A generalized conditional intensity measure approach and holistic ground‐motion selection

A generalized conditional intensity measure (GCIM) approach is proposed for use in the holistic selection of ground motions for any form of seismic response analysis. The essence of the method is the construction of the multivariate distribution of any set of ground‐motion intensity measures conditioned on the occurrence of a specific ground‐motion intensity measure (commonly obtained from probabilistic seismic hazard analysis). The approach therefore allows any number of ground‐motion intensity measures identified as important in a particular seismic response problem to be considered. A holistic method of ground‐motion selection is also proposed based on the statistical comparison, for each intensity measure, of the empirical distribution of the ground‐motion suite with the ‘target’ GCIM distribution. A simple procedure to estimate the magnitude of potential bias in the results of seismic response analyses when the ground‐motion suite does not conform to the GCIM distribution is also demonstrated. The combination of these three features of the approach make it entirely holistic in that: any level of complexity in ground‐motion selection for any seismic response analysis can be exercised; users explicitly understand the simplifications made in the selected suite of ground motions; and an approximate estimate of any bias associated with such simplifications is obtained. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A ground motion selection procedure for enforcing hazard consistency and estimating seismic demand hazard curves

This paper develops a procedure to select unscaled ground motions for estimating seismic demand hazard curves (SDHCs) in performance‐based earthquake engineering. Currently, SDHCs are estimated from a probabilistic seismic demand analysis, where several ensembles of ground motions are selected and scaled to a user‐specified scalar conditioning intensity measure (IM). In contrast, the procedure developed herein provides a way to select a single ensemble of unscaled ground motions for estimating the SDHC. In the context of unscaled motions, the proposed procedure requires three inputs: (i) database of unscaled ground motions, (ii) I M , the vector of IMs for selecting ground motions, and (iii) sample size, n; in the context of scaled motions, two additional inputs are needed: (i) a maximum acceptable scale factor, SF_max, and (ii) a target fraction of scaled ground motions, γ. Using a recently developed approach for evaluating ground motion selection and modification procedures, the proposed procedure is evaluated for a variety of inputs and is demonstrated to provide accurate estimates of the SDHC when the vector of IMs chosen to select ground motions is sufficient for the response quantity of interest. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

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.     

Ground motion selection for seismic slope displacement analysis using a generalized intensity measure distribution method

Selecting ground motions based on the generalized intensity measure distribution (GIMD) approach has many appealing features, but it has not been fully verified in engineering practice. In this paper, several suites of ground motions, which have almost identical distributions of spectral acceleration (SA) ordinates but different distributions of non‐SA intensity measures, are selected using the GIMD‐based approach for a given earthquake scenario. The selected ground motion suites are used to compute the sliding displacements of various slopes. Comparisons of the resulting displacements demonstrate that selecting ground motions with biased distribution of some intensity measures (ie, Arias intensity) may yield systematic biases (up to 60% for some slope types). Therefore, compared to the ground motions selected based only on the distribution of SA ordinates, the ground motion suite selected by the GIMD‐based approach can better represent the various characteristics of earthquake loadings, resulting in generally unbiased estimation in specific engineering applications.     

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.     

Markov chain Monte Carlo ground‐motion selection algorithms for conditional intensity measure targets

Two new algorithms are presented for efficiently selecting suites of ground motions that match a target multivariate distribution or conditional intensity measure target. The first algorithm is a Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) approach in which records are sequentially added to a selected set such that the joint probability density function (PDF) of the target distribution is progressively approximated by the discrete distribution of the selected records. The second algorithm derives from the concept of the acceptance ratio within MCMC but does not involve any sampling. The first method takes advantage of MCMC's ability to efficiently explore a sampling distribution through the implementation of a traditional MCMC algorithm. This method is shown to enable very good matches to multivariate targets to be obtained when the numbers of records to be selected is relatively large. A weaker performance for fewer records can be circumvented by the second method that uses greedy optimisation to impose additional constraints upon properties of the target distribution. A preselection approach based upon values of the multivariate PDF is proposed that enables near‐optimal record sets to be identified with a very close match to the target. Both methods are applied for a number response analyses associated with different sizes of record sets and rupture scenarios. Comparisons are made throughout with the Generalised Conditional Intensity Measure (GCIM) approach. The first method provides similar results to GCIM but with slightly worse performance for small record sets, while the second method outperforms method 1 and GCIM for all considered cases.     

The effect of amplitude scaling limits on conditional spectrum-based ground motion selection

Amplitude scaling is commonly used to select ground motions matching a target response spectrum. In this paper, the effect of scaling limits on ground motion selection, based on the conditional spectrum framework, is investigated. Target spectra are computed for four probabilistic seismic hazard cases in Western United States, and 16 ground motion suites are selected using different scaling limits (ie, 2, 5, 10, and 15). Comparison of spectral acceleration distributions of the selected ground motion suites demonstrates that the use of a scaling limit of 2 yields a relatively poor representation of the target spectra, because of the small limit leading to an insufficient number of available ground motions. It is also shown that increasing scaling limit results in selected ground motions with generally increased distributions of Arias intensity and significant duration Ds_5-75, implying that scaling limit consideration can significantly influence the cumulative and duration characteristics of selected ground motions. The ground motion suites selected are then used as input for slope displacement and structural dynamic analyses. Comparative results demonstrate that the consideration of scaling limits in ground motion selection has a notable influence on the distribution of the engineering demand parameters calculated (ie, slope displacement and interstory drift ratio). Finally, based on extensive analyses, a scaling limit range of 3 to 5 is recommended for general use when selecting ground motion records from the NGA-West2 database.     

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.     

Average spectral acceleration as an intensity measure for collapse risk assessment

This paper investigates the performance of spectral acceleration averaged over a period range (Sa_avg) as an intensity measure (IM) for estimating the collapse risk of structures subjected to earthquake loading. The performance of Sa_avg is evaluated using the following criteria: efficiency, sufficiency, the availability or ease of developing probabilistic seismic hazard information in terms of the IM and the variability of collapse risk estimates produced by the IM. Comparisons are also made between Sa_avg and the more traditional IM: spectral acceleration at the first‐mode period of the structure (Sa(T₁)). Though most previous studies have evaluated IMs using a relatively limited set of structures, this paper considers nearly 700 moment‐resisting frame and shear wall structures of various heights to compare the efficiency and sufficiency of the IMs. The collapse risk estimates produced by Sa_avg and Sa(T₁) are also compared, and the variability of the risk estimates is evaluated when different ground motion sets are used to assess the structural response. The results of this paper suggest that Sa_avg, when computed using an appropriate period range, is generally more efficient, more likely to be sufficient and provides more stable collapse risk estimates than Sa(T₁). Copyright © 2015 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.     

A multidirectional conditional spectrum

This paper presents a procedure to generate multidirectional conditional spectra (MDCS) that allow for the characterisation of seismic demands at different angles of incidence. Being conditional on a particular period and its direction of maximum response, it is considered to be a natural evolution of the conditional spectrum to account for the effects of directionality, that is, the variation of seismic demands as a function of the angle of incidence of ground motions, which can have a significant effect on the performance of different kinds of structures. The three main components needed for the generation of MDCS are explained in detail. Monte Carlo simulations are conducted using different sampling methods to assess the effects of incorporating the correlation between demands at different orientations for the same oscillator period, and a novel correlation model is proposed for this purpose. The statistical characteristics of MDCS, their relation with the conditional spectrum, the advantages of the MDCS over previous definitions of orientation‐specific spectra, and prospective future developments are discussed.     

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.     

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.     

基于条件均值反应谱的特大地震强震记录的选取及调整方法

在PEER地震动数据库(PGMD)的基础上,结合近几年国内外特大地震的地面运动记录,建立了地面运动数据库,同时根据日本Mw 9.0特大地震获得的141组记录进行统计回归建立加速度反应谱衰减关系,并采用条件均值反应谱法,即设定地震与结构概率需求结合的方法选择地面运动.选波实例表明,当设定地震为特大地震时,基于条件均值反应谱法选取地面运动记录时,扩展数据库中大震记录并建立符合大震记录加速度反应谱的衰减关系是十分必要与迫切的.该思路为进一步研究结构动态时程分析中地面运动记录选取问题及所选记录提供了依据.     

基于条件均值反应谱的特大地震强震记录的选取及调整方法

在PEER地震动数据库(PGMD)的基础上, 结合近几年国内外特大地震的地面运动记录, 建立了地面运动数据库, 同时根据日本M_W9.0特大地震获得的141组记录进行统计回归建立加速度反应谱衰减关系, 并采用条件均值反应谱法, 即设定地震与结构概率需求结合的方法选择地面运动. 选波实例表明, 当设定地震为特大地震时, 基于条件均值反应谱法选取地面运动记录时, 扩展数据库中大震记录并建立符合大震记录加速度反应谱的衰减关系是十分必要与迫切的. 该思路为进一步研究结构动态时程分析中地面运动记录选取问题及所选记录提供了依据.     

地震动强度对场地地震反应的影响

通过对场地地震反应的研究发现,地震动强度不同,同样的场地对地震动的影响也不同,得到的反应谱形状也不同。目前我国抗震设计规范中不同烈度下的设计反应谱形状完全一致,没有考虑地震动强弱对相同场地反应谱形状的影响。     

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.     

Ground motion selection for scenario ruptures using the generalised conditional intensity measure (GCIM) method

In this paper, the generalised conditional intensity measure (GCIM) method is extended to ground motion selection for scenario earthquake ruptures. The selection algorithm is based on generating random realisations of the considered intensity measure (IM) distributions for a specific rupture scenario and then finding the prospective ground motions that best fit the realisations using an optimal amplitude scale factor. Using different rupture scenarios and site conditions, two important aspects of the GCIM methodology are scrutinised: (i) different weight vectors for the various IMs considered and (ii) quantifying the importance of replicate selections for ensembles with different numbers of desired ground motions. It is demonstrated that considering only spectral acceleration (SA) ordinates in the selection process, as is common in many conventional selection procedures, may result in selected motions with a biased representation for duration and cumulative ground motion effects. In contrast, considering IMs other than SA ordinates (in particular, significant duration, cumulative absolute velocity, and Arias intensity) results in ensembles with an appropriate representation of these IMs, without a practically significant effect on SA ordinates. The benefit of conducting replicate selections to obtain a suite of motions with an improved representation for the distribution of the considered IMs is demonstrated, and a minimum number of replicates are suggested for different ground motion ensemble sizes. Copyright © 2015 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.