Sie sind auf Seite 1von 18

See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274264560

Average spectral acceleration as an intensity


measure for collapse risk assessment
Article in Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics March 2015
Impact Factor: 2.31 DOI: 10.1002/eqe.2575

CITATIONS

READS

334

3 authors, including:
Eduardo Miranda

Dimitrios G. Lignos

Stanford University

cole Polytechnique Fdrale de Lausanne

123 PUBLICATIONS 2,808 CITATIONS

87 PUBLICATIONS 610 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,


letting you access and read them immediately.

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Dimitrios G. Lignos


Retrieved on: 27 June 2016

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING & STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS


Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2015)
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/eqe.2575

Average spectral acceleration as an intensity measure for collapse


risk assessment
Laura Eads1,*,, Eduardo Miranda2 and Dimitrios G. Lignos3
1

Risk Management Solutions, Newark, CA 94560, U.S.A.


Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, U.S.A.
3
Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 2K6, Canada
2

SUMMARY
This paper investigates the performance of spectral acceleration averaged over a period range (Saavg) as an
intensity measure (IM) for estimating the collapse risk of structures subjected to earthquake loading. The
performance of Saavg is evaluated using the following criteria: efciency, sufciency, the availability or ease
of developing probabilistic seismic hazard information in terms of the IM and the variability of collapse risk
estimates produced by the IM. Comparisons are also made between Saavg and the more traditional IM:
spectral acceleration at the rst-mode period of the structure (Sa(T1)). Though most previous studies have
evaluated IMs using a relatively limited set of structures, this paper considers nearly 700 momentresisting frame and shear wall structures of various heights to compare the efciency and sufciency of
the IMs. The collapse risk estimates produced by Saavg and Sa(T1) are also compared, and the variability
of the risk estimates is evaluated when different ground motion sets are used to assess the structural
response. The results of this paper suggest that Saavg, when computed using an appropriate period range,
is generally more efcient, more likely to be sufcient and provides more stable collapse risk estimates than
Sa(T1). Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 31 July 2014; Revised 17 February 2015; Accepted 23 February 2015
KEY WORDS:

ground motion intensity measure; nonlinear structural response; performance-based


earthquake engineering

1. INTRODUCTION
An intensity measure (IM) quanties the intensity of the ground motion and can depend solely on the ground
motion properties (e.g. peak ground acceleration) or on both the ground motion and structural properties
(e.g. spectral acceleration at the rst-mode period of the structure, Sa(T1)). An IM serves as a useful link
between the ground motion hazard at a particular site and the response of a given structure and facilitates
risk-based calculations. The IM-based approach to collapse risk assessment involves combining the
probability of collapse conditioned on certain ground motion properties with the likelihood of
observing those ground motion properties. Assuming a homogenous Poisson process for earthquake
occurrence (as is typically done), the mean annual frequency of collapse (c) is computed as follows
c

n
X
i1

1 mmax r max

M i > mmin

0 m 0

PCjim; m; r  f IM jM i ;Ri imjm; r  f M i ;Ri m; r dr dm d im

(1)

min

where n is the number of seismic sources considered, (Mi > mmin) is the mean annual frequency of
exceeding an event with magnitude mmin at source i, mmax and rmax are the maximum magnitude and
*Correspondence to: Laura Eads, RMS, 7575 Gateway Blvd, Newark, CA 94560, USA.

E-mail: laura.eads@rms.com
Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

L. EADS, E. MIRANDA AND D. LIGNOS

distance, respectively, considered, P(Cjim,m,r) is the probability that the structure will collapse when
subjected to a ground motion with intensity level im produced by an event with magnitude m at a
distance r, fIM jMi,Ri(imjm,r) is the probability density function for the value of IM given values of
magnitude and distance (which is provided by a ground motion prediction equation, GMPE) and
fMi,Ri (m,r) is the joint probability distribution function for magnitude and distance. Equation (1) is
often simplied by separating the structural response and ground motion hazard components as follows


1
dIM im
dim
c PCjim  
(2)
d im 
0

where dIM(im)/d(im) is the slope of the seismic hazard curve. In this study we adopt the denition of IM
sufciency proposed by Luco and Cornell [1] in which an IM is said to be sufcient if it
renders a probabilistic measure of structural response (in this study the probability of collapse
given IM) that is conditionally independent of earthquake magnitude M and source-to-site
distance R (i.e. P(C j IM=im,M=m,R=r) = P(C j IM=im)). This means that the probability of
collapse at a given intensity level is not inuenced by the earthquake magnitude and source-to-site
distance associated with the ground motion. Sufciency is a desirable property of the IM because it
means that the probability of collapse estimates will not depend on the particular set of ground motions
used in structural response analyses to obtain an estimate of P(Cjim). Luco and Cornell [1] proposed
using M and R for quantifying sufciency because in a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA)
the IM is typically conditioned on these two parameters and therefore allows one to use Equation (2)
with the readily available results from PSHA instead of having to use Equation (1). In other words the
simplied IM approach implicit in Equation (2), although not perfect, has the enormous advantage of
decoupling the probabilistic structural response analysis (i.e. in this study the estimation of P(Cjim))
from the probabilistic seismic hazard analysis IM(im). Given the complex relationship between ground
motion history and nonlinear structural response and the difculty of capturing relevant ground motion
features with a single parameter, it is unlikely that a scalar IM will render a nonlinear structural
response that is conditionally independent of other ground motion parameters that may affect structural
response. The same is true for a vector IM that uses only a small number of parameters. So in the
context of performance-based earthquake engineering a sufcient IM (scalar or vector) would be one in
which P(CjIM=im,M=m,R=r) P(CjIM=im) to minimize the inuence of the ground motion set that is
used to estimate P(CjIM=im). Therefore, in this paper an IM is said to be more sufcient than another
if P(C|IM=im,M=m,R=r) is closer to P(CjIM=im). To facilitate computation of c via Equation (2) one
can use ground motions that are hazard consistent, i.e. the distributions of the ground motion
parameters used in structural response analyses are consistent with the site hazard at the intensity
level of interest as identied through a probabilistic seismic hazard deaggregation. Bradley [2] and Lin
et al. [3] have demonstrated that similar risk-based estimates can be obtained using different IMs when
performing rigorous ground motion selection to ensure hazard consistency.
Another desirable property of an IM is efciency, which is a measure of the level of variability
in the peak structural responses obtained using different ground motions with the same intensity level
(as measured by the IM). Thus, efciency measures the ability of an IM to predict the structural
response. The more efcient an IM is, the smaller the number of response history analyses required
to estimate the structural response with a given level of condence.
The ability to compute hazard information related to the IM is essential when performing any type of
risk-based structural response assessment using the IM approach. Specically, one must be able to
develop a GMPE that estimates the probability of exceeding a given intensity level (as measured by
the IM) conditioned on the occurrence of a given seismic event (e.g. a given magnitude and
distance) in order to compute the seismic hazard associated with the IM.
A number of previous studies have focused on evaluating IMs based on their efciency, sufciency
and/or the ease of obtaining probabilistic seismic hazard information (e.g. [1, 46]), and some have
also considered the risk estimates generated by the IM (e.g. [711]). Though Sa(T1) is commonly
used as an IM, a number of researchers have found that spectral acceleration averaged over a period
range (Saavg) can be a signicantly more efcient predictor of displacement-based nonlinear
structure response, including collapse, (e.g. [1217]) and more likely to be sufcient (e.g. [15, 17])
Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2015)


DOI: 10.1002/eqe

AVERAGE SPECTRAL ACCELERATION AS AN IM FOR COLLAPSE RISK ASSESSMENT

than Sa(T1). Some researchers have improved the performance of Sa(T1) by including it in a vector IM
with other ground motion parameters (e.g. [8, 13, 18]), including those that have used a parameter
based on Saavg (e.g. [15, 19]); however, the present study is largely focused on evaluating Sa(T1)
and Saavg as scalar IMs. While most previous studies have considered a relatively limited set of
structures, this paper uses nearly 700 moment-resisting frame and shear wall structures of various
heights to evaluate the efciency and sufciency of Saavg and Sa(T1) for predicting structural
collapse. This paper also compares the collapse risk estimates produced by Saavg and Sa(T1) and
evaluates the variability of the risk estimates when different ground motion sets are used to
assess the structural response.

