings. Eng Struct 88:125–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rezaeian S, Bozorgnia Y, Idriss IM, Campbell K, Abrahamson N, Silva W (2014) Damping scaling factors for elastic response spectra for shallow crustal earthquakes in active tectonic regions: ‘Average’ horizontal component. Earthq Spectra 30(2):939–963

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shome N, Cornell C (1998) Normalization and scaling accelerograms for nonlinear structural analysis. In: Sixth US national conference on earthquake engineering, Seattle, WA

  • Shome N, Cornell C, Bazzurro P, Carballo J (1998) Earthquakes, records, and nonlinear responses. Earthq Spectra 14(3):469–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under Grant No. CMMI 0928662. The support of former NSF Program Directors, Dr. K.I. Mehta and Dr. M.P. Singh, is gratefully acknowledged. The authors would like to thank Brad Aagaard (United States Geological Survey), Mahdi Ebrahimian (Kleinfelder, Inc.), and Neal S. Kwong (The Cooper Union) for their review and constructive comments on the paper. The authors would also like to acknowledge the following individuals for their guidance, through informal discussions, in formulating the research questions and the approaches to their investigation: Paulo Bazzurro, University Institute for Superior Studies; Sigmund Freeman, Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.; Vladimir Graizer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Farzad Naeim, John A. Martin and Associates, Inc.; and Thomas Sabol, Englekirk & Sabol Consulting Structural Engineers, Inc. Additionally, Bob St. Henry, NEFF Engineering, helped in the design and construction of the test specimens. The opinions, findings, and conclusions in the paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or individuals acknowledged above.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. AIR Worldwide, 131 Dartmouth St, Boston, MA, 02116, USA

    Andrew P. O’Donnell

  2. Civil and Environmental Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, 46556, USA

    Yahya C. Kurama & Alexandros A. Taflanidis

  3. Earthquake Science Center, United States Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA, 94025, USA

    Erol Kalkan

Authors
  1. Andrew P. O’Donnell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yahya C. Kurama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Erol Kalkan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alexandros A. Taflanidis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yahya C. Kurama.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

O’Donnell, A.P., Kurama, Y.C., Kalkan, E. et al. Experimental evaluation of four ground-motion scaling methods for dynamic response-history analysis of nonlinear structures. Bull Earthquake Eng 15, 1899–1924 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-0052-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-0052-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation