The effect of causal parameter bounds in PSHA‐based ground motion selection

Tarbali, Karim; Bradley, Brendon

doi:10.1002/eqe.2721

Cited by 31 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We do not specify a selection constraint on M w and R rup , because it would have a similar effect as scaling limit in the selection process. Besides, to select a suite of ground motions with similar site characteristics, a selection constraint on V s30 (time‐averaged shear wave velocity in the upper 30 m of a soil profile) suggested by Tarbali and Bradley is adopted. As shown in Table , only records with V s30 between 0.5 and 1.5 times the site V s30 value are considered as candidate ground motions.…”

Section: Seismic Hazard Analysis and Ground Motion Datasetmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of amplitude scaling limits on conditional spectrum‐based ground motion selection

Ning

Wang

2019

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Amplitude scaling is commonly used to select ground motions matching a target response spectrum. In this paper, the effect of scaling limits on ground motion selection, based on the conditional spectrum framework, is investigated. Target spectra are computed for four probabilistic seismic hazard cases in Western United States, and 16 ground motion suites are selected using different scaling limits (ie, 2, 5, 10, and 15). Comparison of spectral acceleration distributions of the selected ground motion suites demonstrates that the use of a scaling limit of 2 yields a relatively poor representation of the target spectra, because of the small limit leading to an insufficient number of available ground motions. It is also shown that increasing scaling limit results in selected ground motions with generally increased distributions of Arias intensity and significant duration Ds5‐75, implying that scaling limit consideration can significantly influence the cumulative and duration characteristics of selected ground motions. The ground motion suites selected are then used as input for slope displacement and structural dynamic analyses. Comparative results demonstrate that the consideration of scaling limits in ground motion selection has a notable influence on the distribution of the engineering demand parameters calculated (ie, slope displacement and interstory drift ratio). Finally, based on extensive analyses, a scaling limit range of 3 to 5 is recommended for general use when selecting ground motion records from the NGA‐West2 database.

show abstract

Section: Seismic Hazard Analysis and Ground Motion Datasetmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of amplitude scaling limits on conditional spectrum‐based ground motion selection

Ning

Wang

2019

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This assumption is made on the condition that "Task 1" has been completed appropriately. However, this is often not the case, as illustrated in [12,15].…”

Section: Figure 2: Examples Of Ground Motion Amplitude-scaling For Mamentioning

confidence: 99%

Ground motion input for nonlinear response history analysis

Morris¹,

Thompson²,

Dismuke

et al. 2019

BNZSEE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nonlinear response history analysis (NLRHA), or so-called "nonlinear time history analysis", is adopted by practicing structural engineers who implement performance-based seismic design and/or assessment procedures. One important aspect in obtaining reliable output from the NLRHA procedure is the input ground motion records. The underlying intention of ground motion selection and amplitude-scaling procedures is to ensure the input for NLRHA is representative of the ground shaking hazard level, for a given site and structure.The purpose of this paper is to highlight the salient limitations of the ground motion selection and scaling requirements in Sections 5.5 and 6.4 of the New Zealand (NZ) loading standard NZS 1170.5 (2004). From a NZ regulatory perspective; there is no specific framework for seismic hazard analysis and ground motion selection (thus self-regulation is the current norm). In contrast, NZS 1170.5 contains many prescriptive requirements for scaling and applying records which are challenging to satisfy in practice. Also discussed within, there are implications for more modern guidance documents in NZ, such as the 2017 "Assessment Guidelines" for existing buildings, which cite NZS 1170.5, a standard which is at least 16 years old (draft issued in 2002). To emphasize the above issues with NZS 1170.5, this paper presents a summary of the more contemporary approaches in the US standards ASCE 7-16 (new buildings) and ASCE 41-17 (existing buildings), along with some examples of the more stringent US requirements for Tall Buildings.

show abstract

“…This recognises the fact that it is not simply the properties of the modelled hazard that determine these bin sizes, but also the availability of recordings arising from similar rupture scenarios. Additionally, it has been demonstrated that duration and cumulative effects cannot be fully accounted for by using causal parameter bins if only spectral accelerations at different periods are used as intensity measures . Therefore, values of the causal parameters (ie, magnitude, distance, etc) should not be the primary factors considered when selecting a set of ground motions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although several general recommendations have been made, [8][9][10] the optimal ranges of magnitude and distance used to build a bin will vary depending upon the specific problem. 10 This recognises the fact that it is not simply the properties of the modelled hazard that determine these bin sizes, but also the availability of recordings arising from similar rupture scenarios. Additionally, it has been demonstrated that duration and cumulative effects cannot be fully accounted for by using causal parameter bins if only spectral accelerations at different periods are used as intensity measures.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additionally, it has been demonstrated that duration and cumulative effects cannot be fully accounted for by using causal parameter bins if only spectral accelerations at different periods are used as intensity measures. 10 Therefore, values of the causal parameters (ie, magnitude, distance, etc) should not be the primary factors considered when selecting a set of ground motions. Instead, focus has shifted more toward constraining the sets of records selected using multiple intensity measures.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Markov chain Monte Carlo ground‐motion selection algorithms for conditional intensity measure targets

Yuan

Stafford

2018

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Two new algorithms are presented for efficiently selecting suites of ground motions that match a target multivariate distribution or conditional intensity measure target. The first algorithm is a Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) approach in which records are sequentially added to a selected set such that the joint probability density function (PDF) of the target distribution is progressively approximated by the discrete distribution of the selected records. The second algorithm derives from the concept of the acceptance ratio within MCMC but does not involve any sampling. The first method takes advantage of MCMC's ability to efficiently explore a sampling distribution through the implementation of a traditional MCMC algorithm. This method is shown to enable very good matches to multivariate targets to be obtained when the numbers of records to be selected is relatively large. A weaker performance for fewer records can be circumvented by the second method that uses greedy optimisation to impose additional constraints upon properties of the target distribution. A preselection approach based upon values of the multivariate PDF is proposed that enables near‐optimal record sets to be identified with a very close match to the target. Both methods are applied for a number response analyses associated with different sizes of record sets and rupture scenarios. Comparisons are made throughout with the Generalised Conditional Intensity Measure (GCIM) approach. The first method provides similar results to GCIM but with slightly worse performance for small record sets, while the second method outperforms method 1 and GCIM for all considered cases.

show abstract

The effect of causal parameter bounds in PSHA‐based ground motion selection

Cited by 31 publications

References 31 publications

The effect of amplitude scaling limits on conditional spectrum‐based ground motion selection

The effect of amplitude scaling limits on conditional spectrum‐based ground motion selection

Ground motion input for nonlinear response history analysis

Markov chain Monte Carlo ground‐motion selection algorithms for conditional intensity measure targets

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About