Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering

2015 Edition
| Editors: Michael Beer, Ioannis A. Kougioumtzoglou, Edoardo Patelli, Siu-Kui Au

Selection of Ground Motions for Response History Analysis

  • Anastasios G. SextosEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35344-4_114


Earthquake records; Ground motion; Record scaling; Response history analysis


The evolution in computational power and the parallel processing capabilities of modern engineering software make nowadays the use of complicated structural analysis methods an attractive alternative for the design and assessment of structures. In contrast to the past, when the elastic static analysis was almost exclusively used for the seismic design of structures, the state of practice has progressively moved toward dynamic-elastic, nonlinear-static (i.e., single mode or multi-modal “pushover”), and even nonlinear response history analysis. The latter, capturing more efficiently the hierarchy of failure mechanisms, the energy dissipation, the force redistribution among the structural members, and contact issues (such as gap, impact, sliding, and uplift), is deemed preferable in cases of significant material or geometrical nonlinearities and, as such, is used for the design of...

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


  1. American Society of Civil Engineers (2005) Seismic design criteria for structures, systems, and components in nuclear facilities, Structural Engineering Institute, Working Group for Seismic Design Criteria for Nuclear Facilities, ASCE/SEI 43-05, Reston, VA, 81 ppGoogle Scholar
  2. ASCE/SEI (2010) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures: ASCE standard 7-10. American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural Engineering Institute, RestonGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker JW (2011) The conditional mean spectrum: a tool for ground motion selection. J Struct Eng 137(3):322–331. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker JW, Cornell CA (2005) A vector-valued ground motion intensity measure consisting of spectral acceleration and epsilon. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34:1193–1217. doi:10.1002/eqe.474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker JW, Cornell CA (2006) Spectral shape, epsilon and record selection. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35(9):1077–1095. doi:10.1002/eqe.571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beyer K, Bommer JJ (2007) Selection and scaling of real accelerograms for bi-directional loading: a review of current practice and code provisions. J Earthq Eng 11:13–45. doi:10.1080/13632460701280013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. CEN (2004) European Standard EN 1998-1. Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance, part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, committee for standardization. Design, vol 3. European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  8. CEN (2005) European Standard EN 1998-2. Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance – part 2 bridges, committee for standardization, vol 3. European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  9. CPA (2011) Seismic design code and commentary for buildings, construction and planning agency. Ministry of Interior Affair, Taipei (in Chinese), pp 4–51Google Scholar
  10. Dias J (2010) SelEQ : a web-based application for the selection of earthquake ground motions for structural analysis. In: The 14th European conference on earthquake engineering, Ohrid, 30 Aug–3 SeptGoogle Scholar
  11. Elnashai AS, McClure DC (1996) Effect of modelling assumptions and input motion characteristics on seismic design parameters of RC bridge piers. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 25(5):435–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. FEMA (2009a) NEHRP recommended seismic provisions for new buildings and other structures, FHMA 750. Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  13. FEMA (2009b) Quantification of building seismic performance factors, FEMA P695. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  14. Hachem MM, Mathias NJ, Wang YY, Fajfar P, Tsai K-C, Ingham JM, … Francisco S (2010) An international comparison of ground motion selection criteria for seismic design. In: Codes in structural engineering, developments and needs for international practice, joint IABSE – fib conference. Dubrovnik, pp 237–250Google Scholar
  15. Haselton CB (2009) Evaluation of ground motion selection and modification methods: predicting median interstory drift response of buildings, PEER report, 2009/01Google Scholar
  16. Iervolino I, Galasso C, Cosenza E (2010a) New features of REXEL 2. 61 beta, a tool for automated record selection. In: Bulletin of earthquake engineering, vol 8. Ohrid, 30 Aug–3 Sept, pp 339–362. doi:10.1007/s10518-009-9146-1Google Scholar
