GROUND MOTION SELECTION AND SCALING METHODS: CURRENT
PRACTICES AND OBSERVATIONS
HARISH KUMAR MULCHANDANIa, G. MUTHUKUMARb
++
a
Ph.D Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, BITS Pilani, Pilani 333 031, India,
E-mail:
[email protected]b
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, BITS Pilani, Pilani 333 031, India,
E-mail:
[email protected]ABSTRACT — One of the most critical parts in carrying out performance based
seismic design or response history analysis of structures is the selection and scaling
of ground motions. Ground motion is the basis of link between seismic hazard and
structural performance. At present with increase in the computational capability,
Performance based seismic design is in process of becoming part of code and
regularity documents yet the selection and scaling of ground motion is still the
challenge for researchers as well as practicing engineers.
This paper provides and evaluates the current practices of selection and scaling
methods available in international codes such as ASCE 7-05, ASCE 7-10 and ASCE
7-16. It also indicates the limitations which are still present in such practices.
Keywords — Ground motions selection, Scaling, Response history analysis,
Performance based design
INTRODUCTION
Seismic provisions in current model building codes and standards include rules for
design of structures using nonlinear response-history analysis, which are based, in
large part, on recommendations for analysis of seismically isolated structures from
more than 20 years ago. In Indian scenario unfortunately, there is currently no
consensus in the earthquake engineering community on how to appropriately select
and scale earth-quake ground motions for code-based design and seismic
performance assessment of buildings using nonlinear response-history analysis.
Ground motion selection provides the necessary link between seismic hazard and
structural response, the first two components in Performance Based Earthquake
Engineering (PBEE)[1]. It determines input ground motion for a structure at a
specific site for nonlinear dynamic analysis (i.e., response history analysis). As non-
linear dynamic analysis becomes more common in research as well as in practice,
there is a need for a clear guidance on appropriate ground motion selection
methods[2]–[4].
One common state-of-the-art practice in performance-based earthquake engineering
is Incremental Dynamic Analysis that scales the same suite of ground motions up
and down to cover a range of ground motion intensity levels[5].
RESPONSE HISTORY ANALYSIS
Response history analysis is a form of dynamic analysis in which response of the
structure to a suite of ground motions is evaluated through numerical integration of
the equations of motions. In nonlinear response history analysis, the structure’s
stiffness matrix is modified throughout the analysis to account for the changes in
element stiffness associated with hysteretic behavior and P-delta effects.
Nonlinear response-history analysis is performed for a number of reasons, including:
(1) Designing new buildings, especially those equipped with seismic isolators or
energy dissipation devices
(2) Designing seismic upgrades of existing buildings per ASCE 41-17[6], Seismic
Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings (ASCE, 2017)
(3) Designing non-conforming framing systems in new buildings per ASCE 41-17
(4) Assessing performance of new and existing buildings per ATC-58-1[7], Seismic
Performance Assessment of Buildings (ATC, 2011).
PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES
Performance objectives are always associated with Non-Linear Time History
Analysis (NLTHA) and Performance based Design(PBD) methods. ASCE 7-05 and
ASCE 7-10[8], [9] specified that nonlinear response history analyses be performed
using ground motions scaled to the design earthquake level and that design
acceptance checks be performed to ensure that mean element actions do not exceed
two-thirds of the deformations at which loss of gravity-load-carrying capacity would
occur.
In ASCE 7-16[10], a complete reformulation of these requirements was undertaken
to require analysis at the Risk- Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER)
level and also to be more consistent with the target reliabilities as shown in Table 1.
Table 1 Target Reliability (Conditional Probability of Failure) during an MCER
Earthquake
Risk Member ASCE 7-10 ASCE 7-16
Category Category
I or II Critical 10% 10%
Non-critical 25% 25%
III Critical 6% 5%
Non-critical 15% 15%
IV Critical 3% 2.5%
Non-critical 10% 9%
GROUND MOTION SELECTION
The selection and scaling of earthquake ground motions serves as the interface
between seismology. Thus, playing a key role in determination of seismic load to a
structure. Ground motions are generally selected from previous recorded earthquake
events or generated by physics-based simulations where there is a lack of appropriate
recordings, such as large magnitude earthquakes at short site-to-source distances.
One of the most common concern of every designer is how many ground motions to
be selected (3, 5, 7, 11, 22 or more)[11]. Ground motions have different
characteristics and there also exists record to record variability in structural response.
ASCE 7-05 and ASCE 7-10 suggests to use of either three (or more) or seven (or
more) appropriate ground motions for analysis. If 3 sets of ground motions were used
and analysis were performed then maximum value of peak response among three
were used for component checking. If seven set of ground motions are used then
average value of the seven peak is used for component checking. ASCE 7-16 the
minimum number of motions is increased to 11. Larger number of motions is to
properly identify the performance level of the structure that the structure is not
allowed to shown unacceptable response in more than one motion, this would
indicate that the structure fails to meet 10% target collapse reliability. However, this
rule doesn’t have statistical or technical basis, moreover to estimate mean response
with confidence it requires goodness of fit of the scaled motion to the target spectral
shape.
