Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On selection and scaling of ground motions for analysis of seismically isolated structures

  • Published:
Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A broader consensus on the number of ground motions to be used and the method of scaling to be adopted for nonlinear response history analysis (RHA) of structures is yet to be reached. Therefore, in this study, the effects of selection and scaling of ground motions on the response of seismically isolated structures, which are routinely designed using nonlinear RHA, are investigated. For this purpose, isolation systems with a range of properties subjected to bidirectional excitation are considered. Benchmark response of the isolation systems is established using large sets of unscaled ground motions systematically categorized into pulse-like, non-pulse-like, and mixed set of motions. Different subsets of seven to 14 ground motions are selected from these large sets using (a) random selection and (b) selection based on the best match of the shape of the response spectrum of ground motions to the target spectrum. Consequences of weighted scaling (also commonly referred to as amplitude scaling or linear scaling) as well as spectral matching are investigated. The ground motion selection and scaling procedures are evaluated from the viewpoint of their accuracy, efficiency, and consistency in predicting the benchmark response. It is confirmed that seven time histories are sufficient for a reliable prediction of isolation system displacement demands, for all ground motion subsets, selection and scaling procedures, and isolation systems considered. If ground motions are selected based on their best match to the shape of the target response spectrum (which should be preferred over randomly selected motions), weighted scaling should be used if pulse-like motions are considered, either of weighted scaling or spectral matching can be used if non-pulse-like motions are considered, and an average of responses from weighted-scaled and spectrum-matched ground motions should be used for a mixed set of motions. On the other hand, the importance of randomly selected motions in representing inherent variability of response is recognized and it is found that weighted scaling is more appropriate for such motions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2005), Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE 7-05, Reston, VA.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2010), Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE 7-10, Reston, VA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker JW (2007), “Quantitative Classification of Near-fault Ground Motions Using Wavelet Analysis,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 97(5): 1486–1501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beyer K and Bommer JJ (2007), “Selection and Scaling of Real Accelerograms for Bi-directional Loading: A Review of Current Practice and Code Provisions,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 11(S1): 13–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) (2009), NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures, FEMA P-750, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantagallo C, Camata G and Spacone E (2015), “Influence of Ground Motion Selection Methods on Seismic Directionality Effects,” Earthquakes and Structures, 8(1): 185–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Constantinou MC, Kalpakidis IV, Filiatrault A and Ecker Lay RA (2011), “LRFD-based Analysis and Design Procedures for Bridge Bearings and Seismic Isolators,” Technical Report MCEER-11-0004, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2012), Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings Volume 1—Methodology, FEMA P-58-1, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Han SW, Ha SJ and Seok SW (2014), “Efficient and Accurate Procedure for Selecting Ground Motions Matching Target Response Spectrum,” Nonlinear Dynamics, 78(2): 889–905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hancock J, Bommer JJ and Stafford PJ (2008), “Numbers of Scaled and Matched Accelerograms Required for Inelastic Dynamic Analyses,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 37(14): 1585–1607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hancock J, Watson-Lamprey J, Abrahamson NA, Bommer JJ, Markatis A, McCoyh E and Mendis R (2006), “An Improved Method of Matching Response Spectra of Recorded Earthquake Ground Motion Using Wavelets,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 10(spec01): 67–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haselton CB, Fry A, Baker JW, Hamburger RO, Whittaker AS, Stewart JP, Elwood KJ, Luco N, Hooper JD, Charney FA, Zimmerman RB and Pekelnicky RG (2014), “Response-history Analysis for the Design of New Buildings: A Fully Revised Chapter 16 Methodology Proposed for the 2015 NEHRP Provisions and the ASCE/SEI 7-16 Standard,” Proceedings of the Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Anchorage, Alaska.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang WH (2002), “Bi-directional Testing, Modeling and System Response of Seismically Isolated Bridges”, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang YN (2008), “Performance Assessment of Conventional and Base-isolated Nuclear Power Plants for Earthquake and Blast Loadings”, PhD Dissertation, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalkan E and Chopra AK (2011), “Modal-pushoverbased Ground-motion Scaling Procedure,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 137(3): 298–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katsanos EI, Sextos AG and Manolis GD (2010), “Selection of Earthquake Ground Motion Records: A State-of-the-art Review from a Structural Engineering Perspective,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 30(4): 157–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwong NS, Chopra AK and McGuire RK (2015), “A Framework for the Evaluation of Ground Motion Selection and Modification Procedures,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 44(5): 795–815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin T, Haselton CB and Baker JW (2013a), “Conditional Spectrum-based Ground Motion Selection. Part I: Hazard Consistency for Risk-based Assessments,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 42(12): 1847–1865.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin T, Haselton CB and Baker JW (2013b), “Conditional Spectrum-based Ground Motion Selection. Part Ii: Intensity-based Assessments and Evaluation of Alternative Target Spectra,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 42(12): 1867–1884.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahmoud S, Austrell P-E and Jankowski R (2012), “Simulation of the Response of Base-isolated Buildings under Earthquake Excitations Considering Soil Flexibility,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 11(3): 359–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masroor A and Mosqueda G (2012), “Experimental Simulation of Base-isolated Buildings Pounding against Moat Wall and Effects on Superstructure Response,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 41(14): 2093–2109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michaud D and Léger P (2014), “Ground Motions Selection and Scaling for Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Structures Located in Eastern North America,” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 41(3): 232–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (2011), Selecting and Scaling Earthquake Ground Motions for Performing Response-History Analyses, NIST GCR 11-917-15, Gaithersburg, MD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (Opensees) (2014), Computer Program, University of California, Berkeley, CA. Available from: http://opensees.berkeley.edu [15 January 2014].

