Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 17, Issue 6, pp 2871–2898 | Cite as

Validation of stochastic ground motion model modification by comparison to seismic demand of recorded ground motions

  • Alexandra Tsioulou
  • Alexandros A. TaflanidisEmail author
  • Carmine Galasso
Original Research


An important consideration for the adoption of stochastic ground motion models in performance-based earthquake engineering applications is that the probability distribution of target intensity measures from the developed suites of time-histories is compatible with the prescribed hazard at the site and structure of interest. The authors have recently developed a computationally efficient framework to modify existing stochastic ground motion models to facilitate such a compatibility. This paper extends this effort through a validation study by comparing the seismic demand of recorded ground motions to the demand of stochastic ground motion models established through the proposed modification. Suites of recorded and stochastic ground motions, whose spectral acceleration statistics match the mean and variance of target spectra within a period range of interest, are utilized as input to perform response history analysis of inelastic single-degree-of-freedom (SDoF) case-study systems. SDoF systems with peak-oriented hysteretic behavior, strain hardening, and (potentially) degrading characteristics, experiencing different degree of inelastic response, are considered. Response is evaluated using the peak inelastic displacement and the hysteretic energy given by the work of the SDoF restoring force as engineering demand parameters (EDPs). The resultant EDP distributions are compared to assess the effect of (and validate) the proposed modification. It is shown that the proposed modification of stochastic ground motion models can provide results that are similar to these from recorded ground motion suites, improving any (in some cases large) discrepancies that exist for the initial, unmodified stochastic ground motion model.


Stochastic ground motions Ground motion records Spectrum compatibility Hazard compatibility 


Supplementary material

10518_2019_571_MOESM1_ESM.docx (33 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 33 kb)


  1. Abrahamson N, Atkinson G, Boore D, Bozorgnia Y, Campbell K, Chiou B, Idriss IM, Silva W, Youngs R (2008) Comparisons of the NGA ground-motion relations. Earthq Spectra 24(1):45–66Google Scholar
  2. Anderson JG (2014) The composite source model for broadband simulations of strong ground motions. Seismol Res Lett 86(1):68–74Google Scholar
  3. ASCE (2010) Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE 7-10. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  4. ASCE (2016) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, ASCE 7-16 ASCE, Reston, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  5. Atkinson GM, Silva W (2000) Stochastic modeling of California ground motions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 90(2):255–274Google Scholar
  6. Beck JL, Papadimitriou C (1993) Moving resonance in nonlinear response to fully nonstationary stochastic ground motion. Probab Eng Mech 8(3–4):157–167. Google Scholar
  7. Boore DM (2003) Simulation of ground motion using the stochastic method. Pure Appl Geophys 160:635–676Google Scholar
  8. Bradley BA (2010) A generalized conditional intensity measure approach and holistic ground-motion selection. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 39(12):1321–1342Google Scholar
  9. CEN (2004) Eurocode 8: design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures, part 1.1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. Pren1998-1Google Scholar
  10. Chiou B, Darragh R, Gregor N, Silva W (2008) NGA project strong-motion database. Earthq Spectra 24(1):23–44Google Scholar
  11. Deniz D, Song J, Hajjar JF (2017) Energy-based seismic collapse criterion for ductile planar structural frames. Eng Struct 141:1–13Google Scholar
  12. FEMA-P-58 (2012) Seismic performance assessment of buildings. Applied Technology Council, Redwood CityGoogle Scholar
  13. Galasso C, Iervolino I (2011) Relevant and minor criteria in real record selection procedures based on spectral compatibility. In: Proceedings of the 14th conference ANIDIS “L’ingegneria sismica in Italia”, Bari (Italy)Google Scholar
  14. Galasso C, Zareian F, Iervolino I, Graves R (2012) Validation of ground-motion simulations for historical events using SDoF systems. Bull Seismol Soc Am 102(6):2727–2740Google Scholar
  15. Gidaris I, Taflanidis AA (2013) Parsimonious modeling of hysteretic structural response in earthquake engineering: calibration/validation and implementation in probabilistic risk assessment. Eng Struct 49:1017–1033Google Scholar
  16. Gidaris I, Taflanidis AA (2015) Performance assessment and optimization of fluid viscous dampers through life-cycle cost criteria and comparison to alternative design approaches. Bull Earthq Eng 13(4):1003–1028Google Scholar
  17. Goulet CA, Haselton CB, Mitrani-Reiser J, Beck JL, Deierlein G, Porter KA, Stewart JP (2007) Evaluation of the seismic performance of code-conforming reinforced-concrete frame building-From seismic hazard to collapse safety and economic losses. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36(13):1973–1997Google Scholar
  18. Graves RW, Pitarka A (2010) Broadband ground-motion simulation using a hybrid approach. Bull Seismol Soc Am 100(5A):2095–2123Google Scholar
  19. Graves R, Jordan TH, Callaghan S, Deelman E, Field E, Juve G, Kesselman C, Maechling P, Mehta G, Milner K (2011) CyberShake: a physics-based seismic hazard model for southern California. Pure Appl Geophys 168(3–4):367–381Google Scholar
  20. Iervolino I, De Luca F, Cosenza E (2010a) Spectral shape-based assessment of SDOF nonlinear response to real, adjusted and artificial accelerograms. Eng Struct 32(9):2776–2792Google Scholar
  21. Iervolino I, Galasso C, Cosenza E (2010b) REXEL: computer aided record selection for code-based seismic structural analysis. Bull Earthq Eng 8(2):339–362Google Scholar
  22. Kaklamanos J, Baise LG, Boore DM (2011) Estimating unknown input parameters when implementing the NGA ground-motion prediction equations in engineering practice. Earthq Spectra 27(4):1219–1235Google Scholar
  23. Katsanos E, Sextos A (2015) Inelastic spectra to predict period elongation of structures under earthquake loading. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 44(11):1765–1782Google Scholar
  24. Katsanos E, Sextos A (2018) Structure-specific selection of earthquake ground motions for the reliable design and assessment of structures. Bull Earthq Eng 16(2):583–611Google Scholar
  25. 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):157–169Google Scholar
  26. Kohrangi M, Bazzurro P, Vamvatsikos D, Spillatura A (2017) Conditional spectrum‐based ground motion record selection using average spectral acceleration. Earthq Eng Struct DynGoogle Scholar
  27. Lin T, Haselton CB, Baker JW (2013) Conditional spectrum-based ground motion selection. Part I: Hazard consistency for risk-based assessments. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 42(12):1847–1865Google Scholar
  28. Mathworks (2018) SIMULINK: User’s GuideGoogle Scholar
  29. Mavroeidis GP, Scotti CM (2013) Finite-fault simulation of strong ground motion from the 2010 M w 7.0 Haiti earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 103(5):2557–2576Google Scholar
  30. Moehle J, Deierlein G (2004) A framework methodology for performance-based earthquake engineering. In: 13th World conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, Canada, August 1–6Google Scholar
  31. Power M, Chiou B, Abrahamson N, Bozorgnia Y, Shantz T, Roblee C (2008) An overview of the NGA project. Earthq Spectra 24(1):3–21Google Scholar
  32. Reyes JC, Kalkan E (2012) How many records should be used in an ASCE/SEI-7 ground motion scaling procedure? Earthq Spectra 28(3):1223–1242Google Scholar
  33. Rezaeian S, Der Kiureghian A (2010) Simulation of synthetic ground motions for specified earthquake and site characteristics. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 39(10):1155–1180Google Scholar
  34. Ruiz-García J, Miranda E (2003) Inelastic displacement ratios for evaluation of existing structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 32(8):1237–1258Google Scholar
  35. Scherbaum F, Cotton F, Staedtke H (2006) The estimation of minimum-misfit stochastic models from empirical ground-motion prediction equations. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96(2):427–445Google Scholar
  36. Seifried A, Baker J (2016) Spectral variability and its relationship to structural response estimated from scaled and spectrum-matched ground motions. Earthq Spectra 32(4):2191–2205Google Scholar
  37. Smerzini C, Galasso C, Iervolino I, Paolucci R (2014) Ground motion record selection based on broadband spectral compatibility. Earthq Spectra 30(4):1427–1448Google Scholar
  38. Tsioulou A, Taflanidis AA, Galasso C (2018a) Modification of stochastic ground motion models for matching target intensity measures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 47(1):3–24Google Scholar
  39. Tsioulou A, Taflanidis AA, Galasso C (2018b) Hazard-compatible modification of stochastic ground motion models. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 47(8):1774–1798Google Scholar
  40. Vetter C, Taflanidis A (2014) Comparison of alternative stochastic ground motion models for seismic risk characterization. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 58:48–65Google Scholar
  41. Vetter C, Taflanidis AA, Mavroeidis GP (2016) Tuning of stochastic ground motion models for compatibility with ground motion prediction equations. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 45(6):893–912Google Scholar
  42. Vlachos C, Papakonstantinou KG, Deodatis G (2018) Predictive model for site specific simulation of ground motions based on earthquake scenarios. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 47(1):195–218Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering DepartmentUniversity College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Civil and Environmental Engineering and Earth Sciences DepartmentUniversity of Notre DameNotre DameUSA

Personalised recommendations