2. EVALUATING THE EFFICIENCY AND SUFFICIENCY OF SAAVG AND SA(T1)


This section evaluates the efciency and sufciency of Saavg and Sa(T1) as IMs for collapse prediction
using nearly 700 moment-resisting frame and shear wall structures of various heights. Saavg is
computed as the geometric mean of spectral acceleration values between periods c1T1 and cNT1
!1=N
N
Y
Saavg c1 T 1 ; ; cN T 1
Saci T 1
(3)
i1

where N is the number of periods used to compute Saavg and the ci terms are non-negative values. This
paper uses the 5%-damped response spectral values and computes Saavg using a period range between
0.2T1 and 3T1 with a uniform period spacing of 0.01 s unless noted otherwise. The period range
between 0.2T1 and 3T1 was chosen because it generally yielded good results in terms of the
efciency and sufciency of the IM with respect to collapse prediction. Examining the impact of the
period range and spacing using to compute Saavg is outside the scope of this paper but is discussed
in detail in Chapter 7 of [20].
While the geometric mean and arithmetic mean values are generally very similar, the former has
some advantages for computing the average spectral acceleration as it is less sensitive to extreme
spectral ordinates (i.e. very high or very low), which may signicantly inuence the arithmetic mean
value. More importantly, using the geometric mean permits GMPEs for Saavg, which are used in the
computation of seismic hazard curves, to be computed based on existing GMPEs for spectral
acceleration at a single period. Further discussion on obtaining GMPEs and hazard curves for Saavg
is provided later in Section 3.2.
The structures used to evaluate the IMs for collapse risk assessment include the 396 generic
moment-resisting frame (MRF) and the 252 generic shear wall structures used by Zareian and
Krawinkler (see Chapter 4 in [21]) as well as the 30 modern reinforced concrete (RC) MRF
structures used by Haselton and Deierlein (see Table 3.3 in [22]), which are representative of typical
structures designed in California. The generic MRF and generic shear wall structures range from
four to sixteen stories with fundamental periods between T1 = 0.4 s and 3.2 s and T1 = 0.2 s and 1.6 s,
respectively, while the RC MRF structures range from one to twenty stories with fundamental
periods between T1 = 0.42 s and 2.63 s. All structural models are two dimensional, include P-Delta
effects and capture material nonlinearity using rotational springs with the IbarraMedinaKrawinkler
hysteretic material that incorporates strength and stiffness deterioration [23]. Selected ground
motions from the PEER NGA database [24] representative of those expected at far-eld sites in
California are used. Full details about the structures including geometry, material properties and
modeling assumptions and the ground motions used are provided in [21] and [22].
The collapse intensity is dened as the minimum IM value to which a particular ground motion must
be scaled to cause collapse (lateral dynamic instability) of a particular structure. The collapse intensities
in terms of Sa(T1) (denoted Sa(T1)col) were generously provided by the authors of [21] and [22].
The values were obtained via incremental dynamic analysis [25], in which nonlinear response
history analyses of a given structure subjected to a given ground motion are repeated at different
levels of ground motion intensity (as measured by the IM value) until the collapse intensity is
identied. The collapse intensity in terms of Saavg (denoted Saavg,col) is obtained by
Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2015)


DOI: 10.1002/eqe

L. EADS, E. MIRANDA AND D. LIGNOS

multiplying the Saavg value of the unscaled (i.e. as-recorded) ground motion with the collapse
scale factor (i.e. the ratio between Sa(T1)col and the Sa(T1) value of the unscaled ground
motion). The collapse intensities measured by Saavg and Sa(T1) are used to assess the
efciency and sufciency of the IMs in the following sections.
2.1. Efciency
The efciency of an IM is related to the number of response history analyses required to estimate the
structural response with a given level of condence. In the case of collapse prediction, efciency is
related to the variability of the collapse intensities. In this paper the efciency of the IM is
quantied by the lognormal standard deviation, ln, (also called the dispersion) of the collapse
intensities for a particular structure. The lognormal distribution is used as the Sa(T1)col and Saavg,col
values are typically t with this distribution (e.g. [16, 2022]).
A summary of results provided in Table I shows that measuring the intensity of the ground motion
using Saavg reduces the dispersion in collapse intensities by an average of approximately 40% for
generic MRF and generic shear wall structures and over 50% for RC MRF structures compared to
dispersions computed using Sa(T1). In addition to being more efcient on average, Saavg was also
more efcient than Sa(T1) for all but four of the structures examined. For these four structures
ln[Saavg,col] was no more than 6% greater than ln[Sa(T1)col]. These results provide compelling
reasons for using Saavg as an IM instead of Sa(T1) if efciency of the IM when estimating structural
collapse is a primary concern.
These results are consistent with those of other researchers who compared the dispersion in collapse
intensities using Saavg versus Sa(T1). For example, Vamvatsikos and Cornell [13] found that using an
average spectral acceleration with different weights assigned to different periods could reduce the
dispersion in the collapse intensities of a 20-story steel MRF structure by approximately 50%
compared to Sa(T1), and Tsantaki et al. [16] found a 25% 45% reduction in dispersion for singledegree-of-freedom (SDOF) systems with periods between 0.2 s and 5.0 s when using Saavg versus
Sa(T1). Note that these studies did not necessarily use the same period range to compute Saavg as the
range used in the present paper.
So why is Saavg signicantly more efcient at predicting collapse than Sa(T1) (i.e. why is there
less dispersion in the collapse intensities when using Saavg as an IM)? Though both IMs are based
on the peak response of linear elastic SDOF systems, Saavg incorporates more information about the
ground motion than Sa(T1) that is relevant to the nonlinear response of a structure. In particular,
Sa(T1) does not consider the (elastic) response at other periods which might be important in
estimating nonlinear and MDOF structural response. Furthermore, the peak structural response
can be very sensitive to the particular displacement and velocity conditions of the system when
it is hit by a signicant pulse in the ground motion history, and while Saavg is also based on
elastic ordinates, the inuence of the initial conditions (which are generally different for
inelastic and/or MDOF systems compared to an elastic SDOF system) at the arrival of signicant
pulses is reduced by averaging the response over a range of periods [20: Chapter 5]. In this
paper the term pulse refers to a segment of the ground acceleration history between zero
crossings (i.e. a half-cycle acceleration pulse). Finally, by taking an average spectral value over a
range of periods, Saavg indirectly accounts for the underlying pulses in the ground motion that
produce the response spectrum and cause structural damage.
Table I. Summary of dispersion of collapse intensities using Saavg and Sa(T1).

Structure type
Generic MRFs
Generic Shear Walls
RC MRFs

Mean value of dispersion

Reduction in ln using Saavg (%)*

No. of
structures

ln[Saavg,col]

ln[Sa(T1)col]

Mean

Range

396
252
30

0.22
0.28
0.20

0.38
0.48
0.44

40
41
54

(6) 66
17 67
40 63

*Difference between ln[Sa(T1)col] and ln[Saavg,col], expressed as a percentage of ln[Sa(T1)col].


Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2015)


DOI: 10.1002/eqe

AVERAGE SPECTRAL ACCELERATION AS AN IM FOR COLLAPSE RISK ASSESSMENT

2.2. Sufciency
This section evaluates the sufciency of collapse intensities measured by Saavg and Sa(T1) with respect
to magnitude, distance and spectral shape. Essentially, this section explores whether some ground
motion parameter inuences the collapse intensity (e.g. whether records from large magnitude
events are likely to produce either larger of smaller collapse intensities compared to records from
smaller magnitude events). It is desirable that the collapse intensities be conditionally independent
of (i.e. not affected by) the values of the ground motion parameters that are already incorporated in
estimating the IM in the seismic hazard analysis so that no bias exists in the structural response
results because of the particular ground motions used for response analysis when scaled to common
values of the IM. Note that there are many ground motion properties that may affect structural
response (e.g. duration and peak ground velocity), but only three are considered here because of
space limitations.
The sufciency is evaluated by performing a standard linear regression of the natural logarithm of
the collapse intensities with the ground motion parameter of interest to identify possible trends (e.g.
systematic increments or reductions) in the response parameters computed using records with
different ground motion parameters. The regression is of the form
E Y jX x 0 1  x

(4)

where Y is the natural logarithm of the collapse intensity, X is the ground motion parameter of interest,
x is some value of X, 0 and 1 are coefcients determined by the regression and E[Y | X = x] is the
expected value of Y given some value x. A hypothesis test is then performed where the null
hypothesis is that 1 = 0 (i.e. that the expected value of Y does not depend on the value of X). The
probability of observing a 1 value at least as large (in absolute value terms) as the 1 value found
by the regression given that the true value of 1 equals 0 is calculated. This probability is called the
p-value and is used to determine whether the null hypothesis can be rejected at some predened
signicance level. A 5% signicance level is typically used when judging the sufciency of an IM
(e.g. [1, 10]) and is also used here. This means that a p-value less than 0.05 leads to a rejection of
the null hypothesis, and the IM is deemed not sufcient with respect to the ground motion
parameter of interest.
2.2.1. Sufciency with respect to magnitude. The sufciency of the collapse intensities with respect to
the earthquake magnitude (Mw) is evaluated for each structure. Though at least 98% of the generic
MRF and generic shear wall structures exhibited p-values 0.05 for both IMs, the narrow range of
magnitudes (Mw = 6.53 6.93) combined with the relatively small number of ground motions (40)
used to assess these structures is inadequate to judge the dependence of collapse intensity on
magnitude. The RC MRF structures, which are evaluated using 78 ground motions with a wider
magnitude range (Mw = 6.53 7.62), show that the collapse intensities are sufcient with respect to
magnitude for only 53% and 20% of these structures when using Saavg and Sa(T1), respectively.
However, when excluding structures with T1 < 1.2 s, 94% of the RC MRF structures show that the
collapse intensities are sufcient with respect to magnitude when using Saavg.
Earthquake magnitude inuences the frequency content and thus the spectral shape of a ground
motion. This is reected in GMPEs, which use a magnitude-dependent term to predict the response
spectrum. Figure 1 shows median response spectra predicted by the 2008 Boore and Atkinson
GMPE [26], denoted BA08. Spectra are computed for Mw = 6.5, 7.0 and 7.5 conditioned on a
JoynerBoore distance (Rjb) of 12 km, a shear wave velocity of Vs30 = 285 m/s and an unspecied
fault type. The unscaled spectra in Figure 1(a) show that the spectral ordinates at a given period
increase with magnitude, as expected, and that the width of the spectral peak in the short period
range also increases with magnitude. Figure 1(b) shows the same spectra scaled to a common value
of Saavg (equal to 0.12 g), where the dashed vertical lines bracket the period range used to compute
Saavg (from 0.2T1 and 3T1, where T1 = 1.33 s). The scaled spectra shown in Figure 1(b) are replotted in Figure 1(c) using a logarithmic axis for the spectral values, which makes it easier to
observe differences at longer periods. For the conditions used to create the spectra in Figure 1, it is
expected that ground motions from Mw = 7.5 events will have greater spectral values at moderate to
Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2015)


DOI: 10.1002/eqe

L. EADS, E. MIRANDA AND D. LIGNOS

Figure 1. Response spectra predicted by BA08 for different magnitudes with Rjb = 12 km, Vs30 = 285 m/s and
an unspecied fault type: (a) unscaled spectra; spectra scaled to a common value of Saavg shown with a (b)
linear Sa(T) axis and (c) logarithmic Sa(T) axis. The dashed vertical lines bracket the period range used to
compute Saavg.

long periods and smaller spectral values at short periods relative to ground motions from Mw = 6.5 or
7.0 events for equal values of Saavg.
As previously stated, magnitude typically affects the frequency content of the ground motion
(i.e. the intensity and duration of the pulses in the ground motion), which can affect the response of the
structure. While neither of the IMs directly accounts for differences in the relative frequency content
between ground motions, Saavg is thought to have a higher rate of sufciency with respect to
magnitude because it ensures that the average spectral value over a given period (frequency) range is
equal among the ground motions, whereas Sa(T1) ensures that the spectral value at only a single
period (frequency) is equal among ground motions.
Interestingly, the RC MRF structures for which Sa(T1)col is sufcient or almost sufcient with
respect to magnitude are typically the same structures for which Saavg,col is not sufcient with
respect to magnitude and vice-versa. This is illustrated in Figure 2, which shows the p-value of the
relationship between collapse intensity and magnitude for each of the 30 RC MRF structures plotted
versus T1. The sufciency of Sa(T1)col or Saavg,col with respect to magnitude appears to be related to
the rst-mode period of the structure. The Saavg,col values are sufcient with respect to magnitude
for all but one of the structures with T1 > 1.5 s and for none of the structures with T1 < 1.2 s. (Note
that none of the structures analyzed have periods between T1 = 1.2 s and 1.5 s.) The median shape of
the Sa spectrum predicted by many GMPEs [e.g. 26] has a spectral peak in the short-period region
and decreasing Sa values at longer periods, with the slope decreasing as T increases as seen in
Figure 1. The slope of the spectrum (i.e. the relative frequency content) is expected to change
signicantly as a function of T in the short-period range because of the spectral peak. As discussed
earlier, magnitude affects the absolute and, for a given value of Saavg, the relative frequency content
of the ground motion; however, Saavg does not directly account for the differences in relative

Figure 2. p-Values for the relationship between Mw and collapse intensity for the RC MRFs.
Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2015)