Section of ground motions generally occurs in two steps. Step 1 involves factors such
as Source Mechanism, Magnitude, Site Soil Conditions, Usable Frequency of ground
motion, Period sampling and Site to source distance. Step 2 involves evaluating the
selected ground motion based on the Spectral Shape, Scale Factor and Motions from
single event.
GROUND MOTION SCALING
Period Range for Scaling or Matching
A period range is needed to be determined which corresponds to the vibration period
that significantly contribute to the building’s lateral dynamic response. The period
range for scaling of ground motions is selected such that the ground motions
accurately represent the MCER hazard at the structure’s fundamental response
periods, periods somewhat longer than this to account for period lengthening effects
associated with nonlinear response and shorter periods associated with a higher mode
response.
In ASCE 7-05 and ASCE 7-10 ground motions were required to be scaled in between
0.2T to 1.5T, where T used to be the fundamental period of the structure in the
fundamental mode for the direction of response being analysed. In ASCE 7-16
edition, the upper bound has been increased to 2.0T, where T is maximum
fundamental period of building in both transitional direction and in torsion.
Increment in upper bound to capture the increment in time period due to ductile
frame structures[12]. For lower bound period of 0.2T, an additional requirement is
put that it needs to capture 90% of mass participation in both the directions and T is
redefined for lower bound as the smallest fundamental period among the two
horizontal directions.
Two procedures for modifying ground motions for compatibility with the target
spectrum are available: amplitude scaling and spectral matching.
Amplitude Scaling
Amplitude scaling consists of applying a single scaling factor to the entire ground
motion record such that the variation of earthquake energy with structural period
found in the original record is preserved. Amplitude scaling preserves record-to
record variability; however, individual ground motions that are amplitude scaled can
significantly exceed the response input of the target spectrum at some periods, which
can tend to overstate the importance of higher mode response in some structures.
Method adopted and requirements for amplitude scaling are shown in table 2. It
could be seen in table 2 that conservatism is been removed in 2016 edition which
arises due to average spectrum being greater than target spectra at every period with
in the range.
Table 2: Amplitude Scaling Criteria’s in American Standards
Code Method Adopted Requirements for amplitude scaling
Edition
ASCE 7-05 SRSS Average of SRSS spectra ≥ 1.3 times
design response spectra for scaled period
ASCE 7-10 SRSS Average of SRSS spectra ≥ design
response spectra for scaled period
ASCE 7-16 Maximum directional Average spectrum does not fall below 90%
spectrum of the target spectrum in entire period
range
Spectrum Matching
Spectral matching is introduced in 2016 edition of ASCE 7. In spectral matching
shaking amplitudes are modified by differing amounts at differing periods, and in
some cases additional wavelets of energy are added to or subtracted from the
motions, such that the response spectrum of the modified motion closely resembles
the target spectrum. Spectral matching captures the mean response but is incapable
of preserving record to record response variability and velocity pulses in near field
ground motions. So, it is recommended not to use spectrum matching for near fault
sites. In spectral matching technique it’s required to have each pair of ground motion
scaled such that average of average of the maximum-direction spectra for the suite
equals or exceeds 110% of the target spectrum over the period range of interest. This
is more stringent requirement as compared to amplitude scaling so as to avoid lower
prediction of mean response.
CONCLUSION
This paper provides guidance to professionals and basis of current guidelines of
ASCE/SEI 7-16 on selection and scaling of ground motions for nonlinear response
history analysis. This paper also shows modifications in previous editions of
ASCE/SEI 7 and the technical basis of these changes.
REFERENCES
[1] N. Shome and C. A. Cornell, “Normalization and scaling accelerograms for
nonlinear structural analysis,” Proc. 6th U.S. Natl. Conf. Earthq. Eng., 1998.
[2] F. Naeim, A. Alimoradi, and S. Pezeshk, “Selection and scaling of ground
motion time histories for structural design using genetic algorithms,” Earthq.
Spectra, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 413–426, 2004.
[3] A. K. Kalkan, E., and Chopra, “Practical guidelines to select and scale
earthquake records for nonlinear response history analysis of structures,” U.S.
Geol. Surv. Open-File Rep., 2010.
[4] A. S. Whittaker et al., “Selecting and Scaling Earthquake Ground Motions
for Performing Analyses,” 15th World Conf. Earthq. Eng., pp. 1–256, 2012.
[5] D. Vamvatsikos and C. Allin Cornell, “Incremental dynamic analysis,”
Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 491–514, 2002.
[6] ASCE 41-17, American Society of Civil Engineers. Seismic Rehabilitation of
Existing Buildings. 2017.
[7] FEMA P-58, “Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings; Volume 1 &
2,” vol. 1 & 2, no. September, 2012.
[8] ASCE/SEI 7-05, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures.
American Society of Civil Engineers., 2005.
[9] ASCE/SEI 7-10, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures.
American Society of Civil Engineers, 2010.
[10] ASCE 7-16, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures
Commentary. American Society of Civil Engineers., 2017.
[11] NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture, “Selecting and Scaling Earthquake
Ground Motions for Performing Response History Analysis, NIST/GCR 11-
917-15,” 2011.
[12] C. B. Haselton et al., “Selecting and Scaling Earthquake Ground Motions for
Performing Analyses,” 15th World Conf. Earthq. Eng., pp. 1–256, 2012.
