Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
School of Environment and Technology, University of Brighton, Lewes Road, BN24GJ Brighton, UK
LaMSID UMR EDF-CNRS-CEA, Clamart, France
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Available online 22 August 2014
Keywords:
Ground motion simulation
Quasi-stationary
Non-stationary
Imposed-variability
Response-spectrum-compatible
Code provisions
a b s t r a c t
This paper addresses the study of the seismic response of structures to response-spectrum-compatible
accelerograms. The number of methodologies proposed in the last three decades to simulate articial
earthquake ground motion testies the relevance of this subject in the scientic community. However,
the implications of the selection of models and hypothesis adopted and their impact on the structural
response have not been thoroughly highlighted yet. This contribution shows for the rst time that different ground motion models, having identical response spectrum at 5% damping, peak ground acceleration,
strong motion phase and total duration, can lead to signicant discrepancies in the structural responses
even for proportionally damped linear behaving structures, although all the models are satisfying the
response-spectrum compatibility criteria. The results show clearly the weakness in the current
response-spectrum-compatible criteria provided by seismic codes and the necessity of more robust conditions for the simulation of articial earthquake ground motions.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The design response-spectrum is up to now the basic representation of the seismic action and the most widespread analysis tool
used by practitioners. Time-history representation of the seismic
action is also allowed by seismic codes and it is employed for a
broad number of engineering applications such as the analysis of
non-linear behaving structures whereas the response-spectrum
technique might not provide accurate results. Furthermore,
time-history analysis provides additional information on damage
mechanism and dissipation of energy due to cyclic loading that
cannot be predicted through the response spectrum analysis. It is
noted that the international seismic codes recommend only the
response-spectrum-compatible criteria that have to be satised
and do not give a method for generating the earthquake timehistories. As a consequence, several methods have been proposed
in literature coping with the generation of response-spectrumcompatible accelerograms. Earlier contributions on this subject
can be found in the review papers by Ahmadi [1] and by Cacciola
[4]. Most common approaches rely on modelling the seismic action
as a realization of a stationary or quasi-stationary stochastic
Gaussian process (see e.g. [24,2]. Even if quasi-stationary Gaussian
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 (0)1273 642277.
E-mail address: p.cacciola@brighton.ac.uk (P. Cacciola).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.07.015
0141-0296/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
gr t
u
Na q
X
r
2Gug iDx; tDx cosiDxt ui
i1
r
p
RSAx0 ; f0 x20 gU T s ; p 0:5; k0;U ; k1;U ; k2;U k0;U
ki;U
xi jHxj2 Gxdx;
1
2
in which jHxj2 x20 x2 4f20 x20 x2
is the energy transfer function of the single degree of freedom system. Based on this
relationship various procedures have been proposed in literature
for determining the response-spectrum-compatible power spectral
density function. A handy recursive expression determining the
power spectral density compatible with a given response-spectrum
has been proposed by Cacciola et al. [2]. Specically,
Gxi 0;
80 x xa
4f0
Gxi x p4f
0x
i
RSAxi ;f0 2
g 2U xi ;f0
i1
Dx
!
i1
X
Gxk ;
8x > xa
k1
q
1:2
g U xi ; f0 2ln 2NU 1 exp dU pln2NU
With
1
NU 2Tps xi ln p ;
"
dU 1
1
1f20
f0
1 p arctan p2
2
2 #1=2
1f0
G1 x Gx;
j
j1
G x G
RSAx;f0 2
RSAj1 x;f0 2
aJ t
8 2
>
t
>
< t1
1
>
>
:
exp bt t2
t < t1
t1 6 t 6 t2
10
t > t2
Rt R1
Ht R 0tf R01
0
a2 tGxdt
a2 tGxdt
11
and imposing that H(t1) = 0.05 and H(t2) = 0.95, Eq. (11) leads to the
following analytical values of the Jennings parameters as function
of the duration of the stationary part Ts, that is,
9
2:5
11:5
; t1
; t2
Ts
b
b
12
13
k1
14
with
ax a0 a1 x a2 x2
15
Gx
2
jax; tj dt GS x
a2 tdt
16
R1
a2 tdt
Gx R 1 0
GS x
2
j
a
x
;
t
j
dt
0
17
g t u
Rg t u
Sg t;
u
18
19
GRug
where
x; t is the joint timefrequency distribution of the
recorded accelerogram, while GSug x; t is the separable power spectral density function and represents a corrective term given by
20
According to the quasi-stationary model described in the previous section a0 t is the modulating function and G0 x is determined modifying Eq. (6) as follows
G0 xi 0; 0 6 x 6 xa
4f0
G0 xi xi p4f
0 xi1
Dx
i1
X
G 0 xk
x > xa
k1
21
R
x G0 x;
j
G0
j1
G0
RSAx;f0 2
RSAj1 x;f0 2
22
where RSA(j) represents the response-spectrum, of the spectrumcompatible stochastic ground motion model determined at the
j-th iteration. It has to be emphasized that Eq. (21) is dened for
RSAxi ; n0 > RSAR xi ; n0 as a consequence a preliminary scaling
procedure is usually required (see [3] for further details on the
procedure).