DOI: 10.1002/eqe

AVERAGE SPECTRAL ACCELERATION AS AN IM FOR COLLAPSE RISK ASSESSMENT

frequency content. When using a period range of 0.2T1 to 3T1 as done in this paper, the portion of the
period range associated with the spectral peak will be greater for short-period structures, which may
explain why the Saavg,col values of structures with shorter periods were more likely to be affected by
earthquake magnitude than those of structures with longer periods. For the RC MRF structures with
T1 < 1.2 s the average slope of the linear regression between ln(Saavg,col) and Mw is 0.24 meaning
that, on average, the Saavg,col value found using a ground motion from a Mw = 6.50 event is expected
to be approximately 30% larger than the Saavg,col value found using a ground motion from a
Mw = 7.62 event. It should be noted, however, that the correlation between ln(Saavg,col) and Mw is
only moderate, with an average correlation coefcient of = 0.38 and an average R2 value of 0.14
for these structures, which indicates signicant scatter in the relationship.
2.2.2. Sufciency with respect to source-to-site distance. The sufciency of the collapse intensities
with respect to the source-to-site distance of the record measured by Rjb is evaluated for each of
the nearly 700 structures. The results are summarized in Table II, which presents statistics on the
p-values of the linear relationship between the natural logarithm of collapse intensity and Rjb. As
shown in Table II, the results from nearly all the structures suggest that the collapse intensities
are sufcient with respect to source-to-site distance for both IMs. Given the previous results
concerning earthquake magnitude, this is somewhat expected because distance typically has much
less effect on spectral shape than magnitude in GMPEs [27].
2.2.3. Sufciency with respect to . The spectral shape proxy epsilon () measures the number of
logarithmic standard deviations a pseudo-acceleration spectral ordinate of a ground motion is from
the median ordinate predicted by a GMPE at a given period. Previous research (e.g. [8, 21, 22]) has
shown that structural response estimates such as peak inter-story drift ratios and collapse intensities
can be inuenced by the (T1) values of the ground motions chosen for response analysis when the
IM is Sa(T1). The sufciency of the collapse intensities is evaluated with respect to , which is
computed using the BA08 GMPE. Table III presents statistics on the p-values of the linear
relationship between the natural logarithm of collapse intensity and (T1). Saavg,col is sufcient with
respect to for only slightly more than half of the nearly 700 structures considered. For perspective,
nearly none of the structures show that Sa(T1)col is sufcient with respect to .
No trends were observed between structural properties such as number of stories or T1 and the
sufciency of Saavg,col with respect to ; however, a trend was observed with respect to the period
range used to compute Saavg. When using a period range of 0 to 3T1 (instead of 0.2T1 to 3T1) to
compute Saavg, the percent of structures for which Saavg,col is sufcient with respect to increases to
Table II. Summary of p-values for the relationship between distance and collapse
intensity as measured by Saavg and Sa(T1).

Structure type
Generic MRFs
Generic shear walls
RC MRFs

No. of
structures

Rjb range
[km]

396
252
30

0.0 37.7
0.0 37.7
0.9 74.2

% of structures with p-values 0.05


Saavg

Sa(T1)

99
100
93

100
100
100

Table III. Summary of p-values for the relationship between and collapse
intensity as measured by Saavg and Sa(T1).

Structure type
Generic MRFs
Generic shear walls
RC MRFs

Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

No. of
structures
396
252
30

% of structures with p-values 0.05


Saavg

Sa(T1)

61
41
43

3
1
0
Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe

L. EADS, E. MIRANDA AND D. LIGNOS

77% for the generic MRF structures and 81% for the RC MRFs. On average, this change in period
range does not affect the efciency of Saavg as an IM for these structures. When Saavg is computed
over a period range between 0 and 6T1 for the generic shear wall structures, the percent of
structures for which Saavg,col is sufcient with respect to increases to 83%, and the efciency of
the IM increases as well.

3. EVALUATING COLLAPSE RISK ESTIMATES PRODUCED BY SAAVG AND SA(T1)


The results of the previous section suggest that with respect to collapse intensities Saavg is generally a
signicantly more efcient IM than Sa(T1) and more likely to be sufcient with respect to magnitude
and spectral shape as measured by than Sa(T1). Both IMs were found to be generally sufcient with
respect to distance. This section evaluates the performance of Saavg and Sa(T1) with respect to their
collapse risk predictions for a case study. The adjustment proposed by Haselton et al. [28] to the
Sa(T1)-based collapse fragility curve to account for spectral shape is also evaluated. The discussion
focuses on how IM properties such as sufciency and efciency can affect the collapse risk estimate
and examines how the collapse risk estimate of a given IM varies when different ground motions
are used to estimate the structural response. As previously noted, it has been demonstrated that
different IMs can produce similar risk-based estimates when using hazard-consistent ground motions
to assess the structural response [2, 3]. Attempts at ensuring hazard consistency at all intensity
levels, such as the approaches proposed in [2] and [3], are not used here to permit the effects of IM
properties to be reected in the collapse estimates. Therefore, the results here are examples of the
variation that can occur in collapse risk estimates using different IMs in the absence of hazard
consistency.
3.1. Structure and site
The structure is a four-story ofce building designed for the metropolitan area of Los Angeles,
California according to the 2003 International Building Code [29] and the 2005 AISC seismic
provisions [30, 31]. The lateral force-resisting system is a steel special MRF with reduced beam
sections with a design base shear coefcient of V/W = 0.082. Addition details about the design are
provided in [32: Section 5.2.] A two-dimensional model of one of the MRFs is created in OpenSees
[33]. A concentrated plasticity concept is used with the frame members modeled as elastic elements
with nonlinear rotational springs at their ends. The hysteretic behavior of the springs is governed by
a modied version of the bilinear IbarraMedinaKrawinkler deterioration model [32] that captures
stiffness and strength deterioration, including in-cycle degradation. P  effects are simulated via a
leaning column carrying gravity loads that is connected to the frame by axially rigid beams pinned
at both ends. The rst three modal periods of the structure are 1.33 s, 0.43 s and 0.22 s. Rayleigh
damping is implemented following the approach of Zareian and Medina [34] with 2% of critical
damping assigned to the rst and third modes. Additional details on the modeling of the structure
are provided in [20].
The site is adapted from a hypothetical site used by Baker [35]. The seismicity at the site is
dominated by a single fault located 10 km from the site. The magnitude distribution is described by
the bounded GutenbergRichter recurrence law, which imposes a limit on the maximum earthquake
(mmax) a source can produce. In this example magnitudes between 6 and 8 are considered. The
relative ratio of small to large earthquakes in the region is taken as 1, and the mean annual rupture
rate of the fault is taken as (M > mmin) = 0.02. The fault rupture is assumed to include the segment
of the fault located nearest to the site so that Rjb, the minimum horizontal distance from the site to
the surface projection of the rupture area, is constant and equal to 10 km. The average shear wave
velocity at the site is Vs30 = 285 m/s (NEHRP Site Class D).
3.2. Seismic hazard curves
The IMs considered are Saavg and Sa(T1), where T1 = 1.33 s and Saavg is computed using a period range
from 0.2T1 to 3T1 with a uniform period spacing of 0.01 s. The hazard curves for each IM are
Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2015)


DOI: 10.1002/eqe

AVERAGE SPECTRAL ACCELERATION AS AN IM FOR COLLAPSE RISK ASSESSMENT

computed using standard PSHA calculations (see, e.g. [35]). Though adaptations to standard PSHA
calculations exist for incorporating the effects of near-fault directivity, which can be signicant for
sites located close to faults (see, e.g. [36, 37]), they were not used in the simplied example
presented here. An essential step of PSHA is computing the probability that the IM exceeds a given
intensity level conditioned on the values of magnitude and distance (which is provided by a GMPE).
The lognormal distribution has been shown to be an appropriate model for both Sa(T1) and Saavg
[38], so their probability distributions are fully dened by an expected value and standard deviation.
Though many GMPEs provide the expected value and standard deviation of a spectral ordinate at a
given period, the authors are unaware of an explicit GMPE for Saavg. However, the GMPEs for
spectral ordinates at given periods can be used to estimate the expected value and variance of
ln(Saavg) as shown by Equations (12) and (13), respectively, of [39]. These equations show that
the expected value of ln(Saavg) is a function of the expected values of the ln(Sa(T)) values used
to compute ln(Saavg), while the variance of ln(Saavg) is a function of the standard deviation of
the ln(Sa(T)) values used to compute ln(Saavg) and the correlation of ln(Sa(T)) values at different
periods. The BA08 GMPE is used to compute the hazard curves for both Sa(T1) and Saavg, and the
correlation coefcients are taken from [39]. It should be noted that the expected value and variance of
ln(Saavg) computed via Equations (12) and (13), respectively, of [39] may differ from those computed
via a regression analysis directly on the ln(Saavg) values of individual ground motions (i.e. values
from an explicit GMPE for ln(Saavg)). Reasons for these differences include: (i) different records may
be used in a regression of ln(Sa(T)) versus a regression of ln(Saavg) because of limitations associated
with the maximum usable period of some records; (ii) equations for predicting the expected value
of ln(Sa(T)) with existing GMPEs do not yield exact matches to the empirical data (i.e. residuals may
differ from zero); and (iii) equations for predicting the correlation coefcients used to compute the
variance of ln(Saavg) also do not yield exact matches to the empirical data. Nevertheless, these
equations are used here for convenience. The resulting seismic hazard curves are shown in Figure 3(a).

