0 Stimmen dafür0 Stimmen dagegen

5 Aufrufe18 Seitendgs

Oct 28, 2016

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

dgs

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

5 Aufrufe

dgs

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

- Behavioral Table Review
- D--internet-myiemorgmy-iemms-assets-doc-alldoc-document-984_Earthquake Monitoring In Malaysia.pdf
- L-06-EQ-Resistant-Design-of RCC Structures
- new.docx
- Statistics, Shooting and the Myth of the Three Shot Group
- 24189_Geodynamics XI-Earthquake.pdf
- Module of Instructionpagbasa at Pagsulat
- Dampers That Offer Highest Earthquake Protection
- Earthquake engineering introduction
- 1938 Suhartono Statistics Proceeding ICOMS 2008 [Gumgum_dkk._its]
- Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for Arabian Plate
- ABCM PPT.pptx
- thumblogo.com http://www.distributorcentral.com/websites/gift/
- Extracting Information from European Analyst Forecasts
- Article 20
- LET-REVIEWER.pdf
- SoilDynEarthquEng29_1181
- Six Sigma Tools in a Excel Sheet
- Abhineet Gupta, Intensity Prediction Using DYFI
- 311587989 Diseno Por Desempeno PDF

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 18

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

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

SEE PROFILE

letting you access and read them immediately.

SEE PROFILE

Retrieved on: 27 June 2016

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2015)

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/eqe.2575

risk assessment

Laura Eads1,*,, Eduardo Miranda2 and Dimitrios G. Lignos3

1

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:

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

(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.

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.

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

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.

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.

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

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

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

Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

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.

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

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.

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

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

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

No. of

structures

396

252

30

Saavg

Sa(T1)

61

41

43

3

1

0

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2015)

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

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.

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.

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

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.

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

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

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

Source

[20:

[43:

[22:

[41:

[20:

[20:

Appendix A]

Section 3.3]

Appendix 3B]

Section 3.1]

Appendix C]

Appendix C]

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

Table V. Collapse risk metrics and related parameters using the MRCD 137 ground motion set.

IM

Sa(T1)

Sa(T1) +

Saavg

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.

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

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.

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

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.

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

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.

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

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.

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.

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

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.

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

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.

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

- Behavioral Table ReviewHochgeladen vonMallick Kodavanti
- D--internet-myiemorgmy-iemms-assets-doc-alldoc-document-984_Earthquake Monitoring In Malaysia.pdfHochgeladen vonAfham Ahmad
- L-06-EQ-Resistant-Design-of RCC StructuresHochgeladen vonAbdul Hamid Bhatti
- new.docxHochgeladen vonPreejesh Prabhakar
- Statistics, Shooting and the Myth of the Three Shot GroupHochgeladen vonRocketmanOU
- 24189_Geodynamics XI-Earthquake.pdfHochgeladen vonHerman Darmawan
- Module of Instructionpagbasa at PagsulatHochgeladen vonGlenda Ramirez Organista
- Dampers That Offer Highest Earthquake ProtectionHochgeladen vonKiran Reddy
- Earthquake engineering introductionHochgeladen vonSG Shah
- 1938 Suhartono Statistics Proceeding ICOMS 2008 [Gumgum_dkk._its]Hochgeladen vonilkom12
- Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for Arabian PlateHochgeladen vonZ. A. AbdulJaleel
- ABCM PPT.pptxHochgeladen vonsagrikakhandka
- thumblogo.com http://www.distributorcentral.com/websites/gift/Hochgeladen vontunguska8587
- Extracting Information from European Analyst ForecastsHochgeladen vonandreau
- Article 20Hochgeladen vonDr-Harshvadan Patel
- LET-REVIEWER.pdfHochgeladen vonEdrian P. Gatchalian
- SoilDynEarthquEng29_1181Hochgeladen vonAmin Kotb
- Six Sigma Tools in a Excel SheetHochgeladen vonjohnavram
- Abhineet Gupta, Intensity Prediction Using DYFIHochgeladen vonVladimir Terea
- 311587989 Diseno Por Desempeno PDFHochgeladen vonMA Ney
- Estimacion Velocidad en Bogota Colombia en Base a Un Arreglo a Una Configuracion de Mediciones de MicroterremotosHochgeladen voncontrerasc_sebastian988
- 274463856 ASTM E 1155 Procedure Floor FlatnessHochgeladen vonWagesusilo23121986_
- Solomon Et Al-2018-Psychology in the SchoolsHochgeladen vonPaul Asturbiaris
- 13805464604Hochgeladen vonEsteban
- Prediccion de La Bancarota Con Efectos en La IndustriaHochgeladen vonevmerino
- Problems in Scm 2014 Nov (1)Hochgeladen vonCharanteja Dachepalli
- WeightedMean-1Hochgeladen vonSherif Hassanien
- chapter6 MATLAB.pdfHochgeladen vonrivanmoeh
- Basic Descriptive Statistics Using R(2)Hochgeladen vonMonari Geofrey
- Preschool Behavior QuestionnaireHochgeladen vonOana Petcu

- Modeling Overhead Gantry CraneHochgeladen vonMohinuddin Ahmed
- MHI 2019 VRF BrochureHochgeladen vonMohinuddin Ahmed
- VRF Systems.pdfHochgeladen vonhonisme
- Mechanized Tunneling in Soft Soils Choice of Excavation Mode AndApplication of Soil-ConditioningHochgeladen vonMohinuddin Ahmed
- MC2_AGANHochgeladen vonMohinuddin Ahmed
- CONSTRUCTION_OF_TUNNELS_BY_NEW_AUSTRIAN.pdfHochgeladen vonMohinuddin Ahmed
- State of the ArtDesignGuidelinesforUnlinedPressureTunnels PanthiandBasnet ARMS10Hochgeladen vonMohinuddin Ahmed
- Adapting The Modified Cam Clay Constitutive Model To The Computat.pdfHochgeladen vonMohinuddin Ahmed
- Material_Modelling.pdfHochgeladen vonMohinuddin Ahmed
- ICOVP Hussein 2013Hochgeladen vonMohinuddin Ahmed
- mHochgeladen vonMohinuddin Ahmed
- Instruction to Link Abaqus With vs and IFCHochgeladen vonkhayat
- Advanced Analysis and Design of Steel FramesHochgeladen vonMohinuddin Ahmed
- Burland-RankineLectureHochgeladen vonMohinuddin Ahmed
- Consolidation 1Hochgeladen vonMohinuddin Ahmed
- Sesam-Bladed-flier_tcm8-77530.pdfHochgeladen vonMohinuddin Ahmed
- Sesam [IMT Software Wiki]Hochgeladen vonMohinuddin Ahmed
- Linear Structural Analysis - Sestra - DNV GLHochgeladen vonMohinuddin Ahmed
- Hydrostatic and Hydrodynamic Analysis - Wajac - DNV GLHochgeladen vonMohinuddin Ahmed
- Fatigue Analysis of Frame Models - Framework - DNV GLHochgeladen vonMohinuddin Ahmed
- PHochgeladen vonMohinuddin Ahmed
- fatigue.pdfHochgeladen voniaft
- 24P1-6Hochgeladen vonMohinuddin Ahmed
- Niiranen Etal MMS 2017 REVISEDHochgeladen vonMohinuddin Ahmed
- Probab i List c Failure AnalysisHochgeladen vonMohinuddin Ahmed
- Chapter_9 - Fatigue From Variable Amplitude LoadingHochgeladen vonOdjak Maryono
- solthe95Hochgeladen vonMohinuddin Ahmed
- SMiRT-23_Paper_326Hochgeladen vonMohinuddin Ahmed
- 14787126Hochgeladen vonMohinuddin Ahmed
- 3340-Lectures-7-to-12-S1-2015Hochgeladen vonUtsav Koshti

- Cylindrical Cyclon Separator-6Hochgeladen vonDucViking
- e4bd71699aa53f923439c411764d724eHochgeladen vonChris Antoniou
- Manual_XBC+EconomicStandard+Unit_English_V1.5_130120.pdfHochgeladen vonSergiu Pata
- 142237_Tutorial 5.pdfHochgeladen vonThenes Kumar
- Marca tba-1Hochgeladen voneduin
- Bearing Capacity of Shallow FoundationHochgeladen vonEngineer fozeb ali
- Catalog WTW_ Envirotronic _roHochgeladen vonCorina Stanculescu
- Lightning Simulation of a Combined Overhead Line Cable Connected GISHochgeladen vonqais652002
- A Compact CPW-Fed Slotted Patch Antenna for Dual-Band Operation-EVmHochgeladen vonArch
- Real NumberHochgeladen vonkentbnx
- 4Hochgeladen vonMinh Anh Nguyen
- The Demonstration of Fourier Series to First Year Undergraduate Engineering StudentsHochgeladen vonesatjournals
- netpune.docxHochgeladen vonBhushan Kondalkar
- Graduation-Project Panayiotis NicolaouHochgeladen vonHotib Perwira
- Radiation with Lattice Boltzmann MethodsHochgeladen vonrickcjmac
- Band StructureHochgeladen vonJorge Andres Hernandez Carrillo
- Performance Criteria for Concrete DurabilityHochgeladen vonjaysern7
- The Cheng-Todreas Correlations for Bundle and Subchannel Friction FactorsHochgeladen vonSyeilendra Pramuditya
- MEDIDAS DE DISCOS VARIOS.pdfHochgeladen voncesar545680
- TAC-404 Electronic Control Family SpecificationsHochgeladen vonJosé Lopes
- Thermographic rotor blade inspection from larger dis-tances – a promising tool for the maintenance of wind turbinesHochgeladen vonabusad0
- Lec2011 - 3 - AI - Fuzzy LogicHochgeladen vonkeyboard2014
- A K-means-like Algorithm for K-medoids Clustering and Its PerformanceHochgeladen vonSmruti Sourav Mohapatra
- New Paradigm in machiningHochgeladen vonNavdeep Singh
- Wear Behaviour of Friction Stir Weld Joint of Cast Al (4-10%) Cu alloy Welded at Different Operating ParametersHochgeladen vonchantivs
- 2140603Hochgeladen vonQais Samadi
- Innovative Metal System for IGBTHochgeladen vonRichard Tseng
- Field Computation by Moment MethodsHochgeladen vonAnonymous P2ZN8X
- opticaHochgeladen vonAnonymous cfyUZ5xbC5
- Seapex Report of Papuan basinHochgeladen vonMohammad Taha Irfan

## Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.

Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.

Jederzeit kündbar.