Impact of time and frequency domain ground motion modification on the response of a SDOF system

Abstract

Ground motion modification is extensively used in seismic design of civil infrastructure, especially where few or no recorded ground motions representative of the design scenario are available. A site in Los Angeles, California is used as a study site and 28 ground motions consistent with the design earthquake scenario are selected. The suite of 28 ground motions is scaled and modified in the time domain (TD) and frequency domain (FD) before being used as input to a bilinear SDOF system. The median structural responses to the suites of scaled, TD-modified, and FD-modified motions, along with ratios of he modified-to-scaled responses, are investigated for SDOF systems with different periods, strength ratios, and post-yield stiffness ratios. Overall, little difference (less than 20%) is observed in the peak structural accelerations, velocities, and displacements; displacement ductility; and absolute accelerations caused by the TD-modified and FD-modified motions when compared to the responses caused by the scaled motions. The energy absorbed by the system when the modified motions are used as input is more than 20% greater than when scaled motions are used as input. The observed trends in the structural response are predominantly the result of changes in the ground motion characteristics caused by modification.

Keywords

time domain modification;frequency domain modification;ground motion characteristics;bilinear SDOF system;structural seismic response analyses

References

1. Abrahamson, N.A. (1992), "Non-stationary spectral matching", Seismol. Res. Lett., 63(1), 30.
2. Abrahamson, N.A. and Silva, W.J. (2008), "Summary of the Abrahamson & Silva NGA ground-motion relations", Earthq. Spectra, 24(1), 67-97. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2924360
3. Al Atik, L. and Abrahamson, N.A. (2010), "An improved method for nonstationary spectral matching", Earthq. Spectra, 26(3), 601-617. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3459159
4. Arias, A. (1970), "A measure of earthquake intensity", In Seismic Design for Nuclear Power Plants, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 438-483.
5. ASCE (2010), Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-10, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, USA.
6. ATC (2011), Guidelines for Seismic Performance of Buildings Volume 1 - Methodology. ATC-58-1 75% Draft, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA, USA.
7. Baker, J.W. (2011), "The conditional mean spectrum: A tool for ground motion selection", J. Struct. Eng.-ASCE, 137(3), 322-331. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000215
8. Boore, D.M. and Atkinson, G.M. (2008), "Ground-motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA at spectral periods between 0.01 and 10.0 s", Earthq. Spectra, 24(1), 99-138. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2830434
9. Campbell, K.W. and Bozorgnia, Y. (2008), "NGA ground motion model for the geometric mean horizontal component of PGA, PGV, PGD and 5% damped linear elastic response spectra for periods ranging from 0.01 to 10 s", Earthq. Spectra, 24(1), 139-171. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2857546
10. Chiou, B.S.-J., Darragh, R., Gregor, N. and Silva, W. (2008), "NGA project strong-motion database", Earthq. Spectra, 24(1), 23-44. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2894831
11. Chiou, B.S.-J. and Youngs, R.R. (2008), "An NGA model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra", Earthq. Spectra, 24(1), 173-215. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2894832
12. Chopra, A.K. (2007), Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Application to Earthquake Engineering, (3rd Edition), Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA.
13. Christopoulos, C., Filiatrault, A. and Folz, B. (2002), "Seismic response of self-centering hysteretic SDOF systems", Earthq. Eng. Struct. D., 31(5), 1131-1150. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.152
14. FEMA (2004), "NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures", Report No. FEMA 450-1/2003 Edition, Part 1: Provisions, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., USA.
15. Grant, D.N. and Diaferia, R. (2013), "Assessing adequacy of spectrum-matched ground motions for response history analysis", Earthq. Eng. Struct. D., 42, 1265-1280. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2270
16. Hancock, J., Watson-Lamprey, J., Abrahamson, N.A., Bommer, J.J., Markatis, A., McCoy, E. and Mendis, R. (2006), "An improved method of matching response spectra of recorded earthquake ground motion using wavelets", J. Earthq. Eng., 10(S1), 67-89.
17. Haselton, C.B., editor (2009), "Evaluation of ground motion selection and modification methods: predicting median interstory drift response of buildings", Report No. PEER Report 2009/01, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
18. Heo, Y., Kunnath, S.K. and Abrahamson, N.A. (2011) "Amplitude-scaled versus spectrum-matched ground motions for seismic performance assessment", J. Struct. Eng.-ASCE, 137(3), 278-288. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000340
19. Huang, Y.-N., Whittaker, A.S., Luco, N. and Hamburger, R.O. (2011), "Scaling earthquake ground motions for performance-based assessment of buildings", J. Struct. Eng.-ASCE, 137(3), 311-321. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000155
20. 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", Earthq. Spectra, 27(3), 797-815. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3608002
21. Kottke, A.R. and Rathje, E.M. (2008), "A semi-automated procedure for selecting and scaling recorded earthquake motions for dynamic analysis", Earthq. Spectra, 24(4), 911-932. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2985772
22. Krawinkler, H. and Seneviratna, G.D.P.K. (1998), "Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of seismic performance evaluation", Eng. Struct., 20(4-6), 452-464. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(97)00092-8
23. Lilhanand, K. and Tseng, W.S. (1988), "Development and application of realistic earthquake time histories compatible with multiple-damping design spectra", Proceedings of the 9th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, Japan, August, 819-824.
24. Naeim, F. and Lew, M. (1995), "On the use of design spectrum compatible time histories", Earthq. Spectra, 11(1), 111-127. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1585805
25. O'Donnell, A.P., Kurama, Y.C., Kalkan, E., Taflanidis, A.A. and Beltsar, O.A. (2013), "Ground motion scaling methods for linear-elastic structures: An integrated experimental and analytical investigation", Earthq. Eng. Struct. D., 42(9), 1281-1300. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2272
26. Rizzo, P.C., Shaw, D.E. and Jarecki, S.J. (1975), "Development of real/synthetic time histories to match smooth design spectra", Nuclear Eng. Des., 32, 148-155. https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-5493(75)90096-5
27. Trifunac, M.D. and Brady, A.G. (1975), "A study on duration of strong earthquake ground motion", Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 65, 581-626.
28. Zekkos, D., Carlson, C., Ebert, S. and Nisar, A. (2012) "Effect of ground motion modification technique on seismic geotechnical engineering analyses", Earthq. Spectra, 28(4), 1643-1662. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.4000077

Cited by

1. Structural response analysis in time and frequency domain considering both ductility and strain rate effects under uniform and multiple-support earthquake excitations vol.10, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2016.10.5.989
2. Predictive Equations to Quantify the Impact of Spectral Matching on Ground Motion Characteristics vol.32, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1193/090914EQS140M