Figure 3. Collapse risk components for different IMs using the MRCD 137 ground motion set: (a) seismic
hazard curves, (b) collapse fragility curves and (c) c deaggregation curves.
Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2015)


DOI: 10.1002/eqe

L. EADS, E. MIRANDA AND D. LIGNOS

3.3. Ground motion sets


Seven ground motion sets are used to assess the collapse risk of the structure and evaluate the risk
estimates produced by each IM. An overview of the ground motion sets is provided in Table IV,
including the name of the set, number of ground motions, magnitude and distance range and a
source for further information about the ground motions. Records from Set #1A are used for two
different ground motion sets, which differ based on the orientation of the ground motions. In one set
(denoted FN/FP) the records are rotated to fault-normal and fault-parallel orientations, and in the
other set (denoted unrotated) the records are not rotated and are used as provided in the PEER
NGA database [24]. With the exception of the LMSR-N set, both horizontal components from a
given recording are used and are treated as independent records (e.g. MRCD 137 is comprised of
137 recordings, each with two horizontal components, which gives 274 records). Further
information about the ground motion sets can be found in the sources listed in Table IV.
3.4. Collapse risk analysis results
Incremental dynamic analysis is used to nd the collapse intensity of each ground motion, where
collapse is dened as lateral dynamic instability. The collapse risk is quantied by c as shown in
Equation (2). A lognormal cumulative distribution function is t to the collapse intensities to
describe P(C|im), which is commonly known as a collapse fragility curve. The collapse fragility
curves for all IM and ground motion set combinations pass the KolmogorovSmirnov goodness-oft test [40] at the 5% signicance level, meaning that the lognormal distribution is a reasonable
assumption for the collapse fragility curve. The probability of at least one collapse in 50 years (Pc,50)
is also used here to quantify the collapse risk. It is essentially a transform of c that is easier to
communicate to project stakeholders. Making the common assumption that the occurrence of
collapses in time follows a homogenous Poisson process, the probability of at least one collapse
over t years can be computed as
Pc in t years 1  expc  t

(5)

Collapse risk analysis results using the MRCD 137 ground motion set are examined in detail to
study the effects of efciency and sufciency on the risk estimates produced by the different IMs.
The focus is then expanded to study the variability of the risk estimates when different ground
motion sets are used to assess the structural response. Components of the collapse risk analysis
using the MRCD 137 ground motion set are presented in Figure 3, which shows the seismic hazard
curve in Figure 3(a), the collapse fragility curve in Figure 3(b) and the c deaggregation curve in
Figure 3(c). The c deaggregation curve is the inner product in the integral of Equation (2) and gives
the contribution to c by IM level.
A summary of collapse risk metrics and related parameters is provided for each IM in Table V.
Collapse risk metrics c and Pc,50 are computed for each IM using Equations (2) and (5), respectively.
As shown in Table V the IMs produce different collapse risk estimates, with Sa(T1) producing a Pc,50
estimate of approximately 1.0% versus approximately 0.3% using Saavg. One would like to know
which IM gives the better estimate of the collapse risk. While the ground motions a structure will
experience in its lifetime are unknown, one can estimate c using information about the types and
frequencies of seismic events that are likely to occur at the site and information about how the
Table IV. Summary of ground motion sets.
Name
MRCD 137
LMSR-N
Set One
Set #1A
CS, (T1) = 1.7
CS, (T1) = 1.8

Number of records

Mw range

Rjb range [km]

274
40
78
80
80
80

6.9 7.6
6.5 6.9
6.5 7.6
6.1 7.9
6.1 7.6
6.1 7.6

0 27
0 38
1 74
0 40
0 147
0 106

Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Source
[20:
[43:
[22:
[41:
[20:
[20:

Appendix A]
Section 3.3]
Appendix 3B]
Section 3.1]
Appendix C]
Appendix C]

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2015)


DOI: 10.1002/eqe

AVERAGE SPECTRAL ACCELERATION AS AN IM FOR COLLAPSE RISK ASSESSMENT

Table V. Collapse risk metrics and related parameters using the MRCD 137 ground motion set.
IM
Sa(T1)
Sa(T1) +
Saavg

Median collapse intensity

lnIMcol

lnIM,GMPE*

c [104]

Pc,50

1.03 g
1.33 g
0.70 g

0.39
0.39
0.22

0.68
0.68
0.59

2.03
0.88
0.59

1.01%
0.44%
0.29%

*Note: lnIM,GMPE is the standard deviation from the GMPE, while lnIMcol is the standard deviation of the collapse
intensities.

structure is likely to respond to those events (i.e. whether or not they produce collapse). This
is accomplished as shown in Equation (2). The following discussion uses properties of the IMs
(e.g. efciency, sufciency, etc.) to argue why one IM gives a better estimate of c (or, equivalently, Pc,50)
than the other, given that careful ground motion selection to ensure hazard consistency at all intensity
levels is not performed.
3.4.1. Effects of efciency and sufciency. Both the Sa(T1)col and Saavg,col values are found to be
sufcient with respect to magnitude and distance for this case study (i.e. the case study discussed in
Section 3). The Saavg,col values are also found to be sufcient with respect to for this case study;
however, the Sa(T1)col values are not. Figure 4 shows the Sa(T1)col values plotted against (1). The
positive slope of the linear regression in Figure 4 indicates that the Sa(T1)col values tend to increase
with the value of . To reduce the bias in the collapse risk estimate arising from using ground
motions with values that are not consistent with the site hazard, the collapse fragility curve is
adjusted using the approach of Haselton et al. [28]. Note that no adjustment is necessary for the
Saavg-based risk estimate because it is sufcient with respect to for this case study (i.e. from a
statistical perspective the value of the ground motion does not affect Saavg,col). If the Saavg,col
values were found to be insufcient with respect to and to introduce a signicant bias in the
collapse estimate, a bias-correction procedure similar to that developed by Haselton et al. [28] could
be applied (note that such a procedure is not developed here), or ground motions could be reselected
such that the values are appropriate for the particular site and hazard level or such that the
reselected records produce Saavg,col values that are sufcient with respect to . Based on the results
presented in Section 2.2.3 when computing Saavg using period range of 0.2T1 to 3T1, Saavg,col
values are expected to be sufcient with respect to in slightly more than 50% of cases where
careful ground motion selection is not used.
In the approach of Haselton et al. [28], the median collapse intensity is calculated as the expected
collapse intensity at the target level, which is based on a regression between collapse intensities
and values as shown in Figure 4. The target level is taken as the value with the greatest

Figure 4. Natural logarithm of Sa(T1)col vs. (T1) for the MRCD 137 ground motion set.
Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2015)


DOI: 10.1002/eqe

L. EADS, E. MIRANDA AND D. LIGNOS

contribution to the seismic hazard at a given intensity level as identied through a PSHA
deaggregation. A PSHA deaggregation by magnitude and at Sa(T1) = 0.72 g is shown in Figure 5
and is used to determine the target value. This intensity level is chosen because it is at the peak of
the c deaggregation (Figure 3(c)), meaning it has the most signicant contribution to the collapse
risk. The PSHA deaggregation in Figure 5 shows that a Mw = 6.7 event, which is associated with
(T1) = 1.8, has the greatest contribution to the seismic hazard at this intensity level. Based on the
regression presented in Figure 4, at the target value of (T1) = 1.8 the expected collapse intensity is
Sa(T1)col = 1.33 g (up from 1.03 g, see Table V). Haselton et al. note that adjusting the median
collapse intensity in this manner also reduces the dispersion of the collapse intensities;
however, they found that the reduction in dispersion was on the order of 10% and had only a
minor effect on the collapse risk. They proposed simply using the dispersion calculated from
the original (i.e. unadjusted) collapse intensities, which is adopted here.
The collapse risk results based on the -adjusted collapse fragility curve are denoted Sa(T1) + and
are shown in Figure 3 and Table V. The collapse risk measured by Sa(T1) + is Pc,50 = 0.44% as shown
in Table V. This is approximately a 60% reduction in Pc,50 compared to the value calculated for Sa(T1)
without considering ; however, this adjusted value of Pc,50 is still approximately 1.5 times greater than
the Pc,50 computed using Saavg. It is believed that a signicant contributor to Sa(T1) producing a higher
collapse risk estimate is the larger variability in the collapse intensities (a larger lnIMcol) combined with
the larger variability from the GMPE perspective ( lnIM,GMPE) (i.e. the variability in the expected value
of the IM for a given magnitude and distance) for Sa(T1) compared to Saavg, as shown in Table V.
The standard deviations indicate how well the IM values observed from recorded ground motions
match the GMPEs prediction of the expected value and as such indicate, loosely speaking, how
easy or difcult it is to predict the value of the IM. Perhaps it is not surprising that Saavg has a
smaller value of lnIM,GMPE than Sa(T1) (Table V) as one might expect that the process of averaging
spectral ordinates over a range of periods reduces extreme values. The mathematical basis for why
lnSaAvg,GMPE is smaller than lnSa(T1),GMPE can be understood by considering that lnSaAvg,GMPE is a
function of the lnSa(T),GMPE values for periods used to compute Saavg and the correlation
coefcients for spectral values at different periods. Figure 6(a) shows the former while Figure 6(b)

Figure 5. PSHA deaggregation by magnitude with associated (T1) values for Sa(T1) = 0.72 g.

Figure 6. Components inuencing the value of lnSaAvg,GMPE: (a) values of lnSa(T),GMPE; and (b) contour of
correlation coefcients between spectral values at different periods.
Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2015)


DOI: 10.1002/eqe

AVERAGE SPECTRAL ACCELERATION AS AN IM FOR COLLAPSE RISK ASSESSMENT

shows the latter obtained from [39]. For the case study Saavg is computed between periods of 0.27 s and
3.99 s (which is the period range between 0.2T1 and 3T1, where T1 = 1.33 s), which means this period
range has over twice as many periods greater than T1 than less than T1. Although periods greater than
T1 have greater values of lnSa(T),GMPE compared to the value at T1 as seen in Figure 6(a), the spectral
values are not perfectly correlated as seen in Figure 6(b). The reduction in the correlation of spectral
ordinates as one departs from T1 leads to a reduction in lnSaAvg,GMPE compared to the value of
lnSa(T1),GMPE in nearly all cases.
3.4.2. Effect of ground motion selection. To test the sensitivity of the previous observations to the
particular ground motions used, the collapse fragility curve is computed using different sets of
ground motions, and the collapse risk estimates are calculated for each set. Ideally, a good IM will
give relatively stable estimates of the collapse fragility and collapse risk no matter what ground
motions are used (i.e. a small variability in the various estimates computed with different ground
motion sets) because it is hoped that the IM is sufcient with respect to magnitude, distance, and
other properties of the ground motions that may affect the structural response.
The ground motion sets are listed in Table IV. The ground motions in the MRCD 137, Set One and
LMSR-N sets were chosen primarily based on magnitude, distance, soil type and fault type, whereas
ground motions in Set #1A and the CS sets were chosen to match target spectra. As explained in
[41], Set #1A ground motions were selected to match the means and standard deviations of spectral
ordinates between periods of 0 and 5 s predicted by the BA08 GMPE for a Mw = 7 strikeslip
earthquake 10 km from a site with an average shear wave velocity of Vs30 = 250 m/s. The target
spectra for the CS sets are based on a PSHA deaggregation for the case study site at an intensity of
Sa(T1) = 0.68 g, which corresponds to the 2/50 hazard level and is expected to have a signicant
contribution to the collapse risk. Based on the deaggregation, the magnitude with the largest
contribution to the hazard is Mw = 6.7, which corresponds to (T1) = 1.7. The target spectrum is
a conditional spectrum (CS), which describes the full distribution of the spectrum at all periods
(i.e. it captures both the expected spectral values and the variability of those values) [3]. It is
constructed using these Mw and (T1) values with the other site parameters (i.e. Rjb = 10 km,
Vs30 = 285 m/s, and an unspecied fault type) using the BA08 GMPE. A similar CS is also created
with (T1) = 1.8 to be consistent with the target (T1) value of the MRCD 137 set as shown in
Figure 5 and to be closer to the target (T1) values of other ground motion sets as discussed later.
Note that the CS can be used to select hazard-consistent ground motions; however, one generally
needs to compute the CS (and reselect ground motions) for each intensity level of interest as the
hazard distributions generally change with the intensity level, and this was not done here.
Although the record selection methodology and the values of many target parameters (e.g.
magnitude, distance, etc.) are similar for the Set #1A and the CS sets, there is an important
difference between these two sets: the CS sets were conditioned on non-zero values of (T1), which
affects the target spectrum because of correlations between values at different periods. The positive
(T1) values used to construct the target spectra for the CS sets imply that these spectra typically
have a peak at or near T1. In contrast, the target spectrum used to select the Set #1A ground motions
is based on the median prediction from the GMPE, which implies that the values are zero for all
periods, which results in different spectral shape characteristics between the ground motion sets, as
illustrated in Figure 7. Figure 7 compares the (geometric) mean spectra of the ground motion sets,
where all records are scaled to a common value of Sa(T1) in Figure 7(a) and a common value of
Saavg in Figure 7(b). Figure 7 shows that the overall (i.e. mean) relative frequency content differs
among ground motion sets. For example, the MRCD 137 and both Set #1A ground motion sets
generally have higher spectral ordinates compared to the other ground motion sets between periods
of 3 s and 4 s, while the LMSR-N and Set One sets generally have higher spectral ordinates
compared to the other ground motion sets at short periods, regardless of which IM is used to scale
the records. The CS sets exhibit peaked spectra near T1 and tend to have higher spectral ordinates
near T1 compared to the other ground motion sets when scaled to a common value of Saavg.
The collapse risks computed by each IM for the different ground motion sets are summarized in
Figure 8. The -adjusted collapse risk results for Sa(T1) are also presented in Figure 8 and are
denoted as Sa(T1) + . A PSHA deaggregation at the intensity associated with the peak of the c
Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2015)


DOI: 10.1002/eqe

L. EADS, E. MIRANDA AND D. LIGNOS

Figure 7. Geometric mean spectrum of different ground motion sets scaled to a common value of (a) Sa(T1)
and (b) Saavg. Note the vertical line in (a) is drawn at T1 = 1.33 s, and the horizontal line in (b) denotes the
common value of Saavg over the period range between 0.2T1 and 3T1.

Figure 8. Summary of collapse risk results for different IMs and different ground motion sets: (a) median
collapse intensity; (b) standard deviation of collapse intensities, lnIMcol; (c) mean annual frequency of
collapse, c, and probability of collapse in 50 years, Pc,50.

deaggregation is used to determine the target value for each ground motion set. This intensity varies
between ground motion sets (Sa(T1) = 0.70 g to 0.87 g), which results in the target value varying
between the ground motion sets ((T1) = 1.8 to 2.1). All PSHA deaggregations show that the
magnitude with the greatest contribution to the seismic hazard is Mw = 6.7.
Figure 8(a) presents the median collapse intensities for each IM. As previously discussed, it is
desirable that the median collapse intensity of a given IM remains relatively stable for different
ground motion sets because this indicates that the results are likely not affected by properties of the
ground motions such as magnitude, distance, or other properties that differ between the ground
motion sets, and therefore the results are more reliable as they are less affected by decisions made
when selecting ground motions. Figure 8(a) shows that the median collapse intensities measured by
Saavg are relatively stable as they only vary between Saavg = 0.70 g and 0.77 g (a 5% variation with
respect to the value in the middle of this range of intensities). The median collapse intensities
measured by Sa(T1) + , on the other hand, vary considerably more as the values range from Sa(T1)
= 1.33 g to 1.72 g (a 13% variation with respect to the value in the middle of this range of
Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2015)


DOI: 10.1002/eqe

AVERAGE SPECTRAL ACCELERATION AS AN IM FOR COLLAPSE RISK ASSESSMENT

intensities). The dispersions on the median collapse intensity are presented in Figure 8(b) and show that
Saavg is the more efcient IM for all ground motion sets, with an average dispersion value of
lnSaAvgCol = 0.25. Note that, for reasons previously stated, the dispersion of collapse intensities using
the Sa(T1) + method is taken as equal to the dispersion of collapse intensities based on Sa(T1) alone.
The values of c and Pc,50 for each IM are presented in Figure 8(c). Discussion herein will focus on
the Pc,50 values as they are simply a transform of the c values as shown by Equation (5). Figure 8(c)
shows that collapse risk estimates are most stable for Saavg, which has Pc,50 values ranging from 0.22%
to 0.33% (a 20% variation with respect to the value in the middle of this range). This indicates that
compared to Sa(T1) the collapse risk estimated using Saavg is relatively insensitive to the particular
set of ground motions used, which is a very desirable property. This relatively narrow range of
collapse risk estimates is obtained using records sets with very different characteristics, and yet they
lead to very similar collapse risk estimates. For example Figure 7(b) shows that when scaled to the
same Saavg value records in the MRCD 137 set have, on average, signicantly larger spectral
ordinates than the LMSR-N set between periods of 3 s and 4 s while between periods of 0 and 1 s
the trend is reversed. Despite differences in relative frequency content that Saavg does not capture,
the collapse risk estimates using these two sets are very similar as the Pc,50 values are 0.29% and
0.23% for the MRCD 137 and LMSR-N sets, respectively.
Sa(T1) + produces collapse risk estimates ranging from Pc,50 = 0.14% to 0.44% (a variation of
approximately 50% with respect to the value in the middle of this range), which indicates that even
after correcting for the different values between the ground motion sets the collapse risk computed
by this IM is still sensitive to the records used in the evaluation.

4. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION


Studies of nearly 700 MRF and shear wall structures of various heights showed that while both Sa(T1)
and Saavg were generally sufcient with respect to the distance of the ground motions used to assess
collapse, Saavg was approximately 40% more efcient, on average, at predicting the collapse
intensities and was more likely to be sufcient with respect to magnitude and spectral shape proxy
. Analysis of 30 RC MRF structures showed that while Sa(T1) was sufcient with respect to
earthquake magnitude for only 20% of the structures, Saavg was sufcient for approximately 50% of
the structures and for over 90% of the structures with T1 > 1.5 s. The results presented in the
collapse risk assessment case study suggest that Saavg is a good IM to use for collapse risk
assessment, as compared to Sa(T1) it is a better (more efcient) predictor of structural response, is
predicted with less dispersion from a GMPE perspective and produces relatively stable collapse risk
estimates using different ground motion sets (which is a reection of its sufciency with respect to
ground motion properties that affect structural response). Though seismic hazard curves in terms of
Sa(T1) are relatively widely available, this is not the case for Saavg and is a signicant factor
preventing the widespread use of the IM in practice. However, hazard curves for Saavg can be
generated using existing GMPEs for spectral values at given periods and existing equations for
correlations between spectral values at different periods, and implementing these for Saavg is a goal
of the OpenSHA project [www.opensha.org].
It has been demonstrated that one can compute similar collapse risk estimates with different IMs
using rigorous ground motion selection to ensure hazard consistency [2, 3]. In practice collapse risk
assessment involves using a limited number of ground motions to estimate the structural response,
and, in some cases, there may be a lack of available ground motions that are consistent with the
ground motions expected at a particular site and intensity level, especially if one tries to match joint
distributions of several ground motion parameters. Though shortcomings in the selected ground
motions can be accounted for through adjustment procedures, they may be cumbersome and do not
guarantee convergence to the correct answer. Because of these practical issues associated with
assessing the collapse risk there is a benet to using an IM that is predicted with less uncertainty
from the GMPE perspective, is an efcient predictor of structural response and is sufcient with
respect to ground motion properties affecting structural response, or at least one producing collapse
fragility estimates that are less dependent on ground motion properties, and therefore less biased,
Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2015)


DOI: 10.1002/eqe

L. EADS, E. MIRANDA AND D. LIGNOS

than estimates obtained using alternative IMs. Furthermore, the relatively stable collapse risk estimates
obtained across the ground motion sets when using Saavg are indicators of the sufciency of this IM
with respect to various ground motion properties and suggest that collapse risk estimates obtained
using this IM are not particularly sensitive to the ground motions used in structural response
(collapse fragility) analysis. This implies that the careful record selection and/or modication of
structural response results required to obtain a good estimate of the collapse risk when using Sa(T1)
as the IM may not be required or may be signicantly reduced if Saavg is the IM. Future work is
necessary to conrm this, however, as the results presented here are based on only a single case
study. In particular, it would be valuable to study the sufciency of Saavg with respect to ground
motion duration and pulse-like ground motions as these parameters were not explicitly examined
here and have been shown to bias structural response estimates when Sa(T1) is the IM (e.g. see [42]
and [1], respectively).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank Professor Farzin Zareian and Professor Curt Haselton for sharing their
collapse analysis results for generic moment-resisting frame and shear wall structures and for modern
reinforced concrete moment-resisting frame structures, respectively. They would also like to thank the
two reviewers, whose comments helped improve the quality of this paper. This research is funded by the
US National Science Foundation (NSF) under Grant No. CMS-0936633 within the George E. Brown, Jr.
Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation Research (NEESR) Consortium Operations. The nancial
support of NSF is gratefully acknowledged. Any opinions, ndings and conclusions or recommendations
expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reect the views of NSF.
REFERENCES
1. Luco N, Cornell CA. Structure-specic scalar intensity measures for near-source and ordinary earthquake ground
motions. Earthquake Spectra 2007; 23(2):357392. DOI:10.1193/1.2723158.
2. Bradley BA. The seismic demand hazard and importance of the conditioning intensity measure. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2012; 41(11):14171437. DOI:10.1002/eqe.2221.
3. Lin T, Haselton CB, Baker JW. Conditional spectrum-based ground motion selection. Part I: Hazard consistency for
risk-based assessments. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2013; 42(12):18471865. DOI:10.1002/
eqe.2301.
4. Shome N, Cornell CA, Bazzurro P, Carballo JE. Earthquakes, records, and nonlinear responses. Earthquake Spectra
1998; 14(3):469500. DOI:10.1193/1.1586011.
5. Aslani H, Miranda E. Probabilistic earthquake loss estimation and loss disaggregation in buildings. Report No. 157;
The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 2005.
6. Riddell R. On ground motion intensity indices. Earthquake Spectra 2007; 23(1):147173. DOI:10.1193/1.2424748.
7. Cordova PP, Deierlein GG, Mehanny SSF, Cornell CA. Development of a two-parameter seismic intensity measure
and probabilistic assessment procedure. Proc., The Second U.S.Japan Workshop on Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Methodology for Reinforced Concrete Building Structures, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan, 2000;
187206.
8. Baker JW, Cornell CA. Spectral shape, epsilon and record selection. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2006; 35(9):10771095. DOI:10.1002/eqe.571.
9. Tothong P, Luco N. Probabilistic seismic demand analysis using advanced ground motion intensity measures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2007; 36(13):18371860. DOI:10.1002/eqe.696.
10. Bradley BA, Dhakal RP, MacRae GA, Cubrinovski M. Prediction of spatially distributed seismic demands in
specic structures: ground motion and structural response. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics
2010; 39(5):501520. DOI:10.1002/eqe.954.
11. Bradley BA, Dhakal RP, MacRae GA, Cubrinovski M. Prediction of spatially distributed seismic demands in
specic structures: structural response to loss estimation. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics
2010; 39(6):591613. DOI:10.1002/eqe.955.
12. Kennedy RP, Short SA, Merz KL, Tokarz FJ, Idriss IM, Power MS, Sadigh K. Engineering characterization of
ground motion. Task I: Effects of characteristics of free-eld motion on structural response. Report No.
NUREG/CR-3805, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 1984.
13. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Developing efcient scalar and vector intensity measures for IDA capacity estimation by incorporating elastic spectral shape information. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2005;
34(13):15731600. DOI:10.1002/eqe.496.
14. Bianchini M, Diotallevi PP, Baker JW. Prediction of inelastic structural response using an average of spectral accelerations. 10th International Conference on Structural Safety and Reliability (ICOSSAR09), Osaka, Japan, 2009.
15. Bojrquez E, Iervolino I. Spectral shape proxies and nonlinear structural response. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering 2011; 31(7):9961008. DOI:10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.03.006.
Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2015)


DOI: 10.1002/eqe

AVERAGE SPECTRAL ACCELERATION AS AN IM FOR COLLAPSE RISK ASSESSMENT


16. Tsantaki S, Jger C, Adam C. Improved seismic collapse prediction of inelastic simple systems vulnerable to the
P-delta effect based on average spectral acceleration. 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon,
Portugal, 2012.
17. De Biasio M, Grange S, Dufour F, Allain F, Petre-Lazar I. A simple and efcient intensity measure to account for
nonlinear structural behavior. Earthquake Spectra 2014; in press. DOI: 10.1193/010614EQS006M.
18. Shome N, Cornell CA. Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of nonlinear structures. Report No. RMS-35, RMS Program, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 1999.
19. Modica A, Stafford PJ. Vector fragility surfaces for reinforced concrete frames in Europe. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 2014; 12(4):17251753. DOI:10.1007/s10518-013-9571-z.
20. Eads L, Miranda E, Lignos DG. Seismic collapse risk assessment of buildings: effects of intensity measure selection and computational approach. Report No. 184, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center,
Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 2014.
21. Zareian F, Krawinkler H. Simplied performance-based earthquake engineering. Report No. 169, The John A. Blume
Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 2009.
22. Haselton CB, Deierlein GG. Assessing seismic collapse safety of modern reinforced concrete moment frame buildings. Report No. 156, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 2007.
23. Ibarra LF, Medina RA, Krawinkler H. Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2005; 34(12):14891511. DOI:10.1002/eqe.495.
24. Chiou B, Darragh R, Gregor N, Silva W. NGA project strong-motion database. Earthquake Spectra 2008;
24(1):2344. DOI:10.1193/1.2894831.
25. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2002;
31(3):491514. DOI:10.1002/eqe.141.
26. Boore DM, Atkinson GM. Ground-motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV,
and 5%-damped PSA at spectral periods between 0.01s and 10.0s. Earthquake Spectra 2008; 24(1):99138.
DOI:10.1193/1.2830434.
27. Abrahamson N, Atkinson G, Boore D, Bozorgnia Y, Campbell K, Chiou B, Idriss IM, Silva W, Youngs R. Comparisons of the NGA ground-motion relations. Earthquake Spectra 2008; 24(1):4566. DOI:10.1193/1.2924363.
28. Haselton CB, Baker JW, Liel AB, Deierlein GG. Accounting for ground-motion spectral shape characteristics
in structural collapse assessment through an adjustment for epsilon. Journal of Structural Engineering 2011;
137(3):332344. DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000103.
29. ICC. International building code. International Code Council (ICC): Falls Church, VA, 2003.
30. AISC. Prequalied connections for special and intermediate steel moment frames for seismic applications, AISC
35805. American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC): Chicago, IL, 2005.
31. AISC. Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings, including supplement no. 1, AISC 34105. American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC): Chicago, IL, 2005.
32. Lignos DG, Krawinkler H. Sidesway collapse of deteriorating structural systems under seismic excitations. Report
No. 177, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 2012.
33. Open system for earthquake engineering simulation (OpenSees). Version 2.1.1. Pacic Earthquake Engineering Research Center, 2009. Available from: http://opensees.berkeley.edu [2 May 2014].
34. Zareian F, Medina RA. A practical method for proper modeling of structural damping in inelastic plane structural
systems. Computers and Structures 2010; 88(12):4553. DOI:10.1016/j.compstruc.2009.08.001.
35. Baker JW. An introduction to probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA). White Paper, Version 1.3, 2008. Available from: http://www.stanford.edu/~bakerjw/publications.html [2 May 2014].
36. Shahi SK, Baker JW. An empirically calibrated framework for including the effects of near-fault directivity in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 2011; 101(2):742755.
DOI:10.1785/0120100090.
37. Chioccarelli E, Iervolino I. Near-source seismic hazard and design scenarios. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 2013; 42(4):603622. DOI:10.1002/eqe.2232.
38. Jayaram N, Baker JW. Statistical tests of the joint distribution of spectral acceleration values. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 2008; 98(5):22312243. DOI:10.1785/0120070208.
39. Baker JW, Jayaram N. Correlation of spectral acceleration values from NGA ground motion models. Earthquake
Spectra 2008; 24(1):299317. DOI:10.1193/1.2857544.
40. Benjamin JR, Cornell CA. Probability, Statistics, and Decision for Civil Engineers. McGraw-Hill: New York, NY,
1970.
41. Baker JW, Lin T, Shahi SK, Jayaram N. New ground motion selection procedures and selected motions for the PEER
transportation research program. PEER Report 2011/03, Pacic Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center,
Berkeley, CA, 2011.
42. Chandramohan R, Lin T, Baker JW, Deierlein GG. Inuence of ground motion spectral shape and duration on seismic collapse risk. 10th International Conference on Urban Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, Japan, 2013.
43. Medina RA, Krawinkler H. Seismic demands for nondeteriorating frame structures and their dependence on ground
motions. Report No. 144, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 2003.

Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2015)


DOI: 10.1002/eqe