Evaluation of the exact conditional spectrum and generalized conditional intensity measure methods for ground motion selection

Two existing, contemporary ground motion selection and modification procedures – (i) exact conditional spectrum (CS‐exact) and (ii) generalized conditional intensity measure (GCIM) – are evaluated in their ability to accurately estimate seismic demand hazard curves (SDHCs) of a given structure at a specified site. The amount of effort involved in implementing these procedures to compute a single SDHC is studied, and a case study is chosen where rigorous benchmark SDHCs can be determined for evaluation purposes. By comparing estimates from ground motion selection and modification procedures with the benchmark, we conclude that estimates from CS‐exact are unbiased in many of the cases considered. The estimates from GCIM are even more accurate, as they are unbiased for most – but not all – of the cases where estimates from CS‐exact are biased. We find that it is possible to obtain biased SDHCs from GCIM, even after employing a very diverse collection of intensity measures to select ground motions and implementing its bias‐checking feature, because it is usually difficult to identify intensity measures that are truly ‘sufficient’ for the response of a complex, multi‐degree‐of‐freedom system. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Improved seismic hazard model with application to probabilistic seismic demand analysis

An improved seismic hazard model for use in performance‐based earthquake engineering is presented. The model is an improved approximation from the so‐called ‘power law’ model, which is linear in log–log space. The mathematics of the model and uncertainty incorporation is briefly discussed. Various means of fitting the approximation to hazard data derived from probabilistic seismic hazard analysis are discussed, including the limitations of the model. Based on these ‘exact’ hazard data for major centres in New Zealand, the parameters for the proposed model are calibrated. To illustrate the significance of the proposed model, a performance‐based assessment is conducted on a typical bridge, via probabilistic seismic demand analysis. The new hazard model is compared to the current power law relationship to illustrate its effects on the risk assessment. The propagation of epistemic uncertainty in the seismic hazard is also considered. To allow further use of the model in conceptual calculations, a semi‐analytical method is proposed to calculate the demand hazard in closed form. For the case study shown, the resulting semi‐analytical closed form solution is shown to be significantly more accurate than the analytical closed‐form solution using the power law hazard model, capturing the ‘exact’ numerical integration solution to within 7% accuracy over the entire range of exceedance rate. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Ground motion selection for simulation‐based seismic hazard and structural reliability assessment

This paper examines four methods by which ground motions can be selected for dynamic seismic response analyses of engineered systems when the underlying seismic hazard is quantified via ground motion simulation rather than empirical ground motion prediction equations. Even with simulation‐based seismic hazard, a ground motion selection process is still required in order to extract a small number of time series from the much larger set developed as part of the hazard calculation. Four specific methods are presented for ground motion selection from simulation‐based seismic hazard analyses, and pros and cons of each are discussed via a simple and reproducible illustrative example. One of the four methods (method 1 ‘direct analysis’) provides a ‘benchmark’ result (i.e., using all simulated ground motions), enabling the consistency of the other three more efficient selection methods to be addressed. Method 2 (‘stratified sampling’) is a relatively simple way to achieve a significant reduction in the number of ground motions required through selecting subsets of ground motions binned based on an intensity measure, IM. Method 3 (‘simple multiple stripes’) has the benefit of being consistent with conventional seismic assessment practice using as‐recorded ground motions, but both methods 2 and 3 are strongly dependent on the efficiency of the conditioning IM to predict the seismic responses of interest. Method 4 (‘generalized conditional intensity measure‐based selection’) is consistent with ‘advanced’ selection methods used for as‐recorded ground motions and selects subsets of ground motions based on multiple IMs, thus overcoming this limitation in methods 2 and 3. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A comparison of intensity‐based demand distributions and the seismic demand hazard for seismic performance assessment

This paper compares the seismic demands obtained from an intensity‐based assessment, as conventionally considered in seismic design guidelines, with the seismic demand hazard. Intensity‐based assessments utilize the distribution of seismic demand from ground motions that have a specific value of some conditioning intensity measure, and the mean of this distribution is conventionally used in design verification. The seismic demand hazard provides the rate of exceedance of various seismic demand values and is obtained by integrating the distribution of seismic demand at multiple intensity levels with the seismic hazard curve. The seismic demand hazard is a more robust metric for quantifying seismic performance, because seismic demands from an intensity‐based assessment: (i) are not unique, with different values obtained using different conditioning intensity measures; and (ii) do not consider the possibility that demand values could be exceeded from different intensity ground motions. Empirical results, for a bridge‐foundation‐soil system, illustrate that the mean seismic demand from an intensity‐based assessment almost always underestimates the demand hazard value for the exceedance rate considered, on average by 17% and with a large variability. Furthermore, modification factors based on approximate theory are found to be unreliable. Adopting the maximum of the mean values from multiple intensity‐based assessments, with different conditional intensity measures, provides a less biased prediction of the seismic demand hazard value, but with still a large variability, and a proportional increase the required number of analyses. For an equivalent number of analyses, direct computation of the seismic demand hazard is a more logical choice and provides additional performance insight. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Evaluation of ground motion selection and modification procedures using synthetic ground motions

This study presents a novel approach for evaluating ground motion selection and modification (GMSM) procedures in the context of probabilistic seismic demand analysis. In essence, synthetic ground motions are employed to derive the benchmark seismic demand hazard curve (SDHC), for any structure and response quantity of interest, and to establish the causal relationship between a GMSM procedure and the bias in its resulting estimate of the SDHC. An example is presented to illustrate how GMSM procedures may be evaluated using synthetic motions. To demonstrate the robustness of the proposed approach, two significantly different stochastic models for simulating ground motions are considered. By quantifying the bias in any estimate of the SDHC, the proposed approach enables the analyst to rank GMSM procedures in their ability to accurately estimate the SDHC, examine the sufficiency of intensity measures employed in ground motion selection, and assess the significance of the conditioning intensity measure in probabilistic seismic demand analysis. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A framework for the evaluation of ground motion selection and modification procedures

This study develops a framework to evaluate ground motion selection and modification (GMSM) procedures. The context is probabilistic seismic demand analysis, where response history analyses of a given structure, using ground motions determined by a GMSM procedure, are performed in order to estimate the seismic demand hazard curve (SDHC) for the structure at a given site. Currently, a GMSM procedure is evaluated in this context by comparing several resulting estimates of the SDHC, each derived from a different definition of the conditioning intensity measure (IM). Using a simple case study, we demonstrate that conclusions from such an approach are not always definitive; therefore, an alternative approach is desirable. In the alternative proposed herein, all estimates of the SDHC from GMSM procedures are compared against a benchmark SDHC, under a common set of ground motion information. This benchmark SDHC is determined by incorporating a prediction model for the seismic demand into the probabilistic seismic hazard analysis calculations. To develop an understanding of why one GMSM procedure may provide more accurate estimates of the SDHC than another procedure, we identify the role of ‘IM sufficiency’ in the relationship between (i) bias in the SDHC estimate and (ii) ‘hazard consistency’ of the corresponding ground motions obtained from a GMSM procedure. Finally, we provide examples of how misleading conclusions may potentially be obtained from erroneous implementations of the proposed framework. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Practice‐oriented estimation of the seismic demand hazard using ground motions at few intensity levels

This paper examines the calculation of the seismic demand hazard in a practice‐oriented manner via the use of seismic response analyses at few intensity levels. The seismic demand hazard is a more robust measure for quantifying seismic performance, when seismic hazard is represented in a probabilistic format, than intensity‐based assessments, which remain prevalent in seismic design codes. It is illustrated that, for a relatively complex bridge–foundation–soil system case study, the seismic demand hazard can be estimated with sufficient accuracy using as little as three intensity measure levels that have exceedance probabilities of 50%, 10% and 2% in 50 years which are already of interest in multi‐objective performance‐based design. Compared with the conventional use of the mean demand from an intensity‐based assessment(s), it is illustrated that, for the same number of seismic response analyses, a practice‐oriented ‘approximate’ seismic demand hazard is a more accurate and precise estimate of the ‘exact’ seismic demand hazard. Direct estimation of the seismic demand hazard also provides information of seismic performance at multiple exceedance rates. Thus, it is advocated that if seismic hazard is considered in a probabilistic format, then seismic performance assessment, and acceptance criteria, should be in terms of the seismic demand hazard and not intensity‐based assessments. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A critical examination of seismic response uncertainty analysis in earthquake engineering

The last decade of performance‐based earthquake engineering (PBEE) research has seen a rapidly increasing emphasis placed on the explicit quantification of uncertainties. This paper examines uncertainty consideration in input ground‐motion and numerical seismic response analyses as part of PBEE, with particular attention given to the physical consistency and completeness of uncertainty consideration. It is argued that the use of the commonly adopted incremental dynamic analysis leads to a biased representation of the seismic intensity and that when considering the number of ground motions to be used in seismic response analyses, attention should be given to both reducing parameter estimation uncertainty and also limiting ground‐motion selection bias. Research into uncertainties in system‐specific numerical seismic response analysis models to date has been largely restricted to the consideration of ‘low‐level’ constitutive model parameter uncertainties. However, ‘high‐level’ constitutive model and model methodology uncertainties are likely significant and therefore represent a key research area in the coming years. It is also argued that the common omission of high‐level seismic response analysis modelling uncertainties leads to a fallacy that ground‐motion uncertainty is more significant than numerical modelling uncertainty. The author's opinion of the role of uncertainty analysis in PBEE is also presented. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Authors' reply to the discussion by Brendon A. Bradley of ‘A framework for the evaluation of ground motion selection and modification procedures’

In this short communication, we respond to the comments made by Dr Brendon A. Bradley and provide additional context to our paper under discussion.Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Effects of two alternative representations of ground‐motion uncertainty on probabilistic seismic demand assessment of structures

A probabilistic representation of the entire ground‐motion time history can be constructed based on a stochastic model that depends on seismic source parameters. An advanced stochastic simulation scheme known as Subset Simulation can then be used to efficiently compute the small failure probabilities corresponding to structural limit states. Alternatively, the uncertainty in the ground motion can be represented by adopting a parameter (or a vector of parameters) known as the intensity measure (IM) that captures the dominant features of the ground shaking. Structural performance assessment based on this representation can be broken down into two parts, namely, the structure‐specific part requiring performance assessment for a given value of the IM, and the site‐specific part requiring estimation of the likelihood that ground shaking with a given value of the IM takes place. The effect of these two alternative representations of ground‐motion uncertainty on probabilistic structural response is investigated for two hazard cases. In the first case, these two approaches are compared for a scenario earthquake event with a given magnitude and distance. In the second case, they are compared using a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis to take into account the potential of the surrounding faults to produce events with a range of possible magnitudes and distances. The two approaches are compared on the basis of the probabilistic response of an existing reinforced‐concrete frame structure, which is known to have suffered shear failure in its columns during the 1994 Northridge Earthquake in Los Angeles, California. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Selection and ranking of ground motion models for seismic hazard analysis in the Pyrenees

The issue addressed in this paper is the objective selection of appropriate ground motion models for seismic hazard assessment in the Pyrenees. The method of Scherbaum et al. (2004a) is applied in order to rank eight published ground motion models relevant to intraplate or to low deformation rate contexts. This method is based on a transparent and data-driven process which quantifies the model fit and also measures how well the underlying model assumptions are met. The method is applied to 15 accelerometric records obtained in the Pyrenees for events of local magnitude between 4.8 and 5.1, corresponding to moment magnitudes ranging from 3.7 to 3.9. Only stations at rock sites are considered. A total of 720 spectral amplitudes are used to rank the selected ground motion models. Some control parameters of these models, such as magnitude and distance definitions, may vary from one model to the other. It is thus important to correct the selected models for their difference with respect to the magnitude and distance definitions used for the Pyrenean data. Our analysis shows that, with these corrections, some of the ground motion models successfully fit the data. These are the Lussou et al. (2001) and the Berge-Thierry et al. (2003) models. According to the selected ground motion models, a possible scenario of a magnitude 6 event is proposed; it predicts response spectra accelerations of 0.08–0.1 g at 1 Hz at a hypocentral distance of 10 km.     

Discussion on ‘a framework for the evaluation of ground motion selection and modification procedures’ by N. Simon Kwong,Anil K. Chopra,and Robin K. McGuire

The paper under discussion proposes a framework to evaluate ground motion selection and modification procedures and illustrates its application for two different procedures as applied to a non‐degrading bilinear inelastic single‐degree‐of‐freedom system. This discussion focuses on providing additional context that this writer feels is needed in relation to both the proposed framework and also its specific application in the paper, which are important for the conclusions made by the authors. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A new approach of selecting real input ground motions for seismic design: The most unfavourable real seismic design ground motions

This paper presents a new way of selecting real input ground motions for seismic design and analysis of structures based on a comprehensive method for estimating the damage potential of ground motions, which takes into consideration of various ground motion parameters and structural seismic damage criteria in terms of strength, deformation, hysteretic energy and dual damage of Park & Ang damage index. The proposed comprehensive method fully involves the effects of the intensity, frequency content and duration of ground motions and the dynamic characteristics of structures. Then, the concept of the most unfavourable real seismic design ground motion is introduced. Based on the concept, the most unfavourable real seismic design ground motions for rock, stiff soil, medium soil and soft soil site conditions are selected in terms of three typical period ranges of structures. The selected real strong motion records are suitable for seismic analysis of important structures whose failure or collapse will be avoided at a higher level of confidence during the strong earthquake, as they can cause the greatest damage to structures and thereby result in the highest damage potential from an extended real ground motion database for a given site. In addition, this paper also presents the real input design ground motions with medium damage potential, which can be used for the seismic analysis of structures located at the area with low and moderate seismicity. The most unfavourable real seismic design ground motions are verified by analysing the seismic response of structures. It is concluded that the most unfavourable real seismic design ground motion approach can select the real ground motions that can result in the highest damage potential for a given structure and site condition, and the real ground motions can be mainly used for structures whose failure or collapse will be avoided at a higher level of confidence during the strong earthquake. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

保定市设计地震动参数的研究

本文根据保定市及周围地区的地震地质环境，在地震危险性分析的基础上，采用等效线性一维波动方程进行土层的地震反应分析。给出50年超越概率63％、10％、2％基岩和地面的水平向峰值加速度、反应谱（场址基本烈度Ⅶ度）和地震影响系数最大值。该结果为抗震设计提供了可靠依据，具有应用价值。     

Effect of ground motion selection methods on seismic collapse fragility of RC frame buildings

Variation in the seismic collapse fragility of reinforced concrete frame buildings predicted using different ground motion (GM) selection methods is investigated in this paper. To simulate the structural collapse, a fiber‐element modelling approach with path‐dependent cyclic nonlinear material models that account for concrete confinement and crushing, reinforcement buckling as well as low cycle fatigue is used. The adopted fiber analysis approach has been found to reliably predict the loss in vertical load carrying capacity of structural components in addition to the sidesway mode of collapse due to destabilizing P–Δ moments at large inelastic deflections. Multiple stripe analysis is performed by conducting response history analyses at various hazard levels to generate the collapse fragility curves. To select GMs at various hazard levels, two alternatives of uniform hazard spectrum (UHS), conditional mean spectrum (CMS) and generalized conditional intensity measure (GCIM) are used. Collapse analyses are repeated based on structural periods corresponding to initial un‐cracked stiffness and cracked stiffness of the frame members. A return period‐based intensity measure is then introduced and applied in estimating collapse fragility of frame buildings. In line with the results of previous research, it is shown that the choice of structural period significantly affects the collapse fragility predictions. Among the GM selection methods used in this study, GCIM and CMS methods predict similar collapse fragilities for the case study building investigated herein, and UHS provides the most conservative prediction of the collapse capacity, with approximately 40% smaller median collapse capacity compared to the CMS method. The results confirm that collapse probability prediction of buildings using UHS offers a higher level of conservatism in comparison to the other selection methods. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Seismic hazard disaggregation in performance‐based earthquake engineering: occurrence or exceedance?

Seismic hazard disaggregation is commonly used as an aid in ground‐motion selection for the seismic response analysis of structures. This short communication investigates two different approaches to disaggregation related to the exceedance and occurrence of a particular intensity. The impact the different approaches might have on a subsequent structural analysis at a given intensity is explored through the calculation of conditional spectra. It is found that the exceedance approach results in conditional spectra that will be conservative when used as targets for ground‐motion selection. It is however argued that the use of the occurrence disaggregation is more consistent with the objectives of seismic response analyses in the context of performance‐based earthquake engineering. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Conditional spectrum‐based ground motion selection. Part I: Hazard consistency for risk‐based assessments

The conditional spectrum (CS, with mean and variability) is a target response spectrum that links nonlinear dynamic analysis back to probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for ground motion selection. The CS is computed on the basis of a specified conditioning period, whereas structures under consideration may be sensitive to response spectral amplitudes at multiple periods of excitation. Questions remain regarding the appropriate choice of conditioning period when utilizing the CS as the target spectrum. This paper focuses on risk‐based assessments, which estimate the annual rate of exceeding a specified structural response amplitude. Seismic hazard analysis, ground motion selection, and nonlinear dynamic analysis are performed, using the conditional spectra with varying conditioning periods, to assess the performance of a 20‐story reinforced concrete frame structure. It is shown here that risk‐based assessments are relatively insensitive to the choice of conditioning period when the ground motions are carefully selected to ensure hazard consistency. This observed insensitivity to the conditioning period comes from the fact that, when CS‐based ground motion selection is used, the distributions of response spectra of the selected ground motions are consistent with the site ground motion hazard curves at all relevant periods; this consistency with the site hazard curves is independent of the conditioning period. The importance of an exact CS (which incorporates multiple causal earthquakes and ground motion prediction models) to achieve the appropriate spectral variability at periods away from the conditioning period is also highlighted. The findings of this paper are expected theoretically but have not been empirically demonstrated previously. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Conditional spectrum‐based ground motion selection. Part II: Intensity‐based assessments and evaluation of alternative target spectra

In a companion paper, an overview and problem definition was presented for ground motion selection on the basis of the conditional spectrum (CS), to perform risk‐based assessments (which estimate the annual rate of exceeding a specified structural response amplitude) for a 20‐story reinforced concrete frame structure. Here, the methodology is repeated for intensity‐based assessments (which estimate structural response for ground motions with a specified intensity level) to determine the effect of conditioning period. Additionally, intensity‐based and risk‐based assessments are evaluated for two other possible target spectra, specifically the uniform hazard spectrum (UHS) and the conditional mean spectrum (CMS, without variability).It is demonstrated for the structure considered that the choice of conditioning period in the CS can substantially impact structural response estimates in an intensity‐based assessment. When used for intensity‐based assessments, the UHS typically results in equal or higher median estimates of structural response than the CS; the CMS results in similar median estimates of structural response compared with the CS but exhibits lower dispersion because of the omission of variability. The choice of target spectrum is then evaluated for risk‐based assessments, showing that the UHS results in overestimation of structural response hazard, whereas the CMS results in underestimation. Additional analyses are completed for other structures to confirm the generality of the conclusions here. These findings have potentially important implications both for the intensity‐based seismic assessments using the CS in future building codes and the risk‐based seismic assessments typically used in performance‐based earthquake engineering applications. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Comparing the adequacy of alternative ground motion intensity measures for the estimation of structural responses

Practical methods for the probability‐based seismic assessment of structures make use of estimates of demands produced by earthquakes of different intensities. The uncertainties associated with these estimates are highly dependent on the variable adopted as the intensity measure (IM, e.g., PGA, spectral acceleration, etc.). This generates the need to compare the efficiency of an originally adopted IMwith that of a new candidate. This implies comparing the dispersion of the demand measure (DM, e.g., maximum interstorey drift ratio, ductility demand, etc.) conditional to each of the two IMs. In order to obtain the demand estimates in a conventional way, a full set of dynamic response analyses should be performed for each IM under scrutiny, i.e., multiple records scaled at several fixed values of each IM. The procedure developed here serves to accelerate this comparison avoiding the effort required to evaluate the dynamic responses of the structure for all the ground motion time histories considered every time that a new IM is adopted. For this purpose, use is made of available results of analyses performed for a different (i.e., the original) IM. Two methods are proposed: the direct method involves performing a regression of the results obtained from the original analyses, taking the candidate IM as the independent variable. The indirect method involves rebuilding the probability density function of the DM given a defined value of the candidate IM by means of the total probability theorem, using the results of the original analyses and certain data relating the two IMs. The proposed methods have been tested by application to several SDOF systems with different periods and different cyclic‐response backbone curves. The conditions affecting their approximation are explored, and some criteria to improve them are identified. The procedure can also be used to determine the optimum value of a parameter to be used in a parameter‐based IM. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Prediction of the median IDA curve by employing a limited number of ground motion records

A methodology has been proposed which can be used to reduce the number of ground motion records needed for the reliable prediction of the median seismic response of structures by means of incremental dynamic analysis (IDA). This methodology is presently limited to predictions of the median IDA curve only. The reduction in the number of ground motion records needed to predict the median IDA curve is achieved by introducing a precedence list of ground motion records. The determination of such a list is an optimization problem, which is solved in the paper by means of (1) a genetic algorithm and (2) a proposed simple procedure. The seismic response of a simple, computationally non‐demanding structural model has been used as input data for the optimization problem. The presented example is a three‐storey‐reinforced concrete building, subjected to two sets of ground motion records, one a free‐field set and the other a near‐field set. It is shown that the median IDA curves can be predicted with acceptable accuracy by employing only four ground motion records instead of the 24 or 30 records, which are the total number of ground motion records for the free‐field and near‐field sets, respectively. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.