5. Non-stationary with imposed variability models
The sustained dissemination of database of recorded accelerograms along with the increasing number of strong-motion
networks installed worldwide revealed that the above methodologies for simulating articial earthquakes do not manifest large
variability of the seismological parameters observed for natural
accelerograms. As a consequence, even if the accelerograms are
simulated through a pertinent stochastic approach, the dispersion
of ground motion parameters such as peak ground acceleration
(PGA), Arias Intensity (AI), Cumulative Absolute Velocity (CAV) as
well as the spreading about the mean response-spectrum is
generally much less than those ones manifested by recorded accelerograms. Recently, Cacciola and Zentner [6] proposed a method
for simulating articial earthquakes compatible with a given
response-spectrum taking into account the natural variability
through a pertinent evolutionary power spectrum with random
coefcients. The distribution of the random coefcients has been
determined by the further matching with a target mean standard
deviation response spectra. Specically, in order to match the
target spectra with condence intervals, the following random
evolutionary spectrum is proposed
23
ra xj
RSA xj ; f0
1 8xj 2 0; X
RSAxj ; f0
24
where RSA+r(xj, f0) is the mean + standard deviation responsespectrum. Analogous expression can be found considering the
RSAr response-spectrum. Moreover, the simulation formula given
in Eq. (3) is modied as follows
r
u
g t
N h q
X
T
0 6 T 6 TB
RSAT ag S 1 1:5
TB
RSAT 2:5ag S T B 6 T 6 T C
TC
TC 6 T 6 TD
RSAT 2:5ag S
T
TCTD
TD 6 T 6 4 s
RSAT 2:5ag S
T2
27
(
)
RSAT RSAT
max
100 6 10%
RSAT
28
where RSA is the mean response-spectrum of at least three simulated accelerograms and RSA(T) is the target one, moreover it has
to be veried that
RSA0 > ag S
29
k1
r
cos kDxt uk
25
RSAr xk ; f0
RSArj1 xk ; f0
26
Table 1
Target response spectrum parameters of denition: Type 1, soil D.
Parameter
Value
S
ag
TB
TC
TD
1.35
0.32 g
0.20 s
0.80 s
2.00 s
EPSD [m 2 / s3 ]
EPSD [m 2 / s3 ]
a)
Frequency [rad/ s]
Time [s]
b)
Frequency [rad/ s]
Time [s]
EPSD [m 2 / s3 ]
EPSD [m 2 / s3 ]
c)
Frequency [rad/ s]
Time [s]
d)
Frequency [rad/ s]
Time [s]
Fig. 1. Evolutionary PSD functions: (a) C & P model, (b) quasi stationary; (c) non-stationary; and (d) non-stationary and variability.
35
Quasi-stationary
Non-stationary
30
Non-stationary
and variability
25
20
15
10
10
15
20
Time [s]
Fig. 2. Mean instantaneous frequency for the response-spectrum compatible
models adopted.
a)
4
0
-4
Acceleration [m/s2 ]
4
0
-4
b)
T ime [s]
4
0
-4
0
T ime [s]
4
0
-4
10
15
4
0
-4
c)
4
0
-4
4
0
-4
4
0
-4
Time [s]
10
Time [s]
T ime [s]
4
0
-4
15
10
15
Time [s]
Fig. 3. Simulated time histories (a) quasi-stationary; (b) Non-stationary; (c) non-stationary and variability.
Fig. 4. Response spectral accelerations with damping ratio variation plotted versus: (a) period and (b) frequency.