    Google Scholar 

  • Ozdemir G and Constantinou MC (2010), “Evaluation of Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure in Estimating Seismic Isolator Displacements,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 30(10): 1036–1042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center (2013), Ground Motion Database. Available from: http://peer.berkeley.edu/peer_ground_motion_database [20 July 2013].

    Google Scholar 

  • Pant DR, Constantinou MC and Wijeyewickrema AC (2013), “Re-evaluation of Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure for Prediction of Displacement Demand in Seismically Isolated Structures,” Engineering Structures, 52(0): 455–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pant DR and Wijeyewickrema AC (2013), “Influence of Near-fault Ground Motions on the Response of Baseisolated Reinforced Concrete Buildings Considering Seismic Pounding,” Advances in Structural Engineering, 16(12): 1973–1988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pant DR and Wijeyewickrema AC (2014), “Performance of Base-isolated Reinforced Concrete Buildings under Bidirectional Seismic Excitation Considering Pounding with Retaining Walls Including Friction Effects,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 43(10): 1521–1541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polycarpou PC and Komodromos P (2010), “On Poundings of a Seismically Isolated Building with Adjacent Structures During Strong Earthquakes,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 39(8): 933–940.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reyes JC and Kalkan E (2012), “How Many Records Should Be Used in an ASCE/SEI-7 Ground Motion Scaling Procedure?,” Earthquake Spectra, 28(3): 1223–1242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reyes JC, Riaño AC, Kalkan E, Quintero OA and Arango CM (2014), “Assessment of Spectrum Matching Procedure for Nonlinear Analysis of Symmetric- and Asymmetric-plan Buildings,” Engineering Structures, 72(0): 171–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy R, Thakur P and Chakroborty S (2014), “Scaling of Ground Motions and Its Implications to Planasymmetric Structures,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 57(0): 46–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winters CW and Constantinou MC (1993), “Evaluation of Static and Resp onse Spectrum Analysis Procedures of Seaoc/Ubc for Seismic Isolated Structures,” Technical Report NCEER-93-0004, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, M5S 1A4, Canada

    Deepak R. Pant

  2. Atkins Limited, The Wells Church Street, Epsom, KT17 4PF, UK

    Manika Maharjan

Authors
  1. Deepak R. Pant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Manika Maharjan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Deepak R. Pant.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pant, D.R., Maharjan, M. On selection and scaling of ground motions for analysis of seismically isolated structures. Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib. 15, 633–648 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-016-0354-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-016-0354-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation