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

net/publication/331983041

Significance of Ground Motion Scaling Parameters on Amplitude of Scale Factors

and Seismic Response of Short- and Long-Period Structures

Article  in  Earthquake Spectra · March 2019

DOI: 10.1193/081718EQS204M

CITATIONS READS

0 87

3 authors:

Esengul Cavdar Gokhan Ozdemir

Eskişehir Technical University Eskisehir Technical University
3 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS    23 PUBLICATIONS   118 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Beyhan Bayhan
Bursa Teknik Üniversitesi
15 PUBLICATIONS   61 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Significance of Ground Motion Scaling Parameters on Amplitude of Scale Factors and Seismic Response of Short- and Long-Period Structures View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Beyhan Bayhan on 13 June 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The Professional Journal of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute

PREPRINT
This preprint is a PDF of a manuscript that has been accepted for
publication in Earthquake Spectra. It is the final version that was
uploaded and approved by the author(s). While the paper has been
through the usual rigorous peer review process for the Journal, it has
not been copyedited, nor have the figures and tables been modified for
final publication. Please also note that the paper may refer to online
Appendices that are not yet available.

We have posted this preliminary version of the manuscript online in

the interest of making the scientific findings available for distribution
and citation as quickly as possible following acceptance. However,
readers should be aware that the final, published version will look
different from this version and may also have some differences in
content.

The DOI for this manuscript and the correct format for citing the paper are
given at the top of the online (html) abstract.

Once the final, published version of this paper is posted online, it will
replace the preliminary version at the specified DOI.
 1 Significance of Ground Motion Scaling
2 Parameters on Amplitude of Scale Factors and
3 Seismic Response of Short- and Long-Period
4 Structures
5 Esengul Cavdar,a) M.EERI, Gokhan Ozdemir,a) M.EERI and Beyhan Bayhanb)
6 M.EERI

7 In this study, an ensemble of ground motions is selected and scaled in order to

8 perform code-compliant bi-directional Nonlinear Response History Analysis for
9 design purpose of both short- and long-period structures. Followed scaling
10 method provides both the requirements of the Turkish Earthquake Code regarding
11 the scaling of ground motions and compatibility of response spectra of selected
12 ground motion pairs with the target spectrum. The effects of four parameters,
13 involved in the followed scaling method, on both amplitude of scale factors and
14 seismic response of structures are investigated. These parameters are number of
15 ground motion records, period range, number of periods used in the related period
16 range and distribution of weight factors at the selected periods. In the analyses,
17 ground motion excitations were applied to both fixed-base and seismically
18 isolated structure models representative of short- and long-period structures,
19 respectively. Results revealed that both the amplitudes of scale factors and
20 seismic response of short-period structures are more prone to variation of
21 investigated parameters compared to those of long-period structures.

22 INTRODUCTION

23 Nonlinear Response History Analysis (NRHA) is widely recognized as the technique

24 which provides the most accurate estimation for seismic response of structures. Hence, most
25 of the modern seismic codes and specifications (ASCE/SEI 7, 2010; Eurocode-8, 2005;
26 Turkish Earthquake Code (TEC), 2007) require conducting NRHA of structures under bi-
27 directional excitations of ground motion records that are selected from a suitable database
28 and scaled to be representative of a scenario earthquake. In the literature, it is well

a)
Seismic Isolation Test Center, Eskisehir Technical University, 2 Eylul Campus, Eskisehir, Turkey 26555
b)
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Bursa Technical University, Yıldırım, Bursa, Turkey 16330
29 documented that the selected ground motion records shall possess similar characteristics in
30 terms of both magnitude and distance from fault (Watson and Abrahamson, 2006; Reyes and
31 Kalkan, 2012). However, even if the selected ground motions possess similar characteristics,
32 there may be still a large dispersion in seismic demands obtained from the NRHA of
33 structures. This problem points to the need for scaling of as-recorded ground motions in order
34 to eliminate the large dispersion in seismic response quantities of structures.

35 Scaling of ground motions and its effects on seismic response of structures represented by
36 both linear and nonlinear idealizations have been discussed by numerous authors in the
37 literature (Nau and Hall, 1984; Shome et al., 1998; Bommer and Acevedo, 2004; Luco and
38 Bazzurro, 2007; Hancock et al., 2008; Heo et al., 2010, Buratti et al, 2010; Ay and Akkar,
39 2012). These studies have revealed that not only the dispersion in structural response, but
40 also the required number of ground motion records, to obtain structural response with a
41 certain level of reliability, is reduced by scaling. Recently, the significance of methodology
42 used in scaling of ground motion records has become the focus of interest. Researchers have
43 investigated different scaling methods by comparing the seismic responses of single- and
44 multi-story buildings or symmetric and asymmetric buildings (Michaud and Léger, 2014;
45 Reyes et al., 2014; Roy et al., 2014; Pant and Maharjan, 2016; Pant 2017). In their study,
46 Michaud and Léger (2014) investigated the response of both single degree of freedom
47 structures and a four-story steel frame subjected to earthquake excitations. Ground motion
48 records used by the authors were scaled by employing nine different scaling methods
49 (composed of both amplitude scaling and spectrum matching methods) to determine the most
50 appropriate one. The authors have revealed that there is not one single method suitable for all
51 combinations of cases they have considered. Reyes et al. (2014) studied the success of a
52 spectrum matching method through bi-directional NRHA of single- and multi-story structures
53 with symmetric and asymmetric plans. In their paper, the authors assess the accuracy and
54 efficiency of modifying ground motion records by “spectral matching” compared to
55 “amplitude scaling method” defined by ASCE/SEI 7 (2010). Reyes et al. (2014) reported that
56 spectral matching is more accurate for low ductility cases whereas it is not the case for highly
57 nonlinear response. Similarly, Roy et al. (2014) focused on scaling of ground motions used in
58 analyses of single-story, plan-asymmetric structures. The authors spectrally scaled ground
59 motions in order to get compatible with two distinct spectra, defined as “uniform hazard
60 spectrum” and “conditional mean spectrum”. The analyzed models were representative of
61 short-, moderate- and long-period structures. Roy et al. (2014) concluded that in terms of
62 structural response, scaling of ground motions for both spectrum definitions are almost
63 indifferent to each other. Pant and Maharjan (2016) conducted a study in which scaling of
64 ground motions, especially for the analysis of seismically isolated structures, was addressed.
65 The authors considered both “amplitude scaling” and “spectral matching” methods to modify
66 as-recorded ground motions and performed bi-directional analyses with idealized seismically
67 isolated structure model. Pant and Maharjan (2016) revealed that amplitude scaling should be
68 used when ground motion records are randomly selected. In a companion paper, Pant (2017)
69 further studied the impact of scaling methods on dynamic response of a seismically isolated
70 structure subjected to bi-directional excitations. In his study, Pant (2017) considered a wide
71 range of isolator characteristics and compared the results of analyses in which both
72 “amplitude scaling” and “spectral matching” methods are applied to as-recorded ground
73 motions. Pant (2017) conducted bounding analyses in which lower- and upper-bound
74 properties of isolators are represented in analytical models in order to consider also the effect
75 of uncertainty in isolator characteristics. The author reported that the maximum amount of
76 variation in isolator displacements due to change in scaling method is marginal.

77 When the outcomes of research presented above are evaluated, the following items can be
78 highlighted: (i) studies are mostly focused on comparison of structural responses to quantify
79 the impact of “amplitude scaling” and “spectral matching” methods, (ii) fundamental period
80 of the structure plays an important role during the scaling process, (iii) “amplitude scaling”
81 should be used in analyses of both seismically isolated and fixed-base structures in case of
82 highly nonlinear behavior. Moreover, in most of the studies in which the items above are
83 covered, uni-directional NRHA of structures were performed where only one of the
84 horizontal components of a ground motion is used. But, codified procedures require that bi-
85 directional NRHA shall be conducted under the effect of both horizontal components of the
86 ground motion records acting on the structural model, simultaneously. In case of a bi-
87 directional analyses, to perform a scaling method, first of all it is necessary to combine the
88 spectral curves of two orthogonal horizontal components of ground motion records by means
89 of a suitable method. One method for combination of spectral values derived for both
90 horizontal components of a ground motion is to calculate the Square-Root-of-Sum-of-
91 Squares (SRSS) of spectral values. Another method to combine response spectra of both
92 horizontal components of a ground motion is to take geometric mean of spectral values. It is
93 to be noted that in recent studies (Pant and Maharjan, 2016; Ozdemir and Constantinou,
94 2010), it is getting wider to perform a scaling procedure composed of complimentary use of
 95 both geometric mean and SRSS method to combine response spectra of the two orthogonal
96 horizontal components of ground motions. In this scaling procedure, first, the difference
97 between the target spectrum and the combined spectrum of a ground motion, obtained by
98 taking the geometric mean of spectra of orthogonal horizontal components, is minimized to
99 provide a good match in between. Once the selected ground motion pairs are individually
100 scaled so that the geometric mean of the orthogonal horizontal spectra and the design
101 spectrum is matched, then, response spectra of orthogonal horizontal components of ground
102 motions are combined by SRSS method. In accordance with the code requirements, the
103 average of spectra combined by SRSS method shall not be less than the design spectrum
104 within a period range defined as a function of the analyzed structure.

105 Although the aforementioned complimentary scaling method gets widespread, to the best
106 of our knowledge, there isn’t any study in the literature that investigates the effects of
107 parameters involved in this scaling method. These parameters are (i) period range (defined as
108 a function of the fundamental period of the analyzed structure) covered in scaling method, (ii)
109 number of periods considered in minimizing the difference in between spectrum obtained by
110 taking the geometric mean of two orthogonal horizontal components of a ground motion and
111 target spectrum, (iii) distribution of weight factor (defines the contribution of error at the
112 selected period to the total error term) at selected periods and (iv) number of records. This
113 study aims to fill the gap in the literature about the significance of parameters involved in
114 such scaling method by performing a comprehensive evaluation. For this purpose, a
115 parametric study was performed to quantify the variation in both the amplitude of scale
116 factors (SFs) and seismic response of the analyzed structures due to change in above listed
117 parameters. Here it is assumed that analyses are performed for design purpose of the
118 considered structures. The selected response quantity for the fixed-base structure
119 (representative of short-period structures) is Drift Ratio (DR) because as a demand parameter,
120 drift ratio of a structural element is a good indicator for determining damage and performance
121 level of a structure and it has been widely used for displacement-based design and
122 performance evaluation of reinforced concrete buildings (ATC 1996, ASCE 2000).
123 Maximum Isolator Displacement (MID) is selected as a demand parameter for the seismically
124 isolated structure (representative of long-period structures) since isolator displacements
125 dictates (i) the space around the isolated superstructure to facilitate unrestricted movement of
126 the superstructure, (ii) forces transmitted to bridge substructure or foundation of the
127 structures, (iii) geometrical features of the isolators, and prediction of MIDs is of vital
128 importance in seismic design and assessment of isolated structures. A wide range of
129 fundamental periods was covered to represent different structures for both fixed-base and
130 seismically isolated structures, and in order not to have structure-specific results.

131 SELECTION AND SCALING OF GROUND MOTION RECORDS

132 Due to the fact that it provides the most accurate estimation for seismic response of
133 structures, code specifications generally address the use of NRHA for both design and
134 performance assessment of structures. However, these documents are mostly lack of
135 appropriate guidance for selection and scaling of ground motions used in the analyses. Thus,
136 in practice, it is the engineers call to decide on the procedure for selection and scaling of
137 ground motion records. For interested readers, detailed information about selection and
138 scaling of ground motion records can be found at PEER (2009, 2010, 2011, 2015), NIST
139 (2011) and Sextos et al. (2011).

140 The focus of the present study is to perform code-compliant NRHA for design purpose of
141 the analyzed structures. Accordingly, the following three items needs to be clarified: (i)
142 definition of target spectrum; (ii) how the ground motions are selected and scaled; (iii) how
143 the results are discussed.

144 DEFINITON OF TARGET SPECTRUM

145 The target spectrum used in scaling of ground motions is defined by TEC (2007) and
146 represents Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) having a return period of 2475 years
147 (probability of exceedance is 2% in 50 years). The target spectrum is assumed to be
148 representative of earthquake zone 1 (the highest seismicity level) and site class of Z3
149 (comparable to site class D of NEHRP). Accordingly, the corner periods TA and TB (see
150 Figure 1) are defined by TEC (2007) as 0.15s and 0.6s, respectively. For both of the analyzed
151 fixed-base and seismically isolated structures in this study, the same target spectrum is
152 considered in the analyses. Such a high level of intensity is generally used in design of
153 seismically isolated structures and may be accepted to be high for design of fixed-base
154 structures. However, in TEC (2007), it is stated that special fixed-base structures (e.g.
155 hospitals, governmental buildings, etc.) shall also be designed using the target spectrum for
156 MCE given in Figure 1.

157
 1.8

Spectral Acceleration (g)

1.5
1.2
0.9
0.6
0.3 T
A TB
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
158 Period (sec)
159 Figure 1. Target spectrum of TEC (2007) for 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years.

160 SELECTED GROUND MOTION RECORDS

161 The Turkish Earthquake Code (TEC, 2007) provides a little guidance for selection of
162 ground motion records, so the ground motion records used in this study have been selected
163 considering the recommendations of previous studies (NIST, 2011; Sextos, 2011). They
164 possess similar characteristics in terms of magnitude, closest distance to fault and site
165 classification. Furthermore, since highly nonlinear response of structures in short- and long-
166 period range is of interest, ground motion records have been selected to be representative of a
167 severe earthquake. Selected ground motion records have a moment magnitude, Mw, larger
168 than 6.5 and closest distance to fault rupture, R, is less than 20 km. Soil classification at the
169 site of recording stations has been assumed as either “very dense soil” and “soft rock” (site
170 class C as per NEHRP (FEMA, 2012)), or stiff soil (site class D as per NEHRP (FEMA,
171 2012)). All of the selected records have been downloaded from the strong ground motion
172 database of PEER (2017) and their main characteristics are listed in Table 1. Twenty ground
173 motion pairs have been subdivided into four groups in order to assess the effect of number of
174 ground motion records on the amplitude of SF and structural response, which is a parameter
175 of interest, in this study. Accordingly, three subgroups of ground motions are randomly
176 clustered among twenty ground motions listed in Table 1 so that each group has 7, 11 and 15
177 pairs of records. Distinction between randomly clustered ground motion sets are provided by
178 the superscripts a, b, c (see Table 1) representing the groups with 7, 11 and 15 ground motion
179 pairs, respectively. Figure 2 presents response spectra of individual ground motion pairs
180 obtained by taking the geometric mean of response spectra of horizontal components of each
181 ground motion record. In Figure 2, red lines stand for mean of the geometric means of all
182 response spectra for each ground motion set.
183 Table 1. Characteristics of the selected ground motion records
R PGA PGV PGD Soil Fault
EQ # EQ Name Station Component
Mw (km) (g) (cm/s) (cm) Class* Mechanism
Imperial 315 0.22 38.9 13.6
1 Brawley Airport 6.5 10.4 D SS
Valley 225 0.16 35.8 22.3
Imperial El Centro Array 50 0.17 47.5 31.1
2a,b,c 6.5 6.2 D SS
Valley #10 320 0.22 41.2 18
Superstition El Centro Imp 0 0.36 46.4 17.4
3c 6.5 18.2 D SS
Hills Co Center 90 0.26 40.9 20
N 0.13 42.4 52
4 Chi-Chi TCU050 7.6 9.5 C RO
W 0.15 36.9 54.7
Imperial EC Co Center 92 0.23 68.8 39.6
5 6.5 7.2 D SS
Valley FF 2 0.21 37.5 15.9
Imperial El Centro Array 140 0.6 54.2 32.2
6a,b,c 6.5 3.9 D SS
Valley #8 230 0.45 49.2 35.3
180 0.31 58.9 44.2
7a,b,c Kocaeli Duzce 7.5 15.4 D SS
270 0.36 46.4 17.6
60 0.27 65.7 57.2
8a,b,c Kocaeli Yarimca 7.5 4.8 D SS
330 0.35 62.2 51.1
Canoga Park 196 0.42 60.7 20.2
9c Northridge Topanga 6.7 14.7 D R
106 0.36 32.1 9.1
Canyon
180 0.48 61.5 22.1
10 Northridge Saticoy 6.7 12.1 D R
90 0.37 28.9 8.4
W 0.28 52.9 43.6
11c Chi-Chi CHY024 7.6 9.6 C RO
N 0.18 49 31.1
W 0.2 67.9 75.5
12b,c Chi-Chi TCU101 7.6 2.1 C RO
N 0.25 49.4 35.1
N 0.16 53.1 34.8
13 Chi-Chi TCU109 7.6 13.1 C RO
W 0.16 50.8 46.5
270 0.54 83.5 51.8
14a,b,c Duzce Duzce 7.1 6.6 D SS
180 0.35 60 41.8
NS 0.52 84 27.7
15a,b,c Erzincan Erzincan 6.7 4.4 D SS
EW 0.5 64.3 21.9
Imperial El Centro Array 230 0.36 76.5 58.9
16b,c 6.5 7.1 D SS
Valley #4 140 0.49 37.4 19.7
Imperial El Centro Array 230 0.38 90.5 63
17a,b,c 6.5 4.0 D SS
Valley #5 140 0.52 46.9 35.3
0 0.82 81.3 17.7
18b,c Kobe KJM 6.9 1.0 D SS
90 0.6 74.4 20
W 0.3 112.5 89.2
19b,c Chi-Chi TCU102 7.6 1.5 C RO
N 0.17 77.2 44.9
0 0.61 127.2 35.8
20c Kobe Takatori 6.9 1.5 D SS
90 0.62 120.7 32.7
184 a b c
, , refer to randomly clustered ground motion sets with 7, 11 and 15 ground motion pairs, respectively.
185 * soil classification is in accordance with definitions of NEHRP.
186 SS: Strike Slip; RO: Reverse Oblique; R: Reverse
 (a) for 7 records (b) for 11 records
1.5 1.5

Spectral Acceleration (g)

Individual Geomean
1.2 1.2
Average Geomean
0.9 0.9

0.6 0.6

0.3 0.3

0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Period (s)
(c) for 15 records (d) for 20 records
1.5 1.5
Spectral Acceleration (g)

1.2 1.2

0.9 0.9

0.6 0.6

0.3 0.3

0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Period (s)
187 Figure 2. Individual response spectra of ground motions obtained by taking the geometric mean of
188 the two orthogonal horizontal components and their averages for each group clustered according to
189 number of records contained.

190 SCALING METHOD

191 The scaling method applied to the ground motion records considered in this study is an
192 “amplitude scaling method” in which original records are modified by multiplying with a
193 scalar called as scale factor, SF. In contrast to the spectral matching methods, the frequency
194 content of the original record does not change in this method. It is composed of two
195 complimentary parts. In the first part, the geometric mean spectrum of both horizontal
196 components of a ground motion is computed and then used to get compatible with the target
197 spectrum. Since the target spectrum defined by TEC (2007) is a geometric mean spectrum, it
198 is believed that providing first the compatibility between the target spectrum and the
199 geometric mean spectrum is more suitable. In the second part, the average SRSS spectra of
200 all pairs are further scaled to satisfy the requirements of code provisions (Ozdemir and
201 Constantinou, 2010). Graphical interpretation of this scaling method is presented in Figure 3.
202 The methodology for the applied scaling procedure is provided in a step-by-step fashion as
203 follows:

204
 3.0 3.0

Spectral Acceleration (g)

Horizontal Component_1 Target Spectrum
2.5 2.5
Horizontal Component_2 Geometric Mean
2.0 Geometric Mean 2.0

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
(a) Period (s) (b)
3.0 3.0
Target Spectrum
Spectral Acceleration (g)

Target Spectrum
2.5 2.5 Average of Final
Average SRSS Spectrum
Scaling
2.0 2.0
Period range of interest
1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
(c) Period (s) (d)
205 Figure 3. Graphical interpretation of applied scaling method
206 Step 1: Compute geometric mean spectra of individual ground motion records by taking
207 the geometric mean of response spectra developed for both orthogonal horizontal components
208 of ground motion records (Figure 3.a).
209 Step 2: Consider the geometric mean spectrum as representative of the ground motion and
210 minimize the sum of the weighted squared errors between the geometric mean spectrum and
211 the target spectrum within a specific period range (Figure 3.b). Grey lines in Figure 3.b stand
212 for the difference in between the target spectrum and geometric mean spectrum. The error
213 term  is defined by Equation (1) and the related period range at which the error term is
214 computed, is defined by the code specifications considering the type of the structure under
215 consideration.
n
216    wi SF  yi  yTi 2 (1)
i 1

217 In Equation (1), wi is the weighting factor for the squared error at period Ti; SF is the
218 scale factor applied to ground motion pairs; yi is the ordinate of geometric mean spectrum at
219 period Ti; yTi is the target spectral ordinate at period Ti; and n is the number of periods
220 considered in minimizing the squared error in between geometric mean spectrum and the
221 target spectrum. The derivative of Equation (1) with respect to SF should be equal to zero in
222 order to find the SF that gives the minimum value of . Accordingly, Equation (2) gives the
223 definition of SF that results in minimum squared error between the geometric mean spectrum
224 and the target spectrum within the period range covered.
n

w  y  y i i Ti
225 SF  i 1
n , (2)
w  y
i 1
i
2
i

226 Step 3: Modify ground motion records by multiplying with SF computed in Step 2. It is to
227 be noted that SFs computed by Equation (2) are applied to both horizontal components of the
228 ground motions in order to preserve the ratio in between.
229 Step 4: Compute the SRSS spectra of modified ground motion records and take their
230 average (Figure 3.c). This average SRSS spectrum shall not be less than the target spectrum
231 within the period limits specifically defined for the type of structure under consideration.
232 Hence, the average SRSS given in Figure 3.c is further scaled by a single scalar to obtain
233 average spectrum shown in Figure 3.d.
234 Step 5: Scale factor that is used to modify any ground motion record will be equal to
235 multiplication of scalars computed in Step 2 and Step 4.

236 PARAMETERS CONSIDERED IN SCALING METHOD

237 Previous studies investigating the effect of scaling methods used to modify the original
238 ground motion records, are based on comparison of both “amplitude scaling methods” and
239 “spectral matching methods. Apart from previous studies, this paper investigates the effects
240 of parameters that are involved in the two-phase scaling method discussed above, on both
241 amplitude of SFs and seismic response of structures. These parameters are (i) period range
242 covered in scaling method (defined as a function of the fundamental period of the analyzed
243 structure), (ii) number of periods considered in minimizing the squared error in between Geo-
244 mean spectrum and target spectrum, (iii) distribution of weighting factor (defines the
245 contribution of error at the selected period to the total error term) at selected periods, and (iv)
246 number of records. In a scaling procedure compliant with the codes, the fundamental period
247 of the structure is used to define the limits of period range where the average SRSS spectrum
248 shall not be less than the target spectrum as illustrated in Figure 2d. Accordingly, if a fixed-
249 base structure is of interest, the lower and upper limits of the period range are defined as
250 0.2Tfixed and 1.5 Tfixed (Tfixed is the fundamental period of the fixed-base structure),
251 respectively. If a seismically isolated structure is of interest, the lower and upper limits of the
252 period range are defined as 0.5TD and 1.25TM where TD and TM are the effective periods
253 calculated for Design based earthquake and Maximum considered earthquake, respectively.
254 Since, TD and TM values are also functions of both characteristic strength of isolators (defined
255 as the strength of isolator at the hysteresis loop when displacement is zero) and MID
256 (depends on the seismicity level), for the sake of brevity, the period range for seismically
257 isolated structures is considered to be in between 0.5Tiso-1.25Tiso where Tiso is the isolation
258 period based on post-yield stiffness of the representative force-deformation curve of isolator.
259 Here, several fundamental periods representative of both fixed-base (Tfixed=0.3s, 0.5s, 0.8s,
260 1.0s) and seismically isolated structures (Tiso=2.25s, 2.50s, 2.75s, 3.00s) are covered in order
261 not to have structure-specific results. Table 2 presents the period ranges for both fixed-base
262 and seismically isolated structures. Equally spaced 3, 5 and 10 periods are considered within
263 the related period ranges in order to investigate the effect of number of periods (n) on the
264 amplitude of SF. The lower and upper limits of the period ranges are two inputs for all
265 number of periods whereas the spacing in between are defined as period range divided by (n-
266 1). Four different combinations for weighting factors are considered in order to quantify
267 variation in amplitude of SFs due to change in weighting factor, w, of Equation (2). These are
268 as follows: (i) equal weighting factors at all periods considered in minimization of squared
269 error between the Geo-mean and target spectra (wi=1/n, see Equation (2)) and (ii) weighting
270 factor at the period closest to the fundamental period of structure (Tfixed or Tiso) within the
271 related period range is larger than the ones at other periods.

272 Table 2. Period ranges for both fixed-base (short-period) and seismically isolated (long-period)
273 structures
Short Period Structure (0.2Tfixed-1.5Tfixed) Long Period Structure (0.5Tiso-1.25Tiso)
Period (sec) Period Range Period (sec) Period Range
0.30 0.06 - 0.45 2.25 1.13 - 2.81
0.50 0.10 - 0.75 2.50 1.25 - 3.13
0.80 0.16 - 1.20 2.75 1.38 - 3.44
1.00 0.20 - 1.50 3.00 1.50 - 3.75

274 To clarify the differentiation in distribution of weighting factors, Tables 3 and 4 are
275 presented for fixed-base and seismically isolated structures, respectively, when n=5. For
276 instance, as presented in Table 3, for a structure with Tfixed=0.3s, the period value closest to
277 the Tfixed in the related period range (0.06s-0.45s) is 0.26s when n=5. At this period, if the
278 weighting factor is assumed to be 0.50 (may also be 0.25 or 0.75), other periods will have
279 equal weighting factors with magnitudes of (1-0.5)/(n-1).
280 Table 3. Distribution of weighting factors at periods considered in minimizing  between the Geo-
281 mean and target spectra for short-period structures and n=5

# of Short Period Structure (0.2Tfixed-1.5Tfixed) Weight Factor (wi)

Point Tfixed = 0.3 s Tfixed = 0.5 s Tfixed = 0.8 s Tfixed = 1.0 s 25% 50% 75%
0.06 0.10 0.16 0.20 0.188 0.125 0.063
0.16 0.26 0.42 0.53 0.188 0.125 0.063
5 0.26 0.43 0.68 0.85 0.25 0.50 0.75
0.35 0.59 0.94 1.18 0.188 0.125 0.063
0.45 0.75 1.20 1.50 0.188 0.125 0.063
282
283 Table 4. Distribution of weighting factors at periods considered in minimizing  between the Geo-
284 mean and target spectra for long-period structures and n=5
Long Period Structure (0.5Tiso-1.25Tiso) Weight Factor (wi)
# of Point
Tiso = 2.25 s Tiso = 2.50 s Tiso = 2.75 s Tiso = 3.00 s 25% 50% 75%
1.13 1.25 1.38 1.50 0.188 0.125 0.063
1.55 1.72 1.89 2.06 0.188 0.125 0.063
5 1.97 2.19 2.41 2.63 0.188 0.125 0.063
2.39 2.66 2.92 3.19 0.25 0.50 0.75
2.81 3.13 3.44 3.75 0.188 0.125 0.063
285
286 The final parameter considered in this study is the “number of ground motion records”
287 used in scaling method. The code specifications indicate that if seven or more ground motion
288 records are used in the analyses, the average response of the analyzed structure can be taken
289 as the design value. But, if the number of ground motion records is less than seven (with a
290 minimum of three), the design value is computed by taking the maximum response of the
291 structure (ASCE/SEI 7, 2010; Eurocode-8, 2005; Turkish Earthquake Code, 2007). However,
292 Reyes and Kalkan (2012) stated that these limits on the number of ground motion records are
293 defined by engineering judgement without clear justifications. There are several studies in the
294 literature intended to answer the following question: How many records should be used in a
295 code compliant NRHA of a structure? (Reyes and Kalkan, 2012; Nau and Hall, 1984; Shome
296 et al., 1998; Bommer and Acevedo, 2004). The studies cited above discuss the significance of
297 number of records in terms of structural response rather than scaling of ground motions. Four
298 different ground motion sets (Table 1) grouped according to number of records (7, 11, 15, 20)
299 are used in order to evaluate also the significance of number of ground motions considered in
300 the scaling method applied.

301 CHANGE IN THE AMPLITUDE OF SCALE FACTORS DUE TO VARIATION

302 IN SELECTED PARAMETERS

303 The two-step scaling method investigated in the present study is composed of both
304 geometric mean and SRSS scaling. Geometric mean scaling is performed by utilizing
305 Equation (2). Accordingly, calculation of a SF that will be applied to any ground motion is
306 dependent on n and wi. On the other hand, the period range at which the compatibility
307 between the target spectrum and individual ground motion spectrum is defined by means of
308 SRSS scaling method as a function of structure type. Thus, there are basically three
309 parameters (n, wi and period range) that affect the computation of SFs.

310 EFFECT OF NUMBER OF PERIOD, n

311 To assess the effect of number of period, n, used in Equation (2) on the amplitude of SFs,
312 number of ground motion records (11) and distribution of weight factor (wi=1/n) are kept
313 constant while computations based on Equation (2) are repeated for n values of 3, 5 and 10,
314 for structures with different fundamental periods (for short- and long-period range). Figures 4
315 and 5 depict the compatibility between the average SRSS spectra of scaled ground motions
316 and target spectrum after the scaling method for fixed-base structures (representative of
317 short-period structure) and seismically isolated structures (representative of long-period
318 structure), respectively. Although it is not presented here due to lack of space, reproducing
319 Figures 4 and 5 for different values of considered parameters give the same compatibility
320 with the average SRSS and target spectrum after scaling of ground motions. The target
321 spectrum illustrated by red solid lines in Figures 4 and 5 is taken from the Turkish
322 Earthquake Code (2007) and represents the highest seismicity level for the maximum
323 considered earthquake having a return period of 2475 years (probability of exceedance is 2%
324 in 50 years) whereas dashed lines identify the period ranges defined by the codes as a
325 function of the structural period.
(a) Tfixed=0.3s (b) Tfixed =0.5s (c) Tfixed =0.8s (d) Tfixed =1.0s
2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Spectral Acc. (g)

1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6

1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2
0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Period (sec)
326 Figure 4. Compatibility of average SRSS spectrum of scaled ground motions with target spectrum for
327 the structures in short-period range (0.2Tfixed-1.5Tfixed) (number of record=11, n=5, wi=1/n)

(a) Tiso=2.25s (b) Tiso =2.50s (c) Tiso =2.75s (d) Tiso =3.00s
 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

Spectral Acc. (g)

1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5
1.2 1.2 1.2
1.0
0.8 0.8 0.8
0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Period (sec)
328 Figure 5. Compatibility of average SRSS spectrum of scale ground motions with target spectrum for
329 the structures in long-period range (0.5Tiso-1.25Tiso) (number of record=11, n=5, wi=1/n)

330 Table 5 presents SFs computed for various combinations of number of periods (n) and
331 different period ranges when weighting factors at all periods are kept constant and equal to
332 1/n.

333 Table 5. Scale factors for various n values when ground motion record number is 11 and wi=1/n
Tfixed and EQ #
n
Tiso (s) 2 6 7 8 12 14 15 16 17 18 19
0.3 2.55 1.24 1.57 2.15 2.54 1.34 1.43 1.58 1.25 0.84 3.06
0.5 3.13 1.12 1.60 1.89 2.42 1.03 1.45 1.80 1.31 0.61 2.38
0.8 2.97 1.19 1.84 1.99 2.63 1.28 1.29 1.85 1.36 0.68 1.55
1.0 2.76 1.49 1.87 1.90 2.58 1.15 1.18 1.46 1.42 0.67 1.98
3
2.25 2.11 1.88 1.43 1.55 2.35 1.48 0.97 1.40 1.33 0.78 0.96
2.50 2.05 1.51 1.49 1.38 2.24 1.36 1.02 1.53 1.35 1.00 0.92
2.75 2.02 1.56 1.55 1.23 2.16 1.45 1.07 1.69 1.37 1.09 0.97
3.0 1.90 1.74 1.50 1.20 2.03 1.30 1.08 1.62 1.27 1.20 0.90
0.3 2.74 1.25 1.48 2.31 2.66 1.23 1.51 1.66 1.20 0.75 3.38
0.5 2.77 1.22 1.62 1.88 2.35 1.15 1.36 1.65 1.38 0.71 2.33
0.8 3.06 1.36 1.61 2.03 2.49 1.15 1.36 1.85 1.33 0.63 1.78
1.0 2.69 1.57 1.73 1.95 2.43 1.22 1.25 1.56 1.37 0.73 1.69
5
2.25 2.03 1.87 1.44 1.54 2.25 1.42 0.99 1.45 1.33 0.86 0.93
2.50 1.99 1.65 1.56 1.42 2.26 1.39 1.03 1.52 1.32 1.07 0.91
2.75 1.91 1.65 1.50 1.24 2.22 1.41 1.01 1.56 1.29 1.14 0.93
3.0 1.89 1.82 1.43 1.24 2.17 1.31 1.03 1.58 1.25 1.29 0.89
0.3 2.63 1.26 1.51 2.31 2.56 1.19 1.35 1.63 1.20 0.76 3.56
0.5 2.95 1.32 1.55 2.03 2.44 1.12 1.36 1.70 1.29 0.70 2.45
0.8 2.90 1.47 1.53 2.00 2.57 1.14 1.34 1.66 1.32 0.66 1.89
1.0 2.78 1.66 1.60 1.90 2.60 1.15 1.26 1.65 1.33 0.64 1.73
10
2.25 1.96 1.72 1.45 1.46 2.25 1.41 0.99 1.47 1.35 0.94 0.92
2.50 1.91 1.69 1.50 1.39 2.23 1.38 1.00 1.50 1.30 1.11 0.90
2.75 1.89 1.78 1.51 1.30 2.25 1.38 1.01 1.54 1.25 1.20 0.90
3.0 1.88 1.89 1.49 1.25 2.20 1.32 1.01 1.53 1.21 1.32 0.88
334
335 According to Table 5, for short-period range, when n is reduced from 5 to 3, the
336 maximum amount of variation in the amplitudes of SFs is computed as 17.2% (for EQ# 19,
337 Tfixed=1.0s) with an average value of 6.6%. When n is increased from 5 to 10, the maximum
338 amount of variation in the amplitudes of SFs is found to be 12.3% (for EQ# 18, Tfixed=1.0s)
339 with an average value of 4.2%. On the other hand, for long-period range, when n is reduced
340 from 5 to 3, the maximum amount of variation in the amplitudes of SFs is computed as 9.3%
341 (for EQ# 18, Tfixed=2.25s) with an average value of 3.5%. When n is increased from 5 to 10,
342 the maximum amount of variation in the amplitudes of SFs is computed as 9.3% (for EQ# 18,
343 Tfixed=2.25s) with an average value of 2.5%. Table 5 reveals that the amplitude of SFs
344 computed within the short-period range is more prone to variation of n compared to those in
345 long-period range. This is due to jagged form of response spectra of selected ground motion
346 records in short period range. The abrupt changes in spectral values over such a narrow
347 period band result in variation in amplitude of scale factor obtained by Equation (2) where
348 spectral values are the inputs for the related computation. On the other hand, in long period
349 range, shapes of response spectra are smoother compared to those in short period range.
350 Thus, scale factors are less sensitive to number of periods considered in Equation (2). It
351 should also be noted that no general tendency is observed in the variation of SFs with
352 changing n values. The amplitudes of SFs may increase, remain almost the same or decrease
353 when n changes. Given amounts of variations are the absolute values and not necessarily
354 represent any increase or decrease.

355 Another issue in scaling of ground motion records is the amplitude of SF. The related
356 literature review for fixed-base structures reveals that although the upper limit for a SF may
357 vary from 1 to 10 or more, in practice, the typical values of SFs range from 2 to 4. Bommer
358 and Acevedo (2004) identify the basis for these values as the proposals of both Krinitzsky
359 and Chang (1977) and Vanmarcke (1979). Krinitzsky and Chang (1977) asserted that 4
360 should be the upper limit for a scale factor while Vanmarcke (1979) defines a range for the
361 limit of scale factor from 2 to 4 based on the characteristics of analysis. Although there is no
362 rationale for such limitations, proposals contained in these two papers are generally used as a
363 rule-of-thumb (Bommer and Acevedo, 2004). Similarly, Ozdemir and Gulkan (2016)
364 recommended that for analysis of seismically isolated structures the limitation for SFs of
365 ground motions should be a function of peak ground velocity of records. Accordingly, if
366 30cm/s<PGV<50cm/s then SF should be less than 4; if 50cm/s<PGV<70cm/s then SF should
367 be less than 3; if PGV<70cm/s then SF should be less than 2. Authors stated that these limits
368 are valid only in limiting the scaling of ground motions when the design of seismic isolated
369 structures is of concern. In light of the above discussion, amplitudes of SFs presented in
370 Table 5 are within the typical limitations.

371 EFFECT OF DISTRIBUTION OF WEIGHTING FACTOR, wi

372 To quantify the variation in amplitudes of SFs due to change in distribution of wi among
373 the periods considered in minimizing the squared error term , computations by means of
374 Eqn. (2) are repeated for cases where wi values are altered while n (5) and number of records
375 (11) are kept constant. For this purpose, four different distributions for wi are used in
376 accordance with Tables 3 and 4 for short- and long-period structures. First, it is assumed that
377 wi values at all periods are the same and equal to 1/n (1/5=0.2). Then, distribution of
378 weighting factors is altered so that the weighting at the period closest to the fundamental
379 period of the structure is larger than the rest. Accordingly, w values at periods closest to the
380 fundamental period of structure are selected as 0.25, 0.50 and 0.75 to represent three different
381 distributions of wi. The remaining periods will have wi values of (1-w)/(n-1) where n=5 and w
382 is 0.25/0.50/0.75. Figure 6 shows the variation in amplitudes of SFs due to change in
383 distribution of wi for both short- and long-period structures. Figure 6 is based on the
384 comparison of SFs obtained for different distributions of weighting factors with the ones
385 obtained for the case where all weighting factors are the same and equal to 0.20 (n=5, wi=1/5,
386 see Table 5).

w=0.25 w=0.50 w=0.75

40 40 40
max
Variation in SF (%)

32 32 32
24 min 24 24
16 16 16
8 8 8
0 0 0
-8 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 -8 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 -8 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19
-16 -16 -16
-24 -24 -24
-32 (a) short-period structure -32 -32
-40 -40 -40
40 40 40
max
Variation in SF (%)

32 32 32
min
24 24 24
16 16 16
8 8 8
0 0 0
-8 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 -8 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 -8 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19
-16 -16 -16
-24 -24 -24
-32 (b) long-period structure -32 -32
-40 -40 -40

# of Records

387 Figure 6. Variations in amplitude of scale factor due to change in distribution of wi for (a) short-
388 period structures (b) long-period structures (n=5, number of record is 11)
389 In Figure 6, it is evident that variation in the distribution of weighting factors along the
390 periods, considered in minimizing the error term  changes the amplitudes of SFs.
391 Furthermore, the amount of that variation increases with increasing w (weighting factor at the
392 period closest to the fundamental period of the structure) values. Increasing w from 0.20 to
393 0.25 results in a maximum of 4% variation in the amplitude of SFs for short-period structures
394 while it is 2% for long-period structures. When w is increased from 0.20 to 0.50, the
395 maximum amounts of variations in amplitudes of SFs are 17% and 10% for short- and long-
396 period structures respectively. Finally, the maximum amount of variations in amplitudes of
397 SFs is almost 30% for both short- and long-period structures when w increases from 0.20 to
398 0.75.

399 EFFECT OF NUMBER OF GROUND MOTION RECORD

400 In this section, the effect of number of ground motion record on the variation of SFs is
401 studied. For this purpose, four different ground motion sets, composed of 7, 11, 15 and 20
402 records, are considered. Characteristics of these ground motion records are given in Table 1.
403 To focus solely on the effect of ground motion number, parameters namely, weighting factor
404 (wi=1/n) and number of periods (n=5) are kept constant and SFs are computed for the
405 selected ground motion sets. Table 6 presents the corresponding amplitudes of SFs for both
406 short- and long-period structures.

407 To quantify the variation in the amplitude of SFs due to change in number of ground
408 motion record, SFs of records that are in common at all ground motion sets are compared
409 with each other. When the number of ground motion records is increased from 7 to 11, the
410 maximum amounts of variation in the amplitudes of SFs of records in common are 5% (for
411 EQ# 17, Tfixed=0.3s) and 3% (for EQ# 17, Tiso=2.25s) (average values are 2.5% and 1.7%) for
412 short- and long-period structures, respectively. In comparison of SFs calculated for 11 and 15
413 ground motion records, the maximum amounts of variations for short- and long-period
414 structures are calculated as 7.5% (for EQ# 17, Tfixed=0.3s) and 7.9% (for EQ# 19, Tiso=3.0s)
415 with average values of 2.9% and 4.3%. Comparing the SFs of records that are in common at
416 ground motion sets composed of 11 and 20 records shows that the maximum amounts of
417 variations for short- and long-period structures are 7.5% (for EQ# 17, Tfixed=0.3s) and 5.8%
418 (for EQ# 12, Tiso=2.25s) with average values of 4.3% and 3.0%. Such comparison revealed
419 that for the selected ground motions, the average values of variations in amplitude of SFs due
420 to change in ground motion number are less than 5%.
 Table 6. SFs for various ground motion sets composed of different number of records when n=5 and wi=1/n
# of Period (s) EQ#
n
Records (Tfixed-Tiso) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
0.3 - 2.61 - - - 1.19 1.41 2.20 - - - - - 1.17 1.44 - 1.14 - - -
0.5 - 2.84 - - - 1.25 1.66 1.93 - - - - - 1.18 1.39 - 1.42 - - -
0.8 - 3.06 - - - 1.36 1.61 2.03 - - - - - 1.15 1.36 - 1.33 - - -
1.0 - 2.76 - - - 1.61 1.77 2.00 - - - - - 1.25 1.28 - 1.41 - - -
7
2.25 - 1.97 - - - 1.82 1.40 1.50 - - - - - 1.38 0.97 - 1.29 - - -
2.50 - 1.94 - - - 1.61 1.52 1.38 - - - - - 1.35 1.00 - 1.28 - - -
2.75 - 1.91 - - - 1.65 1.50 1.24 - - - - - 1.41 1.01 - 1.29 - - -
3.0 - 1.91 - - - 1.85 1.45 1.25 - - - - - 1.33 1.04 - 1.27 - - -
0.3 - 2.74 - - - 1.25 1.48 2.31 - - - 2.66 - 1.23 1.51 1.66 1.20 0.75 3.38 -
0.5 - 2.77 - - - 1.22 1.62 1.88 - - - 2.35 - 1.15 1.36 1.65 1.38 0.71 2.33 -
0.8 - 3.06 - - - 1.36 1.61 2.03 - - - 2.49 - 1.15 1.36 1.85 1.33 0.63 1.78 -
1.0 - 2.69 - - - 1.57 1.73 1.95 - - - 2.43 - 1.22 1.25 1.56 1.37 0.73 1.69 -
11
2.25 - 2.03 - - - 1.87 1.44 1.54 - - - 2.25 - 1.42 0.99 1.45 1.33 0.86 0.93 -
2.50 - 1.99 - - - 1.65 1.56 1.42 - - - 2.26 - 1.39 1.03 1.52 1.32 1.07 0.91 -
2.75 - 1.91 - - - 1.65 1.50 1.24 - - - 2.22 - 1.41 1.01 1.56 1.29 1.14 0.93 -
3.0 - 1.89 - - - 1.82 1.43 1.24 - - - 2.17 - 1.31 1.03 1.58 1.25 1.29 0.89 -
5
0.3 - 2.55 2.05 - - 1.16 1.38 2.14 1.32 - 2.02 2.47 - 1.14 1.40 1.55 1.11 0.70 3.14 0.79
0.5 - 2.70 2.14 - - 1.19 1.57 1.84 1.17 - 2.15 2.29 - 1.12 1.33 1.61 1.35 0.69 2.27 0.85
0.8 - 2.98 2.22 - - 1.33 1.58 1.98 1.37 - 2.32 2.43 - 1.13 1.33 1.80 1.30 0.62 1.74 0.62
1.0 - 2.69 1.94 - - 1.57 1.73 1.95 1.48 - 2.58 2.43 - 1.22 1.25 1.56 1.37 0.73 1.69 0.57
15
2.25 - 1.97 1.82 - - 1.82 1.40 1.50 1.78 - 1.75 2.19 - 1.38 0.97 1.41 1.29 0.84 0.91 0.41
2.50 - 2.05 1.93 - - 1.69 1.60 1.46 1.92 - 1.87 2.32 - 1.42 1.05 1.56 1.35 1.09 0.93 0.38
2.75 - 2.01 1.91 - - 1.74 1.58 1.31 1.62 - 1.78 2.34 - 1.49 1.06 1.64 1.36 1.20 0.98 0.44
3.0 - 2.02 2.04 - - 1.95 1.53 1.32 1.73 - 1.87 2.32 - 1.40 1.10 1.69 1.34 1.38 0.96 0.54
0.3 2.77 2.55 2.05 3.52 2.63 1.16 1.38 2.14 1.32 1.14 2.02 2.47 2.80 1.14 1.40 1.55 1.11 0.70 3.14 0.79
0.5 2.95 2.70 2.14 3.19 2.30 1.19 1.57 1.84 1.17 1.19 2.15 2.29 2.59 1.12 1.33 1.61 1.35 0.69 2.27 0.85
0.8 3.29 2.91 2.16 3.33 2.24 1.29 1.54 1.93 1.33 1.17 2.27 2.37 2.70 1.10 1.29 1.76 1.26 0.60 1.70 0.61
1.0 3.04 2.62 1.89 3.19 1.98 1.53 1.68 1.90 1.44 1.20 2.51 2.37 2.59 1.19 1.21 1.52 1.34 0.71 1.65 0.56
20
2.25 2.62 1.92 1.77 2.72 1.71 1.77 1.36 1.46 1.73 1.34 1.70 2.12 1.47 1.35 0.94 1.37 1.26 0.82 0.88 0.40
2.50 2.92 1.99 1.88 2.89 1.74 1.65 1.56 1.42 1.87 1.28 1.82 2.26 1.39 1.39 1.03 1.52 1.32 1.07 0.91 0.37
2.75 2.86 1.96 1.86 2.96 1.52 1.69 1.54 1.28 1.57 1.27 1.73 2.28 1.43 1.45 1.03 1.60 1.33 1.17 0.95 0.43
3.0 2.96 1.97 1.99 3.03 1.72 1.90 1.49 1.29 1.68 1.54 1.83 2.26 1.32 1.37 1.07 1.64 1.30 1.34 0.93 0.53
338 SEISMIC RESPONSE OF SHORT- AND LONG-PERIOD STRUCTURES

339 In the previous sections, the significance of distribution of weighting factor, number of
340 periods considered in the period range covered, number of records and the period range on
341 the amplitude of SF is presented. Since the primary concern of an earthquake engineer is
342 seismic demand of a structure, the outcomes of this research need to be accomplished with
343 the corresponding NRHA of short- and long-period structures. For this purpose, two distinct
344 structural models, representative of both short- and long-period structures, are subjected to
345 ground motion excitations by performing NRHA. Analyses are conducted in accordance with
346 code specifications so that ground motion records are scaled to get compatible with a target
347 spectrum. In the analyses, both horizontal components of selected ground motions (Table 1)
348 are subjected to structural models simultaneously. It is to be noted that both horizontal
349 components of a ground motion are modified by multiplying with the same SFs computed in
350 previous sections.

351 SHORT-PERIOD FIXED-BASE STRUCTURE

352 The short period fixed-base structure studied herein is a single-story, single-bay, three-
353 dimensional reinforced concrete structure (Figure 7) which is identical to the structure
354 investigated in Bayhan (2013) and Bayhan and Özdemir (2013). It is the symmetric version
355 of the asymmetric test structure that was experimentally and analytically verified in the Blind
356 Prediction Test in the course of 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. In their
357 study, Bayhan and Özdemir (2013) predicted the displacement waveform of the test structure
358 reasonably well under four successive, intensity increasing ground motion excitations, on the
359 shake table, and were ranked second out of 38 participants.

360
361 Figure 7. (a) General view of single-story structure (b) additional weights on the slab. Dimensions are
362 in m.
363 In this study the asymmetric test structure with high ductility (namely HD in the contest)
364 was assumed as symmetric to refrain from issues that may arise due to asymmetry in the
365 structure during the bi-directional NRHA of the analytical model. The analyzed structure is
366 composed of four columns, four beams, one rectangular slab and additional weights, as
367 shown in Figure 7. The span length in orthogonal horizontal directions are 3.5m and 4m,
368 respectively. The net height of the structure above the foundation is 3.4m. The mass of each
369 additional weight is 1.2 tons. The dimensions of the beams are 20cm x 40cm while the
370 columns are 20cm x 20cm. The fundamental period of the test structure is 0.5s. The
371 reinforcement configuration of the beams and columns are given in Figure 8 and material
372 properties used in the structural elements are given in Table 7.

373
374 Figure 8. (a) Reinforcement details, dimensions are in m. (Bayhan, 2013)

375 Table 7. Average concrete compressive strength, yield and ultimate strength of steel reinforcement
Compressive strength of Concrete (MPa) Yield and Ultimate strength of steel bar (MPa)
Foundation & Columns Beam & Slab 8mm 10mm 12mm
29.7 25 561 & 654 559 & 632 566 & 630
376
377 The analytical model of the single-story building is established in OpenSees (OpenSees,
378 2017). Beams are introduced through linear elements with rotational springs that represent
379 inelastic moment-curvature relationship (Figure 9). Column elements are defined through
380 nonlinear-beam column elements with fiber sections. Gauss-Lobatto integration is considered
381 with five integration points. Deformations due to reinforcement slip are defined at column
382 ends with simple linear rotational springs. The beam-column joints are assumed rigid in this
383 model, representing the specimen with high ductility in the blind-prediction contest. For
384 further information about the test structure and details about the experimentally validated
385 analytical model, please refer to Bayhan (2013) and Kayı (2018).

386
387 Figure 9. Experimentally validated analytical model of the short-period test structure (Bayhan, 2013)

388 LONG-PERIOD SEISMICALLY BASE ISOLATED STRUCTURE

389 The seismically isolated structure considered here is composed of moment resisting steel
390 frame and lead rubber bearings (LRBs). A total of 35 LRBs are used at isolation level and
391 characteristic strength to weight ratio (Q/W) of LRBs is 0.10. Weight of the structure is
392 73000 kN and seismic isolation period is 3.0 s. All story heights are the same and equal to 3
393 m (Figure 10). Superstructure is modeled by elastic elements whereas LRBs are idealized by
394 bilinear hysteretic force-deformation relation utilized by Opensees (2012). Gradual reduction
395 in strength of LRBs due to temperature rise in the lead core during cyclic motion is
396 considered in constructing hysteretic behavior of LRBs (Figure 11). Accordingly, at each
397 time step of NRHA, the instantaneous strength of LRBs are used to determine the structural
398 response. Since mathematical model developed for temperature dependent hysteretic
399 behavior of LRBs by Kalpakidis and Constantinou (2009a,b) requires not only the material
400 properties but also the geometric properties of isolator, bilinear representation of LRBs is
401 accomplished by considering the stability checks. Geometric properties of the LRB used to
402 define its temperature dependent hysteretic behavior are as follows: height of the bearing is
403 411 mm, lead core diameter is 167 mm and total shim plate thickness is 120 mm.
404 Thicknesses of both individual rubber and steel layers are 8 mm and 3 mm, respectively.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
900 900 900 900 900 900

A
900
B
900
C
900
D
900
E
a) b)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 E D C B A
900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900

c) d)
405 Figure 10. (a) 3d analytical model (b) plan layout; (c) elevation view at cross sections B and D; (d)
406 elevation view at cross sections 2 and 6

800
Isolator Force (kN)

400

0
-500 -250 0 250 500
-400

-800
Isolator Displacement (mm)

407 Figure 11. Representative hysteretic behavior of LRBs under cyclic motion

408 CHANGE IN THE SEISMIC RESPONSE OF STRUCTURES DUE TO VARIATION IN

409 SELECTED PARAMETERS

410 There is a minimum number of ground motion records that shall be used to meet the
411 seismic code requirements regarding the use of average structural response obtained from
412 NRHA. For instance, TEC (2007) and ASCE/SEI 7 (2010) state that at least seven ground
413 motion records shall be used in NRHA of structures in order to consider the average response
414 quantities of the analyzed structures. Since it is the case in this study, the average values of
415 selected response quantities are presented in related discussions. The selected response
416 quantity for the fixed-base structure (representative of short-period structures) is drift ratio
417 (DR) because as a demand parameter, DR of a structural element is a good indicator for
418 determining damage and performance level of a structure and it has been widely used for
419 displacement-based design and performance evaluation of reinforced concrete buildings
420 (ATC 1996, ASCE 2000). Maximum Isolator Displacement (MID). is selected as a demand
421 parameter for the seismically isolated structure (representative of long-period structures)
422 since isolator displacements dictates (i) the space around the isolated superstructure to
423 facilitate unrestricted movement of the superstructure, (ii) forces transmitted to bridge
424 substructure or foundation of the structures, (iii) geometrical features of the isolators, and
425 prediction of MIDs is of vital importance in seismic design and assessment of isolated
426 structures. Thus, the selected response quantity for the seismically isolated is MID. Figure 12
427 presents the variation in average of maximum DRs obtained from NRHA as a function of
428 both weighting factor and number of records.

429 In Figure 12, the DR values computed for both orthogonal horizontal directions are given.
430 Figure 12 indicates that change in the distribution of weighting factors within the period
431 range considered in scaling procedure results in marginal variation in average DRs. However,
432 changing the number of records used in the analyses will have relatively larger impact on
433 DRs but, the maximum amount of variation is still less than 10%.

5.0 5.0
Average DR (%)

4.5 4.5

4.0 4.0
5.0
3.5 3.5
4.5
4.0
3.0 3.5 3.0
7 3.0 11 15 20 7 11 15 20
7 11 15 20
X direction Z direction
w = 0.20 w = 0.25 w = 0.50 w = 0.75
434 Figure 12. Average values of DRs for different values of weighting factors and number of records

435 The averages of MIDs obtained from NRHA of seismically isolated structure are
436 presented in Figure 13. It is to be noted that since analyses are performed under simultaneous
437 excitations of both horizontal components of ground motions, MID is computed by taking the
438 SRSS of isolator displacements in both horizontal directions. Figure 13 indicates that there is
439 almost no change in MIDs due to change in distribution of weighting factors along the
440 periods used in Equation (2). However, for the selected ground motion records, increasing the
441 number of records used in analyses will change MIDs. The amount of variation may be up to
442 15% depending on the distribution of weighting factors.
500

400
MID (mm)

300

200

5.0 100
4.5
4.0
3.5 0
3.0 7 11 15 20
7 11 15 20
# of records
w = 0.20 w = 0.25 w = 0.50 w = 0.75

443 Figure 13. Average values of MIDs for different values of weighting factor and number of records

444 CONCLUSIONS

445 This paper investigates the effects of parameters involved in an amplitude scaling method
446 namely, weighting factor, wi, number of periods, n, period range and number of records on
447 both scale factors and seismic response of structures. First, the variation in amplitude of scale
448 factors due to change in selected parameters is presented. Then, seismic demands of a short-
449 period structure (fixed-base) and a long-period structure (seismically isolated structure) are
450 studied based on selected parameters. For the fixed-base structure, drift ratio is the response
451 quantity under investigation whereas it is maximum isolator displacement for the seismically
452 isolated structure. Seismic response of analyzed structures are obtained through nonlinear
453 response history analyses in which ground motion excitations are applied bidirectionally in
454 orthogonal horizontal directions. The following conclusions are/have been deduced based on
455 the results of this study. It is to be noted that ground motions used in the present study are
456 selected randomly. And, results presented above may change for a different set of ground
457 motions.

458  Changing the number of periods considered in the period range, defined as a function of
459 the fundamental period of the structure, changes the amplitude of the scale factor.
460 Although the amount of variation in scale factor of individual ground motion records due
461 to change in number of periods may be up to 15%, the average values are around or less
462 than 5%.
463  There is not a direct relation in between the number of periods considered and the amount
464 of variation in the amplitude of scale factor. Increasing n may result in reduction in
465 amplitude of scale factor or vice versa.
466  Scale factors computed for short-period structures are more prone to change in n
467 compared to long-period structures. This is basically due to the abrupt changes in the
468 response spectrum of ground motions in short-period range.
469  Increasing the amplitude of weighting factor at the period closest to the fundamental
470 period of the structure increases the amount of variation in the amplitude of scale factor.
471 However, the variation may be a reduction in the amplitude of scale factor rather than an
472 increase.
473  It is revealed that the amount of variation in amplitudes of scale factors computed for
474 short-period structures due to change in weighting factors is greater than that of long-
475 period structures.
476  Comparison of scale factors computed for ground motion sets composed of different
477 number of records showed that the amount of variation in scale factors of common records
478 in each ground motion set are less than 5% in an average sense. Computed amounts of
479 variations in scale factors are very close to each other for both short-and long-period
480 structures.
481  Drift ratio demands of a short period structure might be underestimated up to ten percent
482 according to the selection of weighting factor and number of records.
483  Changing the distribution of weighting factors for the analyzed seismically isolated
484 structure is almost ineffective in terms of maximum isolator displacements when ground
485 motion numbers are 7 and 11. However, for ground motion sets composed of 15 and 20
486 records, increasing the amplitude of weighting factor at the period closest to Tiso results in
487 increasing isolator displacements.
488
489 The current specifications of seismic codes regarding the scaling of ground motions refer to
490 compatibility of design spectrum and average SRSS spectrum. However, the design spectrum
491 considered for horizontal shaking is a geometric mean spectrum. Thus, it is believed that a
492 sound scaling procedure should consider the geometric means of orthogonal horizontal
493 spectral ordinates of a ground motion in order to get compatible with the target spectrum.
494 Although this requires more detailed and comprehensive research, the present study reports
495 the preliminary observations that can be used as a guidance for future studies.

496 REFERENCES

497 Applied Technology Council (ATC), 1996. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings,
498 ATC-40, California Seismic Safety Commission (SSC 96-01), Sacramento, CA.
499 American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2010. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
500 Structures, Standard ASCE/SEI 7–10, Reston, VA: ASCE.
501 American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2000. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic
502 Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA-356, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington
503 D.C., November.
504 Ay, B.Ö. and Akkar, S., A., 2012. Procedure on Ground Motion Selection and Scaling for Nonlinear
505 Response of Simple Structural Systems, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,
506 41(12) 1693-1707.
507 Bayhan, B. and Özdemir, G., 2013. Betonarme Binaların Sismik Tepkisinin Tahmininde Ne Ölçüde
508 Başarılıyız?: Sarsma Tablası Deney Simülasyonları, 2nd Conference on Earthquake Engineering
509 and Seismology, Hatay, Turkey (in Turkish).
510 Bayhan, B., 2013. Numerical Simulation of Shaking Table Tests on 3D Reinforced Concrete
511 Structures. Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 48(2), 151-171.
512 Bommer, J.J. and Acevedo, A.B., 2004. The Use of Real Earthquake Accelerograms as Input to
513 Dynamic Analysis, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 8(spec01), 43-91.
514 Buratti, N., Stafford, P.J., and Bommer, J.J., 2010. Earthquake Accelerogram Selection and Scaling
515 Procedures for Estimating the Distribution of Drift Response. Journal of Structural Engineering,
516 137(3), 345-357.
517 Eurocode 8, 2005. Design of structures for earthquake resistance-part 1: general rules, seismic actions
518 and rules for buildings, Brussels, European Committee for Standardization.
519 FEMA, P. 2012. 751. 2009 NEHRP recommended seismic provisions: Design examples, Building
520 Seismic Safety Council, Washington, DC, USA.
521 Hancock, J., Bommer, J. J., & Stafford, P. J., 2008. Numbers of scaled and matched accelerograms
522 required for inelastic dynamic analyses, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 37(14),
523 1585-1607.
524 Heo, Y., Kunnath, S.K., and Abrahamson, N., 2010. Amplitude-Scaled Versus Spectrum-Matched
525 Ground Motions for Seismic Performance Assessment, Journal of Structural Engineering, 137(3),
526 278-288.
527 Huang, Y.-N., Performance Assessment of Conventional and Base-Isolated Nuclear Power Plants for
528 Earthquake and Blast Loadings. 2008: State University of New York at Buffalo.
529 Kalpakidis I.V. and Constantinou, M.C., 2009a. Effects of Heating on the Behavior of Lead-Rubber
530 Bearing. I: Theory. Journal of Structural Engineering 135, 1440-1449.
531 Kalpakidis, I.V. and Constantinou, M.C., 2009b. Effects of Heating on the Behavior of Lead-Rubber
532 Bearings. II: Verification of Theory, Journal of Structural Engineering, 135(12), 1450-1461.
533 Kayı, D. B., 2018. Seismic Response of a Single-Story RC Structure Subjected to Strong Ground
534 Motions, MSc Thesis, Bursa Technical University, Bursa, Turkey.
535 Krinitzsky, E.L. and Chang, F.K., 1977. Specifying Peak Motions for Design Earthquakes. State-of-
536 the-Art for Assessing Earthquake Hazards in the United States, Report 7, Miscellaneous Paper S-
537 73-1. US Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
538 Luco, N., & Bazzurro, P., 2007. Does amplitude scaling of ground motion records result in biased
539 nonlinear structural drift responses? Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 36(13),
540 1813-1835.
541 Michaud, D. and Léger, P., 2014. Ground Motions Selection and Scaling for Nonlinear Dynamic
542 Analysis of Structures Located in Eastern North America, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering,
543 41(3), 232-244.
544 Nau, J.M. and Hall, W.J., 1984. Scaling Methods for Earthquake Response Spectra, Journal of
545 Structural Engineering, 110(7), 1533-1548.
546 NIST, G. 2011. GCR 11-917-15. Selecting and Scaling Earthquake Ground Motions for Performing
547 Response History Analysis. National Institutes of Standards and Technology & NEHRP.
548 Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees), 2012. Version: 2.1.0, software,
549 University of California, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley.
550 http://opensees.berkeley.edu/OpenSees/user/download.php
551 Ozdemir, G. and Constantinou, M.C., 2010. Evaluation of Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure in
552 Estimating Seismic Isolator Displacements, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30(10),
553 1036-1042.
554 Ozdemir, G. and Gulkan, H.P., 2016. Scaling Legitimacy for Design of Lead Rubber Bearing Isolated
555 Structures Using a Bounding Analysis, Earthquake Spectra, 32(1), 345-366.
556 Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), 2011. PEER Ground Motion Database,
557 available at https://peer.berkeley.edu/peer-strong-ground-motion-database last accessed 15
558 Dececember 2017.
559 Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) 2009. Evaluation of ground motion
560 selection and modification methods: Predicting median inter-story drift response of buildings.
561 Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Report No 01, College of Engineering,
562 University of California.
563 Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) 2010.Guidelines for performance-based
564 seismic design of tall buildings. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Report No 05,
565 College of Engineering, University of California.
566 Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) 2011. New Ground Motion Selection
567 Procedures and Selected Motions for the PEER Transportation Research Program. Pacific
568 Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Report No 01, College of Engineering, University of
569 California.
570 Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) 2015. Selection and Scaling of Ground
571 Motions for Nonlinear Response History Analysis of Buildings in Performance- Based
572 Earthquake Engineering. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Report No 11, College
573 of Engineering, University of California.
574 Pant, D.R. and Maharjan, M., 2016. On Selection and Scaling of Ground Motions for Analysis of
575 Seismically Isolated Structures, Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration 15(4), 633-
576 648.
577 Pant, D.R., 2017. Influence of Scaling of Different Types of Ground Motions on Analysis of Code-
578 Compliant Four-Story Reinforced Concrete Buildings Isolated with Elastomeric Bearings.
579 Engineering Structures, 135, 53-67.
580 Reyes, J. C., Riaño, A. C., Kalkan, E., Quintero, O. A., & Arango, C. M., 2014. Assessment of
581 spectrum matching procedure for nonlinear analysis of symmetric-and asymmetric-plan buildings,
582 Engineering Structures 72, 171-181.
583 Reyes, J.C. and Kalkan, E., 2012. How Many Records Should Be Used in an ASCE/SEI-7 Ground
584 Motion Scaling Procedure?, Earthquake Spectra, 28(3), 1223-1242.
585 Roy, R., Thakur, P. and Chakroborty, S., 2014. Scaling of Ground Motions and Its Implications to
586 Plan-Asymmetric Structures, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 57, 46-67.
587 Sextos, A.G., Katsanos, E.I., Manolis, G.D., 2011. EC8- Based Earthquake Record Selection
588 Procedure Evaluation: Validation Study Based on Observed Damage of an Irregular R/C
589 Building. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31(4), 583-597.
590 Shome, N., Cornell, C. A., Bazzurro, P., & Carballo, J. E., 1998. Earthquakes, records, and nonlinear
591 responses. Earthquake Spectra, 14(3), 469-500.
592 Turkish Earthquake Code, 2007, Afet ve Acil Durum Başkanlığı, Ankara, Turkey (in Turkish).
593 Vanmarcke, E.H., 1979. Representation of Earthquake Ground Motion: Scaled Accelerograms and
594 Equivalent Response Spectra. State-of-the-Art for Assessing Earthquake Hazards in the United
595 States, Report 14, Miscellaneous Paper S-73-1. US Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg,
596 Mississippi.
597 Watson-Lamprey, J. and Abrahamson, N., 2006. Selection of Ground Motion Time Series and Limits
598 on Scaling. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26(5), 477-482.
 1.8

Spectral Acceleration (g)

1.5
1.2
0.9
0.6
0.3 T
A TB
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Period (sec)
 (a) for 7 records (b) for 11 records
1.5 1.5

Spectral Acceleration (g)

Individual Geomean
1.2 1.2
Average Geomean
0.9 0.9

0.6 0.6

0.3 0.3

0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Period (s)
(c) for 15 records (d) for 20 records
1.5 1.5
Spectral Acceleration (g)

1.2 1.2

0.9 0.9

0.6 0.6

0.3 0.3

0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Period (s)
 (a) (b)
3.0 3.0
Horizontal Component_1 Target Spectrum
2.5 2.5

Spectral Acceleration (g)

Horizontal Component_2 Geometric Mean
2.0 Geometric Mean 2.0

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Period (s)
(c) (d)
3.0 3.0
Target Spectrum Target Spectrum
2.5 2.5
Spectral Acceleration (g)

Average SRSS Spectrum Average of Final

Scaling
2.0 2.0
Period range of interest
1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Period (s)
 (a) Tfixed=0.3s (b) Tfixed =0.5s (c) Tfixed =0.8s (d) Tfixed =1.0s
2.0
Spectral Acc. (g)

1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Period (sec)
 (a) Tiso=2.25s (b) Tiso =2.50s (c) Tiso =2.75s (d) Tiso =3.00s
2.0
Spectral Acc. (g) 1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Period (sec)
 w=0.25 w=0.50 w=0.75
40 40 40
max
Variation in SF (%)
32 32 32
24 min 24 24
16 16 16
8 8 8
0 0 0
-8 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 -8 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 -8 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19
-16 -16 -16
-24 -24 -24
-32 (a) short-period structure -32 -32
-40 -40 -40
40 40 40
max
Variation in SF (%)

32 32 32
min
24 24 24
16 16 16
8 8 8
0 0 0
-8 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 -8 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 -8 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19
-16 -16 -16
-24 -24 -24
-32 (b) long-period structure -32 -32
-40 -40 -40

# of Records
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
900 900 900 900 900 900

A
900
B
900
C
900
D
900
E
a) b)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 E D C B A
900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900

c) d)
 800

Isolator Force (kN)

400

0
-500 -250 0 250 500
-400

-800
Isolator Displacement (mm)
 5.0 5.0

Average DR (%) 4.5 4.5

4.0 4.0

3.5 3.5

3.0 3.0
7 11 15 20 7 11 15 20
X direction Z direction
w = 0.20 w = 0.25 w = 0.50 w = 0.75
 500

400

MID (mm)
300

200

100

0
7 11 15 20

# of records
w = 0.20 w = 0.25 w = 0.50 w = 0.75

View publication stats