0.10
1.00
0.20
0.20
0.50
0.50
1.05
0.68
0.80
0.15
1.25
1.05
1.05
0.10
0.225
0.85
0.15
0.10
1.20
1.20
0.50
0.70
3.65
0.85
1.20
1.20
3.65
0.50
0.10
0.90
1.25
1.25
0.50
0.10
0.70
1.25
0.95
0.10
1.05
0.50
1.00
a)
600
Quasi-stationary
Non-stationary
500
Non-stationary
and variability
b)
0.75
CDF
400
300
0.5
200
0.25
Quasi-stationary
Non-stationary
100
Non-stationary
and variabiity
0.003
0.006
0.009
0.012
Displacements [m]
0.003
0.006
0.009
0.012
Displacements [m]
Fig. 7. Smart output displacements: (a) probability density function and (b) cumulative density function.
Table 2
Smart 2008 structural responses: displacements statistics (m).
SMART
Mean
Fractile 5%
Fractile 50%
Fractile 95%
Quasi-stationary
Non-stationary
Non-stationary and variability
DNS%
DNSV%
0.0051
0.0050
0.0046
0.8676
8.1265
0.0040
0.0039
0.0025
3.2997
37.1894
0.0050
0.0049
0.0039
1.8624
20.5808
0.0064
0.0066
0.0088
4.1451
38.5640
10
0.0075
0.008
0.0065
Fractile 5% [m]
7samples
Quasi-stationary
Non-stationary
7samples
Non-stationary
and variability
0.0055
0.006
0.004
0.0045
(a)
0.0035
50
0.002
0.0075
(b)
0
50
0.012
7samples
7samples
0.0065
0.0055
0.009
0.006
0.0045
0.0035
(c)
0
50
0.003
(d)
0
50
Fig. 8. SMART building convergence of the output displacements statistics (a) mean; (b) fractile 5%; (c) median; and (d) fractile 95%.
with
15
t
tf
31
xf t 0:1xg t
32
xg t 20
and for soft soil according after Der Kiureghian and Neuenhofer [9]
the following damping values have been selected
fg t 0:2; ff t 0:6
33
J
cg u
g t a1 a2 t a3 t 2 a4 t3
u
2
1 4f2g t xx
g t
J
ax; t a t
2 2
2
1 xx
4f2g t xx
g t
g t
1
x
xf t
x
xf t
2 2
4
4f2f t xxt
f
2
30
34
11
40
(a)
Non-stationary
and variability
0.75
CDF
30
(b)
Quasi-stationary
Non-stationary
20
10
0.5
0.25
Quasi-stationary
Non-stationary
Non-stationary
and variability
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.05
Displacements [m]
0.1
0.15
0.2
Displacements [m]
Fig. 10. 5-Story building output displacements: (a) probability density function and (b) cumulative density function.
Table 3
5-Story building structural responses: displacements statistics (m).
5 Story building
Mean
Fractile 5%
Fractile 50%
Fractile 95%
Quasi-stationary
Non-stationary
Non-stationary and variability
DNS%
DNSV%
0.0423
0.0387
0.0356
8.4710
15.9936
0.0260
0.0234
0.0139
9.7425
46.5767
0.0415
0.0377
0.0268
9.1024
35.2950
0.0633
0.0579
0.0762
8.5655
20.3271
7samples
0.07
0.06
Quasi-stationary
Non-stationary
0.05
Non-stationary
and variability
Fractile 5% [m]
0.07
0.04
7samples
0.05
0.03
0.03
(b)
(a)
0.02
50
0.01
50
Number of samples
Number of samples
0.3
7samples
7samples
0.06
0.07
0.05
0.04
0.2
0.1
0.03
0.02
(c)
0
50
Number of samples
(d)
0
50
Number of samples
Fig. 11. 5-Story building convergence of the output displacements statistics (a) mean; (b) fractile 5%; (c) median; and (d) fractile 95%.
non-stationary and non-stationary with variability models, all satisfying the Eurocode 8 condition to be greater than the value
ag S = 4.23 m/s2 (see Eq.(27)). Remarkably, the three sets of accelerograms full all the requirements of the response spectrum compatibility criteria provided by the Eurocode 8 and possess, within
12
(a)
(b)
Quasi-stationary
Non-stationary
Non-stationary
and variability
0.75
CDF
1.5
0.5
0.5
0.25
Quasi-stationary
Non-stationary
Non-stationary
and variability
0.5
1.5
Displacements [m]
2.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
Displacements [m]
Fig. 13. SAC building linear model output displacements: (a) probability density function and (b) cumulative density function.
13
Mean
Fractile 5%
Fractile 50%
Fractile 95%
Quasi-stationary
Non-stationary
Non-stationary and variability
DNS%
DNSV%
0.7951
0.7977
0.7990
0.3362
0.4916
0.4747
0.4746
0.3743
0.0212
21.1422
0.7593
0.7590
0.7020
0.0368
7.5480
1.1804
1.2488
1.6365
5.7908
38.6425
0.9
7samples
Fractile 5% [m]
0.8
Quasi-stationary
Non-stationary
0.6
50
0.7
0.5
Non-stationary
and variability
(a)
0.4
7samples
0.3
(b)
0
50
Number of samples
Number of samples
2.5
7samples
0.8
0.6
0.4
(c)
0
100
200
300
400
500
7samples
1.5
0.5
(d)
0
50
Number of samples
Number of samples
Fig. 14. SAC building linear model convergence of the output displacements statistics: (a) mean; (b) fractile 5; (c) median; and (d) fractile 95%.
3000
2000
Moment [KNm]
1000
0
-1000
-2000
-3000
-0.04
-0.02
0.02
0.04
Rotation
Fig. 15. Moment-rotation relationship for moment resisting column beam connection of the analyzed node at the roof.
accelerograms are used. From Fig. 8 it is evident that even for the
simplest quasi-stationary case the suggested numbers of accelerograms do not lead to stable statistics.
6.5. IASC 1996: 5-story steel frame
The second benchmark structure analyzed in this paper is a
5-story steel frame IASC 1996 shown in Fig. 8. As for this structure
the stiffness matrix was already available [20,10], namely
14
3.5
(a)
Non-stationary
Non-stationary
and variability
2.5
0.75
CDF
(b)
Quasi-stationary
1.5
1
0.5
0.25
Quasi-stationary
Non-stationary
0.5
0
Non-stationary
and variability
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
Displacements [m]
Displacements [m]
Fig. 16. SAC building non linear model output displacements: (a) probability density function and (b) cumulative density function.
Table 5
SAC building non-linear model structural responses: displacements statistics (m).
SAC building non-linear model
Mean
Fractile 5%
Fractile 50%
Fractile 95%
Quasi-stationary
Non-stationary
Non-stationary and variability
DNS%
DNSV%
0.6275
0.6283
0.6041
0.1319
3.7272
0.4277
0.4208
0.3354
1.6049
21.5823
0.6183
0.6064
0.5861
1.9261
5.2093
0.8359
0.8841
0.9624
5.7702
15.1320
0.75
0.7
0.65
Fractile 5% [m]
0.65
0.55
Quasi-stationary
Non-stationary
0.45
0.35
Non-stationary
and variability
7samples
50
0.6
0.55
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
(a)
0.3
0.25
7samples
50
(b)
0.75
0.65
1.2
0.55
0.45
0.35
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
(c)
7samples
100
200
300
400
500
0.5
0.4
7samples
50
(d)
Fig. 17. SAC building non linear model convergence of the output displacements statistics: (a) mean; (b) fractile 5; (c) median and (d) fractile 95.
4270
6
6 3124
6
K6
6 64
6
4 1
15
3124 64
1
15
7
7
7
7 kN=m
3156 6174
3156 74
7
7
65
3156 6172
3079 5
9
74
3079 2978
6174
3156 65
35
the structure has been modelled in MATLAB assuming equally concentrated masses at each oor level of 1042 kg and with damping
ratio of 0.2% for all the modes. The rst natural frequency is
4.27 Hz. The structure has been forced by the three sets of accelerograms in the x direction of the referring system shown in the
equivalent SAP2000 model depicted in Fig. 9 and the distributions
of the maxima displacement of the top oor along the x direction
15
16
[24] Vanmarcke EH, Gasparini DA. Simulated earthquake ground motions. In: Proc
4th int conf on smirt, K1/9, San Francisco; 1977.
[25] Zentner, DAmico, Cacciola. Simulation of non stationary ground motion
compatible with NGA-spectra. New York: ICOSSAR; 2013.
[26] Zentner I, Poirion F. Enrichment of seismic ground motion databases using
Karhunen Love expansion. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2012;41(14):194557.