  17. Iervolino I, Galasso C, Cosenza E (2010b) REXEL: computer aided record selection for code-based seismic structural analysis. Bull Earthq Eng 8:339–362. doi:10.1007/s10518-009-9146-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Iervolino I, Galasso C, Paolucci R, Pacor F (2011) Engineering ground motion record selection in the ITalian ACcelerometric Archive. Bull Earthq Eng 9(6):1761–1778. doi:10.1007/s10518-011-9300-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Iervolino I, Galasso C, Chioccarelli E (2012) REXEL 3.3: closing the loop of computer aided record selection. In: The 15th world conference on earthquake engineering, vol 10, LisbonGoogle Scholar
  20. Jalayer F, Cornell CA (2009) Alternative nonlinear demand estimation methods for probability-based seismic assessments. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 38(8):951–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jayaram N, Lin T, Baker JW (2011) A computationally efficient ground-motion selection algorithm for matching a target response spectrum mean and variance. Earthq Spectra 27(3):797–815. doi:10.1193/1.3608002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Katsanos EI, Sextos AG (2013) ISSARS: an integrated software environment for structure-specific earthquake ground motion selection. Adv Eng Softw 58:70–85. doi:10.1016/j.advengsoft.2013.01.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Katsanos EI, Sextos AG, Manolis GD (2010) Selection of earthquake ground motion records: a state-of-the-art review from a structural engineering perspective. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30(4):157–169. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2009.10.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Katsanos EI, Sextos AG, Elnashai AS (2014) Prediction of inelastic response periods of buildings based on intensity measures and analytical model parameters. Eng Struct 71:161–177. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.04.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kottke AR, Rathje EM (2008) A semi-automated procedure for selecting and scaling recorded earthquake motions for dynamic analysis. Earthq Spectra 24(4):911–932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J., 653 ppGoogle Scholar
  27. Lin T, Haselton CB, Baker JW (2013a) Conditional-spectrum-based ground motion selection. Part II: intensity-based assessments and evaluation of alternative target spectra. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. doi:10.1002/eqeGoogle Scholar
  28. Lin T, Haselton CB, Baker JW (2013b) Conditional-spectrum-based ground motion selection. Part I: hazard consistency for risk-based assessments. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. doi:10.1002/eqeGoogle Scholar
  29. Luco N, Cornell CA (2007) Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for near-source and ordinary earthquake ground motions. Earthq Spectra 23(2):357–392. doi:10.1193/1.2723158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McGuire RK (2004) Seismic hazard and risk analysis, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, 240 ppGoogle Scholar
  31. Naeim F, Alimoradi A, Pezeshk S (2004) Selection and scaling of ground motion time histories for structural design using genetic algorithms. Earthq Spectra 20(2):413–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Padgett JE, Desroches R (2007) Sensitivity of seismic response and fragility to parameter uncertainty. J Struct Eng 133(12):1710–1718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sextos AG, Katsanos EI, Manolis GD (2010) EC8-based earthquake record selection procedure evaluation: validation study based on observed damage of an irregular R/C building. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 1–15. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.10.009Google Scholar
  34. Shome N, Cornell CA, Bazzurro P, Carballo EJ (1998) Earthquakes, records and nonlinear responses. Earthq Spectra 14(3):469–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Standards New Zealand (SNZ) (2004) NZS 1170.5:2004 – Structural design actions. Earthquake actions. Standards New Zealand, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  36. Tothong P, Luco N (2007) Probabilistic seismic demand analysis using advanced ground motion intensity measures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36:1813–1835. doi:10.1002/eqeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wang G (2010) A ground motion selection and modification method capturing response spectrum characteristics and variability of scenario earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 1–15. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.11.007Google Scholar
  38. Youngs RR, Power MS, Wang G, Makdisi F, Chin CC (2007) Design ground motion library (DGML) – tool for selecting time history records for specific engineering applications. In: Proceedings of SMIP07 seminar on utilization of strong-motion data, SacramentoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Structural Engineering, Department of Civil EngineeringAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece