Advertisement

A Review of Ground Motion Record Selection Strategies for Dynamic Structural Analysis

  • Iunio Iervolino
  • Gaetano Manfredi
Part of the CISM International Centre for Mechanical Sciences book series (CISM, volume 502)

Abstract

Non-linear dynamic analysis is recognized as the more accurate tool for seismic evaluation of structures in the case of both probabilistic assessment and design. The key issue in performing this kind of analysis is the selection of appropriate seismic input (e.g. ground motion signals), which should allow for a correct and accurate estimation of the seismic performance on the basis of the hazard at the site where the structure is located. To this aim several procedures have been proposed, they require specific characterization of real ground motion records via the so called ground motion intensity measures (mainly related with elastic spectral features of the record) proven to be generally efficient in the estimation of the structural performance. This kind of approach requires specific skills as well as detailed probabilistic evaluation of the seismic threat to be available to the engineers. For this and other reasons codes worldwide, in many cases, try to acknowledge these procedures in an approximate fashion.

In this paper recent and advanced literature on the topic is presented and discussed. The current best practice in record selection is reviewed for the case of probabilistic seismic risk analysis and for code-based seismic assessment and design with speical attention to the prescriptions of Eurocode 8 for both buildings and bridges. Finally, some light is briefly shaded on the effects of time scaling of records and its use in shake-table structural testing.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. J.W. Baker. Probabilistic structural response assessment using vectorvalued intensity measures. Earthquake Engineering Structural Dynamics, 36 (13):1861–1883, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. J.W. Baker and C.A. Cornell. Vector-valued ground-motion intensity measures for probabilistic seismic demand analysis. Technical report, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 2005. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center Report No. 150.Google Scholar
  3. J.W. Baker and C.A. Cornell. Which spectral acceleration are you using? Arthquake Spectra, 22(2):293–312, 2006a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. J.W. Baker and C.A. Cornell. Spectral shape, epsilon and record selection. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 35(9):1077–1095, 2006b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. J.W. Baker and C.A. Cornell. Correlation of response spectral values for multi-component ground motions. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 96(1):215–227, 2006c.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. P. Bazzurro and C.A. Cornell. Disaggregation of seismic hazard. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 89:501–520, 1999.Google Scholar
  7. P. Bazzurro and N. Luco. Report for Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center Lifelines Program Project 1G00. Technical report, 2003.Google Scholar
  8. J.J. Bommer and A.B. Acevedo. The use of real earthquake accelerograms as input to dynamic analysis. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol.8: 43–91, 2004. Special Issue, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. D.M. Boore. Simulation of ground-motion using the stochastic method. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 160:635–676, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. J.E. Carballo and C.A. Cornell. Probabilistic seismic demand analysis: spectrum matching and design. Technical report, Reliability of Marine Structures Program, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, 2000, Report NO. RMS-41.Google Scholar
  11. CEN. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Brussels, Belgium, 2003. Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, Final Draft prEN 1998.Google Scholar
  12. CEN. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Brussels, Belgium, 2005. Part 2: Bridges, Final Draft prEN 1998-2.Google Scholar
  13. P.P. Cordova, S.S.F. Mehanny, and C.A. Deierlein, G.G. and Cornell. Development of new seismic intensity measure and probabilistic design procedure. Proceedings of the 3rd U.S.-Japan Workshop on Performance-Based Seismic Design Methodology for Concrete Buildings, 2001.Google Scholar
  14. C.A. Cornell. Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 58:1583–1606, 1968.Google Scholar
  15. C.A. Cornell, Hazard, ground-motions and probabilistic assessment for PBSD. in performance based seismic design concepts and implementation. 2004. PEER Report 2004-2005.Google Scholar
  16. E. Cosenza, G. Manfredi, and R. Ramasco. The use of damage functionals in earthquake engineering: A comparison between different methods. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 22(10):855–868, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. R. De Risi. Valutazione probabilistica di una struttura in CA con input sismico EC8-compatibile. Technical report, Laurea triennale in Ingegneria Civile, Universita degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, 2007.Google Scholar
  18. J. Hancock, J. Watson-Lamprey, N.A. Abrahamson, J.J. Bommer, A. Markatis, E. McCoy, and R. Mendis. An improved method of matching response spectra of recorded earthquake ground-motion using wavelets. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 10(special issue 1):67–89, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. A. Hashemi and K.M. Mosalam. Shake-table experiment on reinforced concrete structure containing masonry infill wall. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 35:1827–1852, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. I. Iervolino and C.A. Cornell. Record selection for nonlinear seismic analysis of structures. Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 21, No. 3:685–713, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. I. Iervolino and C.A. Cornell. Probability of occurrence of velocity pulses in near-source ground motions. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 2007. (Submitted for publication).Google Scholar
  22. I. Iervolino, G. Maddaloni, and E. Cosenza. Eurocode 8 compliant real record sets for seismic analysis of structures. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 12(1):54–90, 2008.Google Scholar
  23. I. Iervolino, G. Maddaloni, E. Cosenza, and G. Manfredi. Selection of timehistories for bridge design in eurocode 8. Pavia, Italy, 18–20 April 2007. Proc. of 1st US-Italy Seismic Bridge Workshop. EUCENTRE.Google Scholar
  24. I. Iervolino, G. Manfredi, and E. Cosenza. Ground-motion duration effects on non-linear structural response. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 35:21–38, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. F. Jalayer. Direct Probabilistic Seismic Analysis: Implementing Non-Linear Dynamic Assessments. PhD thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, CA, 2003.Google Scholar
  26. M.J. Kaldjian and W.R.S. Fan. Intensity and time scale effects of accelerogram. Technical report, Industry Program of The College of Engineering, University of Michigan, 1968.Google Scholar
  27. OPCM n.3519. Criteri per lindividuazione delle zone sismiche e la formazione e laggiornamento degli elenchi delle medesime zone. Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana, 108, 2006.Google Scholar
  28. N. Shome, C.A. Cornell, P. Bazzurro, and J.E. Carballo. Earthquakes, records and nonlinear responses. Earthquake Spectra, 14(3):469–500, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. P.G. Somerville. Magnitude scaling of near fault rupture directivity pulse. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 137:201-12, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. P.G. Somerville, N. Smith, R. Graves, and N. Abrahamson. Modification of empirical strong ground-motion attenuation results to include the amplitude and duration effects of rupture directivity. Seismology Research Letters, 68:199–222, 1997.Google Scholar
  31. S. Taghavi and E. Miranda. Response assessment of nonstructural building elements. Technical report, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 2003. Report No. PEER.Google Scholar
  32. P. Tohong and N. Luco. Probabilistic seismic demand analysis using advanced ground motion intensity measures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 36(13):1837–1860, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. P. Tothong and C.A. Cornell. Probabilistic seismic demand analysis using advanced ground motion intensity measures, attenuation relationships, and near-fault effects. Technical report, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA, 2006. PEER Report 2006/11.Google Scholar
  34. P. Tothong, C.A. Cornell, and J.W. Baker. Explicit directivity-pulse inclusion in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. Earthquake Spectra, 23(4): 867–891, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. D. Vamvatsikos and C.A. Cornell. Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 31(3):491–514, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© CISM, Udine 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Iunio Iervolino
    • 1
  • Gaetano Manfredi
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Ingegneria StrutturaleUniversità degli Studi di Napoli Federico IINaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations