Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1) Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, California, USA
2) Post-Doctoral Fellow, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, California, USA
3) Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, California, USA
4) Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, California, USA
reaganc@stanford.edu, tinglin@stanford.edu, bakerjw@stanford.edu, ggd@stanford.edu
Abstract: The seismic collapse risk of a structure is largely influenced by the intensity and other characteristics of the
earthquake ground motions. This study addresses the influence of the shape of the ground motion spectra and the ground
motion duration on the structural collapse capacity, as determined by nonlinear response history analysis. The
conditional spectrum is proposed as a more realistic characterization of spectral shape, compared to the commonly used
uniform hazard spectrum. Ground motion duration is another important characteristic, which is quantified in terms of
significant duration. The effects of spectral shape and duration on the estimated collapse capacity of a 5-story steel
moment frame are demonstrated. Spectrally equivalent long and short duration record sets are employed to isolate the
effects of duration. Preliminary findings indicate that cyclic strength and stiffness deterioration of components and
accumulation of drift due to ratcheting can significantly reduce structural collapse capacity under long duration shaking.
=
×
Intensity
duration
duration
Arias
CAV
Desired Properties
Bracketed duration is the time elapsed between the first
and last excursions of the accelerogram above a certain
acceleration threshold (commonly used thresholds are 0.05g Not strongly correlated to
and 0.10g).
common intensity measures
Unaffected by scaling
Significant duration is the time interval over which a
specific percentage of the total energy represented by the
Does not bias spectral shape
integral is accumulated, where represents the
ground acceleration. The commonly used ranges are 5% to
95% and 5% to 75% of the calculated energy.
To further evaluate the alternative duration metrics,
were conducted on several structures using a set of long and
short duration ground motions, where the variation in predicted
collapse capacity was plotted against each of the alternative
ground motion metrics. It was observed that the 5-95%
significant duration, referred to as , best captured the
expected decreasing trend in collapse capacity with duration.
Based on this data and the comparison in Table 1, the 5-95%
significant duration is considered as the best duration metric to
screen ground motions for analysis (Foschaar et al. 2011).
One of the challenges faced in the evaluation of duration in
ground motion selection criteria has been the scarcity of long
duration ground motions. Such long duration motions are
expected to occur in sites where the hazard is dominated by
large magnitude subduction zone earthquakes and certain soft
soil conditions. The recent 2008 Wenchuan, 2010 Chile and
(a)
2011 Tohoku earthquakes have dramatically increased the
available inventory of long duration motions. Nevertheless,
finding recorded ground motions that both match a target
response spectrum and provide a wide distribution of short to
long durations remains a challenge.
To demonstrate the effect of ground motion duration on
collapse capacity, a long duration record set was created
containing ground motions recorded from the 1974 Lima - Peru,
1979 Imperial Valley - USA, 1985 Valparaiso - Chile, 2003
Hokkaido - Japan, 2008 Wenchuan - China, 2010 Maule -
Chile, 2010 El Mayor Cucapah - USA and 2010 Tohoku -
Japan earthquakes. About 3700 horizontal record pairs were
acquired in total from all these events. These were baseline
corrected and filtered based on the recommendations of Boore
and Bommer (2005) and Boore (2005). To avoid using low
intensity and short duration records, record pairs with a mean
PGA of both components < 0.1g, mean PGV < 10cm/s or (b)
< 45s were screened out. To prevent a single Figure 2: Comparison of (a) response spectra and (b) time
well-recorded event from dominating the selected record set, a series of a long and short duration record pair
maximum of only 25 record pairs were retained from each
event. After the entire screening process, the resulting long
duration record set contained 79 two-component record pairs.
A second set of short duration ground motions was
selected with a spectral shape that matches that of the long
duration record set. For each record in the long duration set, a
corresponding short duration record was selected from the
PEER NGA West2 database with < 45s and a closely
matching spectral shape. This corresponding set with matching
spectral shapes was created so that any difference in the collapse
capacities predicted by the two sets could be attributed to the
difference in their durations. Figure 2 shows the comparison of
the response spectra and time histories of one of the 158 pairs of
long and short duration spectrally equivalent records. Figure 3
shows a comparison of the durations ( ) of all the ground
motions in each set. Both sets of ground motions were then used
to conduct individual on the model of a 5-story steel
special moment frame.
Figure 3: Comparison of the durations ( ) of records in
the long and short duration spectrally equivalent sets
4. ANALYSIS OF A 5-STORY STEEL SPECIAL Table 2: Collapse fragility functions (quantified by
MOMENT FRAME geometric mean and lognormal standard deviation) for the
example structure, predicted by the 5 analyses
The 2-dimensional numerical model of a 5-story steel Geometric Lognormal
special moment frame was created in OpenSees, the Open mean of standard
Analysis
number
Ground Type of
predicted deviation of
System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (McKenna et al. Motion set(s) analysis
collapse predicted
2006). A schematic of the elevation view of the frame is shown used performed
capacity collapse
in Figure 4. The lumped plasticity approach was used to model (g) capacity
material nonlinearity. The beams and columns were modeled 2% in 50 year Incremental
using linear elastic elements. The hysteretic behavior of the 1 Dynamic 0.87 0.30
matched set Analysis
panel zones was modeled using a tri-linear backbone curve.
2% in 50 year
Zero-length plastic hinges were located at the two ends of each Incremental
Conditional
column and at each RBS cut. The hysteretic behavior of the 2 Dynamic 1.11 0.28
spectrum
Analysis
plastic hinges was modeled using the Modified matched set
Ibarra-Medina-Krawinkler bilinear material model that includes Conditional
a post-capping negative stiffness branch of the backbone curve spectrum Multiple
3 matched set at Stripe 1.43 0.40
to capture in-cycle deterioration, as well as an algorithm that each intensity Analysis
cyclically deteriorates strength and stiffness based on the level
cumulative hysteretic energy dissipated (Ibarra et al. 2005). The Incremental
Long duration
contribution of the adjacent gravity system to the destabilizing 4 Dynamic 0.53 0.42
set
P- effect was modeled using a pin-ended leaning column. Analysis
Short duration Incremental
Rayleigh damping of 2.5% was assigned to the linear elastic
5 spectrally Dynamic 0.90 0.38
elements of the frame. equivalent set Analysis
5. CONCLUSION
Acknowledgements:
This work was supported by the State of California
through the Transportation Systems Research Program of
the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center
(PEER). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or
recommendations expressed in this material are those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the funding
agency.
(a) The authors would like to thank the George E. Brown Jr.
Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES)
for the use of their computing facilities and the prompt help
provided, when required.
The Instituto Geofísico del Perú, Departamento de
Geofisica, Universidad de Chile, and the National Research
Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention (NIED),
Japan are also acknowledged for providing the ground
motions used in this study.
Finally, the authors would like to thank Wenhao Chen
for providing the 5-story structural model used in the
example.
References:
Ancheta, T. D., Bozorgnia, Y., Chiou, B., Stewart, J. P., Boore, D.
M., Graves, R., Abrahamson, N. A., Campbell, K. W., Idriss, I.
M., Youngs, R. R., and Atkinson, G. M. (2012). “PEER
NGA-West2 Database : A Database of Ground Motions
Recorded in Shallow Crustal Earthquakes in Active Tectonic.”
(b) 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon,
Portugal.
Figure 8: IDA curves of (a) long duration and (b) spectrally Baker, J. W. (2011). “Conditional Mean Spectrum: Tool for
Ground-Motion Selection.” Journal of Structural Engineering,
equivalent short duration sets 137(3), 322–331.
Baker, J. W., and Cornell, C. A. (2006). “Spectral shape, epsilon
conservative in nature. With regard to duration, the 5-95% and record selection.” Earthquake Engineering & Structural
significant duration ( ) was identified as the duration metric Dynamics, 35(9), 1077–1095.
best suited for use within the performance-based framework, Baker, J. W., and Cornell, C. A. (2008). “Vector-valued Intensity
Measures Incorporating Spectral Shape For Prediction of
where the collapse capacity is conditioned on ground motion Structural Response.” Journal of Earthquake Engineering,
intensity. It was also shown that the effect of ground motion Taylor & Francis, 12(4), 534–554.
duration on predicted collapse capacity could be quantified Baker, J. W., and Jayaram, N. (2008). “Correlation of Spectral
using spectrally equivalent record sets whose ground motions Acceleration Values from NGA Ground Motion Models.”
varied only in duration, represented by . It should also be Earthquake Spectra, 24(1), 299–317.
Bommer, J. J., and Martinez-Pereira, A. (1999). “The Effective
emphasized that the detection of ground motion duration effects Duration of Earthquake Strong Motion.” Journal of Earthquake
requires the use of a realistic numerical model that accurately Engineering, Taylor & Francis, 3(2), 127–172.
captures component deterioration. It is recognized that a number Boore, D. M. (2005). “On Pads and Filters: Processing
of previous studies on the effect of ground motion duration on Strong-Motion Data.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
structural damage have produced mixed and inconclusive America, Seismological Society of America, 95(2), 745–750.
Boore, D. M., and Bommer, J. J. (2005). “Processing of
results (Hancock and Bommer 2006). The reasons for this are strong-motion accelerograms: needs, options and
believed to be (1) the use of structural models that did not consequences.” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,
incorporate deterioration, (2) the study of mildly nonlinear rather 25(2), 93–115.
than collapsing systems, and (3) the use of inefficient duration Bradley, B. A. (2011). “Correlation of Significant Duration with
metrics. Amplitude and Cumulative Intensity Measures and Its Use in
Ground Motion Selection.” Journal of Earthquake Engineering,
Consideration of both spectral shape and duration requires 15(6), 809–832.
understanding of the seismic hazard at the site of interest so that Cosenza, E., and Manfredi, G. (1997). “The improvement of the
ground motions for analysis can be selected to have spectral seismic-resistant design for existing and new structures using
shapes and durations consistent with those expected at the site. damage criteria.” Seismic Design Methodologies for the Next
Generation of Codes, H. Krawinkler and P. Fajfar, eds.,
Balkema, Rotterdam, 119–130.
FEMA (2005). Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis
procedures, FEMA Report 440, Washington, D.C.
Foschaar, J. C., Baker, J. W., and Deierlein, G. G. (2011).
“Preliminary Assessment of Ground Motion Duration Effects
on Structural Collapse.” 15th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal.
Gupta, A., and Krawinkler, H. (2000). “Dynamic P-delta effects for
flexible inelastic steel structures.” Journal of Structural
Engineering, 126(1), 145–154.
Hancock, J., and Bommer, J. J. (2006). “A State-of-Knowledge
Review of the Influence of Strong-Motion Duration on
Structural Damage.” Earthquake Spectra, 22(3), 827.
Haselton, C. B., Baker, J. W., Liel, A. B., and Deierlein, G. G.
(2011). “Accounting for Ground-Motion Spectral Shape
Characteristics in Structural Collapse Assessment through an
Adjustment for Epsilon.” Journal of Structural Engineering,
American Society of Civil Engineers, 137(3), 332–344.
Haselton, C. B., and Deierlein, G. G. (2007). Assessing seismic
collapse safety of modern reinforced concrete moment frame
buildings (PEER 2007/08). Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, Berkeley, CA.
Ibarra, L. F., and Krawinkler, H. (2005). Global Collapse of Frame
Structures under Seismic Excitations (PEER 2005/06). Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA.
Ibarra, L. F., Medina, R. A., and Krawinkler, H. (2005).
“Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness
deterioration.” Earthquake Engineering & Structural
Dynamics, 34(12), 1489–1511.
Jalayer, F. (2003). “Direct Probabilistic Seismic Analysis:
Implementing Non-Linear Dynamic Assessments.” Ph.D.
Dissertation, Stanford University.
Jayaram, N., Lin, T., and Baker, J. W. (2011). “A Computationally
Efficient Ground-Motion Selection Algorithm for Matching a
Target Response Spectrum Mean and Variance.” Earthquake
Spectra, 27(3), 797–815.
Kramer, S. L. (1996). Geotechnical earthquake engineering.
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Lignos, D. G., and Krawinkler, H. (2011). “Deterioration Modeling
of Steel Components in Support of Collapse Prediction of Steel
Moment Frames under Earthquake Loading.” Journal of
Structural Engineering, 137(11), 1291–1302.
Lin, T., Harmsen, S. C., Baker, J. W., and Luco, N. (2012).
“Conditional Spectrum Computation Incorporating Multiple
Causal Earthquakes and Ground Motion Prediction Models.”
To appear in Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,
103(2a).
McGuire, R. K. (2004). Seismic hazard and risk analysis.
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA.
McKenna, F., Fenves, G. L., and Scott, M. H. (2006). “OpenSees:
Open system for earthquake engineering simulation.” Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California, Berkeley, CA., http://opensees. berkeley. edu.
NIST. (2011). Selecting and Scaling Earthquake Ground Motions
for Performing Response-History Analyses (NIST GCR
11-917-15). National Institute of Standards and Technology,
Gaithersburg, MD.
Vamvatsikos, D., and Cornell, C. A. (2002). “Incremental dynamic
analysis.” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics,
31(3), 491–514.
Vamvatsikos, D., and Cornell, C. A. (2004). “Applied Incremental
Dynamic Analysis.” Earthquake Spectra, 20(2), 523–553.