Journal of the Earthquake Engineering Society of Korea (한국지진공학회논문집)

Earthquake Engineering Society of Korea (한국지진공학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

An Accurate and Efficient Method for Selecting and Scaling Ground Motions Considering Target Response Spectrum Mean and Variance

목표스펙트럼의 평균과 분산을 고려한 지반운동 선정과 배율조정계수 결정방법

  • Received : 2016.06.07
  • Accepted : 2016.08.04
  • Published : 2016.09.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

It is important to select proper ground motions for obtaining accurate results from response history analyses. The purpose of this study is to propose an accurate and efficient method that does not require excessive computation for selecting and scaling ground motions to match target response spectrum mean and variance. The proposed method is conceptually simple and straightforward, and it does not use a simulation algorithm that requires a sophisticated subroutine program. In this method, the desired number of ground motions are sequentially scaled and selected from a ground motion library. The proposed method gives the best selection results using Sum of Square Error and has the smallest value(=0.14). Also, The accuracy and consistency of the proposed method are verified by comparing the selection results of the proposed method with those of existing methods.

Keywords

References

  1. ASCE. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures (ASCE/SEI 7-10). American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). Reston, VA. c2010.
  2. Naeim F, Alimoradi A, Pezeshk S. Selection and scaling of ground motion time histories for structural design using genetic algorithms. Earthquake Spectra. 2004 May;20(2):413-426. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1719028
  3. Watson-Lamprey J, Arahamson N. Selection of ground motion time series and limits on scaling. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. 2006 Jul; 26(5):477-482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2005.07.001
  4. Han SW, Seok SW. Efficient Procedure for Selecting and Scaling Ground Motions for Response History Analysis. Journal of Structural Engineering. 2014 May; 140(1):06013004. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000881
  5. Bommer JJ, Abrahamson NA. Why do modern probabilistic seismichazard analyses often lead to increased hazard estimates. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 2006 Dec; 96(6):1967-1977. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120060043
  6. Al Atik L, Abrahamson N, Bommer JJ, Scherbaum F, Cotton F, Kuehn N. The variability of ground-motion prediction models and its components. Seismological Research Letters. 2010 Feb; 81(5): 794-801. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.81.5.794
  7. Kottke AR, Rathje EM. A semi-automated procedure for selecting and scaling recorded earthquake motions for dynamic analysis. Earthquake Spectra. 2008 Nov; 24(4):911-932. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2985772
  8. Jayaram N, Lin T, Baker JW. A computationally efficient groundmotion selection algorithm for matching a target response spectrum mean and variance. Earthquake Spectra, 2011 Aug; 27(3):797-815. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3608002
  9. Wang G. A ground motion selection and modification method capturing response spectrum characteristics and variability of scenario earthquakes. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2011 Apr; 31(4):611-625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.11.007
  10. Han SW, Ha SJ, Seok SW. Efficient and accurate procedure for selecting ground motions matching target response spectrum. Nonlinear Dynam. 2014 Oct; 78(2):889-905. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-014-1484-0
  11. Han SW, Ha SJ, Cho SW. A Simple Method for Selecting Ground Motions Considering Target Response Spectrum Mean, Variance and Correlation - I Algorithm.J Earthquake Eng. 20(1):55-62.
  12. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. FEMA-356. Washington DC; c2000.
  13. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Recommended seismic design criteria for new steel moment-frame buildings, FEMA-350, SAC Joint Venture, Washington, DC; c2000.
  14. Boore DM, Atkinson GM. Ground-motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA at spectral periods between 0.01 s and 10.0 s. Earthquake Spectra. 2008 Feb; 24(1):99-138. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2830434